From: ____ on
In article <13oqv37s0m22i7e(a)corp.supernews.com>,
"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> > In my experience:
> >
> > Many times the matte surface paper will have a dmax of
> > 1.50-1.55 and
> > quite a long ascent to get to it for a "NF" <no filter
> > exposure>. The
> > matte papers tend to have about three/three and one half
> > usable grades.
> >
> > Whereas glossy papers tend to have a dmax around 2.00 to
> > 2.10 for a
> > "NF" exposure.....using a 21 step wedge. Seem to have 4.5
> > grades maybe
> > five if its a good paper.
> >
> > --
> I agree. This is also obvious from some Kodak data on
> their older papers. The visual contrast is affected by the
> density or perhaps its better to call it the reflective
> range of the paper. Glossy RC and ferrotyped glossy fiber
> have the longet range of all at both ends. Very few papers
> are capable of Dmax greater than about 2.0. This is better
> than the Dmax of some of the classic papers of the past (Azo
> for instance) which even in ferrotyped glossy had Dmax of no
> more than perhaps 1.8. Textured or matt surfaces reduce this
> a lot due to light scatter throughout the scale.
> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
> which I think would be completely unacceptable today. Kodak
> also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as destructive
> to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
> were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on
> portraits by simply supressing fine detail. I've seen
> portraits from the 1930s where so much soft focus, texture,
> retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly
> generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.

Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M
I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box
500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated me! In someways
I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of learning how
to develop and process hit and miss.

I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.
From: Ken Hart on

"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13oqv37s0m22i7e(a)corp.supernews.com...
snip
> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample books. Agfa and
> Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces which I think would be completely
> unacceptable today. Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly textured papers
> were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed on portraits by
> simply supressing fine detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so
> much soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make the image
> nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.
>
I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's. It has a selection
of paper samples bound in it. I knida wish some of those papers were still
available, like the canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from
the usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.


From: Ken Hart on

"____" <internetphobic(a)deletedmail.com> wrote in message
news:internetphobic-EE2BA3.22495615012008(a)newsgroups.comcast.net...
snip>
> Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a Durst 670M
> I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly large box
> 500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated me! In someways
> I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of learning how
> to develop and process hit and miss.
>
> I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my prints.
>
I remember ferrotyping fondly!

I found the my secret to getting good finish and flat prints, using one of
those flip-over type dryers. I ran cold water over a plate, floated the
print onto it, rollered it with fair pressure, put it in the dryer, and
flipped it over so it was on the bottom. Three minutes later, I did the same
thing with the second plate. After the print dried for three minutes on the
top, it came loose from the plate. I took it out, put it face down on a cool
surface under weight (My college Calculus textbook worked great-- it was
good to finally get some worthwhile value from it!)

I still have that dryer and the plates in my darkroom. I wish I could find
some use for it; it's not even good as a space heater. Make an offer!


From: Richard Knoppow on

"Ken Hart" <kwhart1(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fmk8bk$ctl$1(a)aioe.org...
>
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in
> message news:13oqv37s0m22i7e(a)corp.supernews.com...
> snip
>> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
>> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
>> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
>> Kodak also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
>> destructive to the image. For the most part these highly
>> textured papers were intended to reduce the amount of
>> retouching needed on portraits by simply supressing fine
>> detail. I've seen portraits from the 1930s where so much
>> soft focus, texture, retouching, has been done as to make
>> the image nearly generic, i.e., you can't recognize the
>> person.
>>
> I've got an old Kodak Darkroom Dataguide from the 1970's.
> It has a selection of paper samples bound in it. I knida
> wish some of those papers were still available, like the
> canvas-look ones. Might be an interesting change from the
> usual 'E' and 'F' surfaces.
At one time Kodak had something like 25 combinations of
surfaces, textures, and stock tints available. Of course,
not all combinations for all papers. Some of this went away
with the introduction of economical color printing methods
and others due to simple lack of market. There were some
unique surfaces available in some papers. One famous one was
Gevaert Gevaluxe Velours which had a velvet surface
supposedly made with rabbit fur. It looked like a velvet
painting. The stock tint was ivory and if used for low key
portraits looked almost like a color print. I've not seen a
print on this stuff for 40 years.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


From: Richard Knoppow on

"____" <internetphobic(a)deletedmail.com> wrote in message
news:internetphobic-EE2BA3.22495615012008(a)newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <13oqv37s0m22i7e(a)corp.supernews.com>,
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> > In my experience:
>> >
>> > Many times the matte surface paper will have a dmax of
>> > 1.50-1.55 and
>> > quite a long ascent to get to it for a "NF" <no filter
>> > exposure>. The
>> > matte papers tend to have about three/three and one
>> > half
>> > usable grades.
>> >
>> > Whereas glossy papers tend to have a dmax around 2.00
>> > to
>> > 2.10 for a
>> > "NF" exposure.....using a 21 step wedge. Seem to have
>> > 4.5
>> > grades maybe
>> > five if its a good paper.
>> >
>> > --
>> I agree. This is also obvious from some Kodak data
>> on
>> their older papers. The visual contrast is affected by
>> the
>> density or perhaps its better to call it the reflective
>> range of the paper. Glossy RC and ferrotyped glossy fiber
>> have the longet range of all at both ends. Very few
>> papers
>> are capable of Dmax greater than about 2.0. This is
>> better
>> than the Dmax of some of the classic papers of the past
>> (Azo
>> for instance) which even in ferrotyped glossy had Dmax of
>> no
>> more than perhaps 1.8. Textured or matt surfaces reduce
>> this
>> a lot due to light scatter throughout the scale.
>> I have a couple of very old Agfa/Ansco paper sample
>> books. Agfa and Ansco had some very distinctive surfaces
>> which I think would be completely unacceptable today.
>> Kodak
>> also had some extreme surfaces but not quite as
>> destructive
>> to the image. For the most part these highly textured
>> papers
>> were intended to reduce the amount of retouching needed
>> on
>> portraits by simply supressing fine detail. I've seen
>> portraits from the 1930s where so much soft focus,
>> texture,
>> retouching, has been done as to make the image nearly
>> generic, i.e., you can't recognize the person.
>
> Ah ferrotyping! The very first enlarger I ever used was a
> Durst 670M
> I got it used with a ferro type platen and a rather seemly
> large box
> 500 sheets of Medalist paper. The paper almost predated
> me! In someways
> I remember the smell of that musty paper in fond memory of
> learning how
> to develop and process hit and miss.
>
> I never liked the spotty results I got from ferrotyping my
> prints.
>

Ferrotyping is a bit of an art but was a standard
finish for commercial and photo-finisher prints. Part of the
secret is to have very good plates. The best IMO are chrome
plated but others claim to get better results from enamelled
plates with the right sort of wax. I used to ferrotype
frequently many years ago but have had trouble with modern
papers, perhaps the emulsion is too hard. On a good plate
the print should have a very uniform finish and should just
pop off the plate when dry.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk(a)ix.netcom.com


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Enlarger question
Next: What kind of dry-mount press?