Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Sat, 17 Apr 1999 01:32:45 -0700
At 10:15 PM 4/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 16 Apr 1999, Jack Fulton wrote:
>
>
>> Also, I believe it was David Vestal or Ctein, tested RC papers and noted
>> the improvements have been major and the emulsion and archival aspects
>> were now excellent.
>
>Ctein had a series of articles in Photo Techniques in which he documented
>his disaster with RC paper. He had evidently, decided to do some
>EXHIBITION prints on RC. (The reason for this told to me was that he saw
>some Mapplethorpes allegedly done on RC which he admired.) He described
>efforts to save them with Sistan, etc., to little avail.
>
>While it's true that the claim was made years ago that RC papers are now
>fine & dandy, recent evidence of various kinds (which I did not keep in my
>brain as every cell is already rented, so no use asking) is that that's
>not so. Here's one where I (in anticipation) agree with Bob Maxey, about
>.... ugh, RC paper. What you do with RC paper is contact it to lith film
>to make a negative & then a gum print...
>
>Judy
>
>
Nonetheless I am asking. The papers I refered to on Thom Bell's web site
are fairly recent and suggest that RC is about as long lived as fiber based
paper.
All sorts of people do tests for magazines, often not very well
controlled. Getting valid data about the permanence of photographic
material is not a simple task. It would be interesting to know the source
of any recent question of the life of RC paper.
I am not sure that any of the large material manufacturers are doing any
kind of testing anymore. Henry Wilhelm and IPI seem to be about the only
sources of information. IPI has been criticized by some because of its
close connection to Kodak.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31