[alt-photo] Re: Dmax for silver paper

[info at permadocument.be]

WOW! Throw it away because it gets way too hot! I never in my life heard
this kind of reasoning about ferrotyping high gloss baryta paper. I, myself
have a strong experience of ferrotyping since the 1950's. My technique
consists of using a flat dryer which dries two prints at a time. You should
have an unbroken layer of water on the plate before putting your print on
it. Squeegee the excess water when the dryer is closed. Then go through a
full sequence of drying: heat the dryer till the paper "pops" and then let
it entirely cool down. Your print will perfectly glossy and flat (in
function of the surface quality of your ferrotype sheet). Good luck!

Warm greetings from Brussels.
Roger

Roger Kockaerts
Atelier pH7
Rue des Balkans 7
B-1180 Brussels
322473584931



-----Message d'origine-----
De : alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] De la part de
etienne garbaux
Envoyé : samedi 14 janvier 2012 08:15
À : The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Objet : [alt-photo] Re: Dmax for silver paper

Pierre wrote:

>My dryer is flat. I can dry on both side though.  So there's no 
>rotation.  I think my drier is a premier dryer.

OK, I thought you might have had a professional drum drier.  The Premier
dryers are unmitigated crap -- my advice is to throw it away before you ruin
any more prints.  They run way too hot and even when they were new the
surface was not nearly smooth enough for proper ferrotyping.  It is best to
dry prints without heat -- the usual method is on nylon screens held
horizontal in a frame, or squeegeed to plate glass or a ferrotype sheet if
you want a full glossy finish.  You can use a fan to blow room-temperature
air across them to speed things up a bit.

>So you have to wait for the print to pop off by themselves?

Yes, if you don't want to damage them.

>How do you know when they are ready because they are under the canvas.

You can't ever get good results with a Premier.  They always run way too hot
and the heat is very uneven -- they have hot spots that are even hotter than
the already too-hot rest of the surface.  As I said, do yourself a favor and
throw it away.

>You also said to squegee the print but then later on you added to have 
>water (with photo flo) between the print and the plate. Which method is 
>best?

They are the same method.  Start with the print nice and wet with water and
photo-flo, then "roll" it down onto the glass so there is good, wet contact
and no air bubbles or dry spots.  Then squeegee very firmly.  The prints
should stick tight to the glass, then pop off when they are dry.

>Now, on the inkjet part..I really have never seen a good inkjet print. 
>Maybe because i can tell it is an inkjet print. They have no dimension 
>to me.

Sorry, I don't understand that.  It sounds like an audiophool saying the
highs are "too white."  If one gets the tonal mapping right (the success
rate on this seems on par with printers using traditional methods -- which
is to say, ever so slightly better than dismal), and doesn't try to print
the pixels too big, I find that one can make very nice inkjet prints.  I
have scanned old negatives and made inkjet prints that are just as pleasing
(to me, anyway) as my original prints.  However, it generally requires a
B&W-only setup with several grey inks in addition to black.  As far as
longevity goes, Dr. Wilhelm seems to think most of the current art-quality
inkjet media and supplies will be stable for more than 100 years, which is
more than enough for me.

Best regards,

etienne






_______________________________________________
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo