How to finish, wash and dry fibre paper prints for exhibition and sale

[Cor]

Bit late in this thread, but when I had more space and a bathtub I would put 2 40*50 prints back to back when still wet, and hang them on a clothes line above the tub, using wooden cloth pins on all 4 corners, I seem to recall that 2 of those pins were strong enough to hang the 2 prints. The idea is that the back dries much slower than the 2 fronts, thus greatly reduces the curl. It worked, but further flattering is needed to get it really flat. I do have a dry mount press, but rarely use it. I have a collection of various X ray cassettes which I now use to reasonably flatten FB prints.

good luck,

Cor

[Kornscharfsteller]

give it another 1.5 minutes in fixing bath 2

If I may return to this advice again, what dilution does bath 2 have? Same 1+9 as bath 1 or something different?

[Doremus Scudder]

If I may return to this advice again, what dilution does bath 2 have? Same 1+9 as bath 1 or something different?

Hello Kornscharfsteller,

I am assuming that you are referring to my very first post in this thread (on pg. 1) back in 2022.

And, yes, I use Ilford Rapid Fixer or some other similar rapid fixer in the so-called "print dilution" for both fixing baths. My regime is based on the Kodak recommendations and uses two weaker fixing baths, a wash aid (hypo clear), and then a longer wash. It's not the Ilford method that uses a stronger fix (film-strength dilution) for shorter times and then shorter wash times. I find that keeping the fixing time to 60 seconds is impractical with larger prints and when I need to bleach prints locally, which requires refixing.

At any rate, yes, Rapid Fixer 1+9 for both fixing bath one and two, and 1.5-2 minutes in each bath. Before the final wash and after toning I give a running water rinse for a few minutes and then treat the prints in a wash aid (I make my own) for 10 minutes with intermittent agitation. The prints then go directly into the print washer and wash for a minimum of 60 minutes.

Hope that answers your question.

Best,

Doremus

[Kornscharfsteller]

Yes, I was indeed referring to that post.

There you also mention:

(I have a 12-slot print washer)

I don’t have such a washer and they are very expensive at fotoimpex.de, what would a good alternative washing technique be?

[Drew Wiley]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.

An inexpensive option to an archival slot washer? Try to find an old Kodak Tray Siphon, and use an oversized tray with water flowing into it.

[faberryman]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.

I can't believe any photographer, much less gallery, used or uses plywood, OSB, or particle board, to store and/or frame photographs. Can you tell us which galleries went instantly bankrupt doing so, and when those bankruptcies occurred?

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, I sure could, right down to every detail. But I'm sure not going to tell any troll just trying to taint my reputation out of sheer spite, or whatever it is which obsessively compels you to behave in this manner.

[Pieter]

Avoiding outgassing or contaminants is CRUCIAL during both storage and framing, not optional. OSB is outright voodoo; so is particle board and nearly all common plywood. The glues involved contain formaldehyde; and that's why most such sheet goods are now made in China with its lax health rules during manufacture. Formaldehyde is poison to image permanence; so are vinyl plasticizers, so are turpenes and outgassing paint or varnish vapors. All this has been very well known for a long long time. Entire galleries owned by otherwise rich people have gone instantly bankrupt making that mistake just once, when lawsuits showed up from clients angry over how their purchases had soon begun fading or discoloring. I sometimes found myself in a "told you so, and you should have listened" mode, because we carried such goods where I worked, and had big art venues among our customers. There are certain things you don't even want anywhere around photographs. If it's just a pH problem with acidity in a backing, then use a thin sheet of mylar in between. Outgassing -nope; avoid that like the plague.

Where and how would one use such materials in contact with a photograph? In crating it? Making a wall to display it? Framing materials? I have never heard or read of photographs being mounted on those things.

As a side note, galleries (like restaurants) go bankrupt daily, sometimes absconding with the work as well as money owed.

[faberryman]

Yes, I sure could, right down to every detail. But I'm sure not going to tell any troll just trying to taint my reputation out of sheer spite, or whatever it is which obsessively compels you to behave in this manner.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I will answer you, Pieter. In that case, it was a high-end photo gallery in a prime high-lease downtown SF location. I got acquainted with the owner when a different and even more pricey venue a little ways away was showing my work. But he specialized in rare, generally one of a kind, very early photos, though not exclusively. Lovely exquisite images, even when he showed modern color work, collectibles. But he could also be an ornery skinflint hoping to cut corners when it came to his storage room. When he sought my advice, and I told him to use either stainless or chrome wire racks with good air circulation for his portfolio box storage, he had the nerve to cuss me out, and insisted he was going to use particle board shelving, and had already hired the carpenter. When the formaldehyde risk finally got through to him, he called a London art conservator who was an expert in marble statures (but knew little about photographs), who advised him to seal the particle board with a highly specialized sealant called Bedacryl, available only to art conservators. So the gallery owner asked if I could get it for him, which I hypothetically could have, since we had an industrial department with a direct 3M industrial account.
But Bedacryl is a solvent product high in sulfur, and even worse. So I informed him I could not in good faith supply it to him for such purposes. So he went ahead anyway, and just stashed his print boxes on raw particleboard shelving. Those prints were sold for around seven to eight thousand dollars per print, and clients often paid around $30,000 per box, quite a sum in the 80's. Opening those boxes six months later, and seeing no image at all on the paper in many instances - the next thing was a phone call to a lawyer, seeking to sue the gallery.

That wasn't a unique case, by any means, but probably the most memorable for its peculiarities. Henceforward I never allowed my own work to be shown in any gallery unless I visited their back room first, and I did see see some horror stories in other venues too, including the entire life work or a famous photographer half-ruined by a leaky back room roof. I hesitate to mention that gallery's name because the second generation has its own gallery of high repute, and serious photo galleries are still relatively uncommon, and I don't want sons held to account for the sins of their fathers. Even the careless guys did photography a real favor by getting serious photographers in the public eye who we here on the West Coast wouldn't have otherwise known. Those galleries were pioneers in that respect, and were willing to lose money for love of the medium. They were mainly people who had already made a ton of money doing something else first. Too bad they trended rather naive when it came to properly handling things.

So no, this was not just another predictable gallery experiment gone wrong. They were well established with a strong collector clientele in a prime location, but then made a huge mistake. It not like now, with downtime crime exploding, and downtown lease pricing gone stratospheric due to techie gentrification driving everything else out. That whole SF crown jewel of Union Square is hollowing out at the moment, and the city is getting pretty alarmed.

Such "claims" are hardly "extraordinary" at all, not for someone who was in the business of supplying materials in volume to an especially wide spectrum of clients. Just another day in the office. Far weirder stories could be told about unreasonable military uses for commodities, often in a distinctly unhealthy manner; it's just that more people have already heard of that category of abuse. And galleries were hardly even worth our time, but they sought me out for technical advice, so we accommodated them. Friends of Photography was a predictable cyclic customer we supplied. But in terms of art galleries, even now there seems to be an almost dismal ignorance of properly handling and displaying what they sell. They might or might not deal with a frame shop offering archival framing. But it's not at all uncommon to find prints thumbtacked or L-pinned to gallery walls repainted just a day or two before, and still outgassing, or put in wooden frames with unsealed rabbets and unsuitable backings. I dealt with museum display facilities too; but they were given very tight parameters by staff conservators; so that was a different situation entirely.