Signing Baryta Prints

[Kirk Gittings]

I have been having some issues with signing some baryta prints. I had no problem with the Innova but the ILFORD Gold Fibre Silk Baryta has given me fits. On well aged prints, say 6 months old I have no problem but on fresh prints even two weeks old and open to the air the whole time many pens just skate on the surface or skip. I just did a test. Soft pencil won't work on either. On the 6 month print both worked fine but on the two week print a Sharpie wouldn't write at all and a Rapidograph (my preference) just skated and skipped. Any suggestions? I am not interested in signing the mat.

[domenico Foschi]

Have you tried Micron pens?
http://www.sakuraofamerica.com/Pen-Archival
They have them in different thickness, but I am not sure if they are thick enough for signatures.
They are archival as well.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Domenico. I just went out and bought a couple, .20 and .50. The .20 skated and skipped whereas the .50 worked just fine. Though I prefer a very fine tip it appears in general that I have been trying to use too fine a point on this paper and possibly other baryta papers too. After further testing the .50 seems to work well on everything. My Rapidograph was .30 and perhaps is too fine too. The Sharpie........well it is just a sharpie.

[Gordon Moat]

I have some Marvy Uchida DecoColor (http://www.dickblick.com/zz213/37/) fine line pens for signing RA-4 process prints. Ended up getting a white and a silver pen, and they work nicely on a slick surface. On my Polaroid manipulations, I just use pencil, since that is Fabriano art paper.

How much bromide is in the new Baryta inkjet papers? I still have some old Oriental Seagull Bartya paper for B/W chemical prints, though I suspect the construction is different than inkjet papers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[David A. Goldfarb]

Harman Gloss FB AI uses the same base as Ilford MGFB IV, but it is subbed for inkjet. I think there are only a couple of companies making baryta paper base now, so it is probably the same base that is used for many FB papers as well as for inkjet papers.

[Gordon Moat]

Baryta papers of the past contained barium hydroxide. New Baryta inkjet papers contain barium sulphate. It seems to me that the paper companies, or perhaps the marketing, is changing the meaning of Baryta print. I think this is confusing for the art market. A traditional chemically printed B/W Baryta print is not the same as an inkjet Baryta, yet how would the end purchaser know any difference?

I am not trying to pick a fight with this, but it certainly looks confusing. Barium sulphate is a whitening agent. Barium reacts with air, and historically the oxide has been called baryta, but not the sulfide. Barium hydroxide is actually a corrosive material. Someone want to explain all this?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'm only reporting what I was told by Howard Hapwood from Harman at PMA a couple of years ago, shortly before Harman Gloss FB AI was released.

I don't have any problem telling the B&W prints on Harman Gloss that come out of my HP B9180 from the fiber based prints I make in the darkroom, and in general I don't think that it is that difficult to identify an inkjet B&W print as such.

[Greg Lockrey]

Have you tried using the inkjet ink and a Speedball type pen?

[Jim Cole]

I use a Faber-Castell Pitt Artist Pen (black - S) for all my gloss papers. It works perfectly on the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk. My prints are done with a Z3100 using the gloss enhancer which is usually what I'm signing on. I use it to title and sign the prints on the white border of the print which only gets the GE. No skips at all.

Jim

[Kirk Gittings]

As per baryta inkjet papers, from an Ilford press release quoted on LL.


Baryta coatings were originally introduced to the Ilfobrom Galerie FB and Multigrade IV FB papers and then more recently adapted for its Galerie FB Digital fibre-base paper for use with digital laser printers (See next week's BJP for a detailed report on this). The Baryta coating sits above the fibre base of the new inkjet papers but underneath the active and protective coating layers. It prevents the emulsions soaking into the fibre base, which the manufacturer says enhances the detail of images. 'Added to this,' says Harman, 'the Baryta improves the depth and quality of printed blacks, whilst also enhancing the whiteness of the fibre base; allowing a much broader tonal range with greater detail in shadows and highlights.'

'Photographic inkjet media have traditionally been born from a paper manufacturing heritage, but we believe our products are the first inkjet media to be born from technology, science and expertise founded in traditional photographic products,' says Hopwood. 'We believe there is no real comparison available in the inkjet market today. By using the same plant, the same equipment and the same development experts for our inkjet products as we use for our traditional monochrome photographic products, we have helped to bridge the gap in quality, essence and archival properties that has existed between traditional photographic prints and inkjet prints since the dawn of digital photography.'

[Arne Croell]

Baryta papers of the past contained barium hydroxide. New Baryta inkjet papers contain barium sulphate. It seems to me that the paper companies, or perhaps the marketing, is changing the meaning of Baryta print. I think this is confusing for the art market. A traditional chemically printed B/W Baryta print is not the same as an inkjet Baryta, yet how would the end purchaser know any difference?

I am not trying to pick a fight with this, but it certainly looks confusing. Barium sulphate is a whitening agent. Barium reacts with air, and historically the oxide has been called baryta, but not the sulfide. Barium hydroxide is actually a corrosive material. Someone want to explain all this?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
To my knowledege the term "baryta" in paper production (photographic or otherwise) has always meant barium sulfate, or barite as a mineral. Barium salts are quite poisonous, including the hydroxide. The sulfate is the exception because it is practically insoluble in water (for that reason it can be given orally as a contrast agent for x-rays of the stomach).

[Kerik Kouklis]

Kirk are you writing on the white border or within the image itself? I use the Gold Fiber Silk and have had no problems signing/numbering in the borders with the ultra fine point Sharpies.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kerik, in the white boarder only. It may be writing style too. My signature is kind of quick and sweeping and maybe that is why some pens and fine points are problematic. I noticed when testing that if I slowed down and wrote more deliberately almost any pen would work, but unfortunately my signature is my signature.

With Sharpies I noticed on some silver prints that I signed on the white border maybe 20 years ago, the signature has faded considerably. Has anyone else noticed that?

[Gordon Moat]

As per baryta inkjet papers, from an Ilford press release quoted on LL.

Thanks Kirk. So if I understand that correctly, Ilford uses the same coating process up until the final pass. On chemical B/W paper, the last pass is silver based, while on inkjet papers the last pass is the coating receptor surface for the inks.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Bruce Watson]

With Sharpies I noticed on some silver prints that I signed on the white border maybe 20 years ago, the signature has faded considerably. Has anyone else noticed that?

Oh yes. I've seen notes written on post-its less than a year old that are hard to read because of the fading. I've seen signatures on archival paper do the same -- you can only read it because of the crease left behind from the pressure of the original writing.

This is why I try to do this kind of work with a pigmented paint or ink, hopefully one that is acid free. But my favorite DecoColor pigment paint pens are too big for what you are trying to do.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Kirk. So if I understand that correctly, Ilford uses the same coating process up until the final pass. On chemical B/W paper, the last pass is silver based, while on inkjet papers the last pass is the coating receptor surface for the inks.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

Yes that is how I understand it too, though there is precious little real info on this matter out there.
I found this out there too, suggesting that the chemical component is the same for silver and ink papers:


Hahnemühle Baryta 325gsm (pdf data sheet)

100% Alpha-Cellulose, ultra-smooth, high gloss

FineArt Baryta 325 is a brilliant white, high gloss paper that sets the benchmark for high color depth, large color gamut and image definition. This paper gives the “wow” factor particularly to black and white prints with an extremely high dmax and the finest grey tones. It is a unique experience to touch and feel the ultra smooth surface. Using barium sulphate in the premium inkjet coating ensures the typical gloss that makes this paper a genuine replacement for traditional Baryth papers from analogue laboratories.

[Gordon Moat]

Depending upon what percentage of the barium coating they use in the papers, will determine the gloss and smoothness of the paper. The paper would normally have Calcium Carbonate, Titanium Dioxide, or Flourescance to raise the brightness value, and then the coating acts to fill in the peaks and valleys of the paper texture. Calcium carbonate is expensive to use, and usually mixed with the pulp, so it is rare to find much of this. The other two brighteners corrode more swiftly.

Coatings do protect one surface of the paper, though barium based coatings do corrode over time. This would mostly be evidenced by observing a slight yellowing over time, a lowering of gloss differential, or quite simply a slightly duller looking image. I don't see these as detrimental, though given the previous fixation on the archival nature of inkjet prints, perhaps other terminology would be more prudent. You will never end up with a blank piece of paper, but the print will definitely change slightly over time; and I think that should simply be accepted.

Given the current change in marketing, I think I should no longer call my (few) old Baryta prints Baryta Prints. I think very soon people will confuse those with inkjet prints, despite that most photographers could likely tell the difference. So should I start calling the older process Bromide Prints or something else?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Arne Croell]

Given the current change in marketing, I think I should no longer call my (few) old Baryta prints Baryta Prints. I think very soon people will confuse those with inkjet prints, despite that most photographers could likely tell the difference. So should I start calling the older process Bromide Prints or something else?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)
Gordon, the most common designation I've seen in museums and galleries is "silver gelatin print".

[Michael Graves]

Thanks Domenico. I just went out and bought a couple, .20 and .50. The .20 skated and skipped whereas the .50 worked just fine. Though I prefer a very fine tip it appears in general that I have been trying to use too fine a point on this paper and possibly other baryta papers too. After further testing the .50 seems to work well on everything. My Rapidograph was .30 and perhaps is too fine too. The Sharpie........well it is just a sharpie.

Can't sign a print with a Sharpie. Those are only good for footballs.