Silver content in papers

[Neal Shields]

I was at a local camera store this weekend where the owner has a degree in photography and is much more knowledgeable than most counter people at photo stores.

He had a B&w ink jet print that really looked good. I went out to the car to get my old Kodak darkroom guide that has actual B&W prints in it to use as a standard. It was not in the car, but when I told him what I was doing he said two things:

The ink jet wouldn't compare to those samples

and

That modern silver prints wouldn't compare either because modern paper doesn't contain as much silver.

Is there anywhere that has quantitative data on silver content in both modern and older papers?

It sure would be nice to have something to blame my poor results on besides lack of skill and diligence.

[Bruce Watson]

This theme recurs with some regularity. Sometimes about papers. Sometimes about films. Everyone was sure that the "new" Tri-X would be ruined because Kodak was going to take more silver out. Yet, Tri-X continues, and seems to be fine, if not improved. Clearly, there is more to an emulsion than silver content.

I don't have, and haven't seen any proof, one way or the other. There have been many changes in film and paper technology over the years. The prints I see, from expert printers, on modern papers, seem to be the equal of older prints. At shows like AIPAD, you can compare prints from modern masters such as David Mellor with old acknowledged masters such as Edward Weston.

This I have done, and I've concluded to my satisfaction that good printers, are good printers. They learn and master their media, be it carbon, albumen, platinum, dye transfer, silver, pigment inks, or whatever process is available at the time.

As to the argument about inkjet comparing to silver prints, I would agree they "wouldn't compare" in large part because inkjet isn't trying to "be" a silver print, any more than a silver print was trying to be a platinum print or a carbon print or whatever when it was introduced. Inkjet is trying to be inkjet - a different media.

[jnantz]

hi neal

i don't know about papers and silver, but i had a conversation with the chemist who used to do a ton of work with the folks who publish the photo lab index - and he said that most film these days has very little silver in it compared to pre 1980s film, and instead of silver it is now filled with poly-vinyls.

he went on to tell me about monobath chemistry especially one that he created for himself. his negatives was always "ultra sharp" and he attributed it to this monobath chemistry ... he said that if he used his "secret formula" today, he would have problems with reticulation because of the lack of silver, so i wouldn't doubt it if paper was the same way.

sorry to go off on a tangent ...

john

[Gem Singer]

Hi Neal,

If this educated photo store owner is located here in Texas, he may be going "crazy from the heat".

Emulsions, as well as base materials of modern papers are formulated differently than those of the older papers. However, the difference that you noticed in those prints has very little, or even nothing, to do with the quantitative amount of silver that the paper manufacturers incorporate into their emulsions.

That seems to leave lack of skill and dilligence to blame for the results that you say you are experiencing. It takes skill and dilligence to create an outstanding inkjet print, the same as it does to create an outstanding silver gelatin print.

[Eric Woodbury]

Personally, I don't care about how much silver, I just want it to be capable of a nice print, white to black. I think the blacks today are as good as ever and I love the VC papers, especially Bergger.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Let me quote Dr. Henry form his book "Control in B&W photography" page 125:

"The silver content of the papers studied was NOT related to the maximum black obtainable."

He measure the silver content of the papers and compared it to the max black they were able to achieve. Turns out some with less silver had better blacks.

[sanking]

Hogarth Hughes wrote:

"As to the argument about inkjet comparing to silver prints, I would agree they "wouldn't compare" in large part because inkjet isn't trying to "be" a silver print, any more than a silver print was trying to be a platinum print or a carbon print or whatever when it was introduced. Inkjet is trying to be inkjet - a different media."

Thanks very much for this observation. It is one one of most sensible things I have read anywhere about the attempt to compare prints from different processes.

[ronald moravec]

There was a period in the 1980`s when too much silver was removed from papers, and you couldn`t make a decent print for anything.

Then Ilford came out with Gallery and Oriental with something or other and Kodak came our with a very nice graded paper on a heavy base. Kodak said it was still reduced silver, but they did things with it to make it work.

Current papers will make prints the equal of the old reguardless of silver content.

What is missed is the range of surfaces and textures and emulsion colors that is probably gone for good.

[Eric Woodbury]

On inkjet prints, I must pass along something said to me by a friend who sells a lot of inkjet prints, "There is nothing like a good silver print."

I'm not sure about the great quality of inkjet prints. They do allow digital output, which otherwise can be so difficult. They do show off the abilities of a good 'computer printer'. It is amazing how digital manipulation in the mouse of a good digital printer can trick the viewer to see those qualities we love in large format. These tricks are not really different than the techniques silver printers use in the darkroom, but when I view inkjet prints, I just don't feel as 'close' to the artist as I do with silver or platinum or watercolor paintings. They seem detached and in fact I believe they are.

[j.e.simmons]

In 1973, the Hunt brothers of Texas began to buy up silver. At the time, it was less than $2 an ounce. By about 1984 they had driven the price up to more than $50 an ounce. http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/education/history/2000/hunt_bros.html

It's my understanding the photo companies could no longer produce the same papers (and probably film) with silver prices so high. Kodak advertised its new paper contained brighteners. To my eye, the paper only printed dark greys, but they looked darker because the brightners made the whites so white. IMHO, the prints made on that paper were terrible. I believe Kodak began to work on T-Max films at the same time.

By the late 80s, the silver bubble had burst and companies such as Ilford, Oriental and Zone VI began to sell papers they advertised as silver rich. Kodak soon followed with new papers.

I don't know what the companies did in the late 80s, but the papers returned to a normal look. Maybe they really did put silver back into the paper - maybe something else.