 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2005newspapers selling photographic prints
mar2405 from Lloyd Erlick, I've been meaning to ask a question lately. Newspapers these days are offering for sale what the advertising copy says are 'silver gelatin' prints of pictures from their archives. I've seen such ads in the New York Times, Globe and Mail and Toronto Star. They do not specify anything further about the manner of production of these prints. They could be made on FB (fiber base), RC (resin coated) materials, or even, I suppose, laser-output from digital files onto either FB or RC. Does anyone know how the NYT, for example, produces these prints? regards, --le  Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > mar2405 from Lloyd Erlick, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Does anyone know how the NYT, for example, produces these prints? I do not know for sure, but the term silver-gelatin is normally reserved for the normal black and white prints made by shining light on silver halide crystals suspended in gelatine, developing the latent image so produced, fixing out the unused silver halide, washing, possibly toning, washing, and drying. This is usually done on paper or plastic coated paper. I do not think it proper to call a laser print a silver-gelatin print. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 11:05:00 up 63 days, 19:23, 3 users, load average: 5.47, 5.30, 5.10 You obviously havent been following the flame threads recently. ;) they can call it whatever they want to...Meaning is whatever you want it to be > You obviously havent been following the flame threads recently. ;) > they can call it whatever they want to...Meaning is whatever you want > it to be True, I get tired of threads with over about a dozen posts in them. While you are right that words mean at most what the person employing them wants them to mean, to call something not made by a silver-gelatin process a silver-gelatin print would surely be a deception. In the past, museums called prints platinum prints, palladium prints, silver-gelatin prints, albumin prints, gum-bichromate prints, ferro-prussate prints, etc., so that viewers and collectors would know the process used to make them. If you misuse the terms, you are either displaying your ignorance, or trying to defraud. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 12:10:00 up 63 days, 20:28, 3 users, load average: 4.29, 4.18, 4.26 >> I do not know for sure, but the term silver-gelatin is normally reserved >> for the normal black and white prints made by shining light on silver >> halide crystals suspended in gelatine, developing the latent image so >> produced, fixing out the unused silver halide, washing, possibly toning, >> washing, and drying. This is usually done on paper or plastic coated >> paper. I do not think it proper to call a laser print a silver-gelatin print.<< You are thinking of laser printing on a fused toner type of device, and I agree, toner fused to a sheet of paper is not a silver-gelatin print. However, there are now many digital printing devices (Noritsu and Agfa minilabs, Fuji Frontiers, Durst and Lightjet laser printers)which use red, green, and blue lasers to expose silver halide photographic papers, both color and B&W. A B&W print from one of these photographic laser printers would be a true silver gelatin print, exposed by light, and processed in standard photographic chemicals. With digitized images, many labs are now just printing B&W as a B&W image on color paper. Since that image is composed of dyes, I would not classify it as silver-gelatin. Kodak makes a Digital B&W paper specifically for use on a Durst laser printer/processor. This is an RC based paper, not fiber base. The images I have seen from this are indistinguishable from a regular enlarger exposed RC print, unless you put a loupe to it. Then, instead of grain, you can see the fine scan lines where the lasers "painted" the image. > >> I do not know for sure, but the term silver-gelatin is normally reserved > >> for the normal black and white prints made by shining light on silver [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You are thinking of laser printing on a fused toner type of device, and I > agree, toner fused to a sheet of paper is not a silver-gelatin print. > However, there are now many digital printing devices (Noritsu and Agfa > minilabs, Fuji Frontiers, Durst and Lightjet laser printers)which use red, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Kodak makes a Digital B&W paper specifically for use on a Durst laser > printer/processor. This is an RC based paper, not fiber base. The images I > have seen from this are indistinguishable from a regular enlarger exposed RC > print, unless you put a loupe to it. Then, instead of grain, you can see the > fine scan lines where the lasers "painted" the image. Jean, I give you "Exhibit A". The fact that the term is already used by many precisely forthe reason of distinguishing their work from digital work proves that anything goes. No, This was Jeans original comment. >> >> I do not know for sure, but the term silver-gelatin is normally > reserved [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> I do not think it proper to call a laser print a silver-gelatin > print.<< This was what I replied: >> You are thinking of laser printing on a fused toner type of device, > and I [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > many precisely forthe reason of distinguishing their work from > digital work proves that anything goes. OK Wayne, I think you are still confusing the my comments. A laser print from a copier type printer made by fusing toner particles onto paper is NOT a silver-gelatin print under any circumstances. I agree with that regardless of what somebody wants to call it. On the other hand, a print made by exposing traditional B&W silver halide paper to laser light beams in a photographic printer, then processing in traditional photographic developer, fixing, and washed, is still a silver gelatin print. It is not a matter of "anything goes", it is a silver-gelatin print, distinguishable from any enlarger print only in that the light was digitally controlled scanned laser beams rather than a projection from a negative. You can argue all you want about the exposing method, but the actual print material and image formation is the same. > OK Wayne, I think you are still confusing the my comments. A laser print > from a copier type printer made by fusing toner particles onto paper is NOT [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You can argue all you want about the exposing method, but the actual print > material and image formation is the same. I understood from the start that you are Technically Correct. But dont people presently use the term silver-gelatin in an (ill-fated) attempt to distinguish their enlarger or contact prints from digital process prints? Now they have to include the light source too, adding another layer of pretentiousness? "Silver gelatin print, printed with 100 watt 120V GE softwhite bulb". >> OK Wayne, I think you are still confusing the my >comments. A laser print >> from a copier type printer made >by fusing toner particles onto paper is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >You can argue all you want about the exposing method, but the actual print >material and image formation is the >same. Wayne replied: > I understood from the start that you are Technically >Correct. But dont > people presently use the term silver->gelatin in an (ill-fated) attempt to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Silver gelatin print, printed with 100 watt 120V GE softwhite bulb". I don't think of it as a matter of being "techically correct". I have always understood the term silver-gelatin as referring to the media; standard B&W photographic silver halide paper with a metallic image created by exposing and developing the silver halide grains in a gelatin emulsion. How those grains were exposed is not part of the media definition. Silver-gelatin refers to the type of paper and image. When I was at RIT years ago, one of my fellow students did some very creative B&W work by pressing B&W paper to his face, which had been coated in cooking oil. The paper was then fogged and developed, with the oiled area preventing development in varying degrees, resulting in an unusual image. In fact, I remember one of these prints being published in a Time-Life Photography series about education. If that print was displayed in a museum today, it would be classified as silver-gelatin. If we consider it this way, then silver-gelatin should not distinguish enlarger or contact prints from digitally exposed, and I agree that it would be pretentious to classify this way or add a comment about exposure method. It's only the past few years that these digital exposing devices have come into existence. In other art mediums, the media has long referred to the materials used, such as oil or acrylic on canvas, not whether the artist used a brush or knife to apply the paints. I'll get off my soap box now. > When I was at RIT years ago, one of my fellow students did some very > creative B&W work by pressing B&W paper to his face, which had been coated > in cooking oil. [...] Like this: http://elearning.winona.edu/jjs/sp >> When I was at RIT years ago, one of my fellow students did some very >> creative B&W work by pressing B&W paper to his face, which had been coated >> in cooking oil. [...] LOL > I don't think of it as a matter of being "techically correct". I have always > understood the term silver-gelatin as referring to the media; standard B&W > photographic silver halide paper with a metallic image created by exposing > and developing the silver halide grains in a gelatin emulsion. How those > grains were exposed is not part of the media definition. Silver-gelatin > refers to the type of paper and image. Right, but with it always came the assumption that it was exposed using certain techniques and light sources. Perhaps I'm wrong, maybe I was the only one making the assumption. > If we consider it this way, then silver-gelatin should not distinguish > enlarger or contact prints from digitally exposed, and I agree that it would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I'll get off my soap box now. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.