From: Rod Fleming (rodfleming@sol.co.uk)
Date: 05/12/00-03:01:05 AM Z
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2000 09:21
Subject: Re: Ferrotyping Alt. Prints.
(Original snipped as way too long.)
> The best glossy finish is not quite as shiny as an RC glossy but pretty
> close.
Sorry Richard, that's wrong.
I've just pulled from my files a print made around 1975 on Ilford glossy
single-weight and glazed on a chrome-bed glazer-dryer, and a print made
about three weeks ago on Ilford glossy RC. The gloss on the older print is
much better. But then we were aware of that when RC papers were introduced.
Any time you want to see proof that the older technique beats the new, you
just come right on over.
Further as to your "disagreement" over what is and is not ferrotyping, I can
only conclude that American usage is different- the understanding of myself
and the many photographers I have discussed this with is that "ferrotyping"
is properly done on enamel tins (with an "n"). Perhaps the confusion arises
because ferrotyping was in use before chrome plating was popular and as
chrome plating became more popular it was used to replace the older enamel
process.
Otherwise you are correct in your restatement of my original post.
Also, given that ferrotyping or glazing is a process no longer widely used I
think it qualifies as "alternative". It produces a very specific effect,
which certainly would not suit everyone or every picture, but which is all
the same unique in its own way. It allows the photographer to produce a very
glossy print while retaining the benefits of using fibre paper.
Rod
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:19 PM Z CST