Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag  (Read 12819 times)
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2011, 11:02:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I go to a lot of care and expense to have ultra sharp images and I do not want to throw that away on a paper that looks ok dead on, but stipples at any other angle.

Hmmm, who really looks at a print except from dead on? I might walk up to a print from an angle, but I really only look at a print dead on. And frankly the Canson Plantine is superb-my favorite paper for glossy inks. The new glossy b&w work in my last two shows (I also print mat Piezography) were printed on it, hung side by side with some of my best silver prints, and they held their own.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2011, 11:06:55 PM by Kirk Gittings » Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2011, 05:26:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan,
I see that Tobacco is on the list for Nonwood Fibers.
How about Marlboro Photo Semigloss? Grin

Interesting reading, though....

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2011, 06:25:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan,
I see that Tobacco is on the list for Nonwood Fibers.
How about Marlboro Photo Semigloss? Grin

Interesting reading, though....

/Sven
Yes, and I also recently saw a paper about using milkweed as a paper source as well.  A lot of years ago I fooled around with paper making but it takes a good bit of skill as well as trial and error to get things right.  We are blessed with an abundant supply of papers in today's inkjet world (far more than I ever remember in the darkroom days).
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2011, 07:37:52 AM »
ReplyReply

.............  We are blessed with an abundant supply of papers in today's inkjet world (far more than I ever remember in the darkroom days).

We are indeed, and when you think of the manufacturing processes and scale that must be required to do this eonomically, I keep wondering when the big shake-out will occur and which ones will survive. Of course it's notanswerable in a straightforward way, for one thing because the size of the world market is subject to a number of contradictory tendencies. On the one hand we hear that printing is giving way to other kinds of digital display vehicles for sharing photographs, while on the other hand the key manufacturers keep churning out more and better printers, and beyond the struggling economies of North America and Europe, the major growth areas in Asia and South America must represent major growth opportunities. 
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2011, 07:56:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm, who really looks at a print except from dead on? I might walk up to a print from an angle, but I really only look at a print dead on. And frankly the Canson Plantine is superb-my favorite paper for glossy inks. The new glossy b&w work in my last two shows (I also print mat Piezography) were printed on it, hung side by side with some of my best silver prints, and they held their own.

This is a good point Kirk, and your observations about the comparative merits of high-quality B&W inkjet versus silver are very consistent with others. I recall similar discussion in an interview some years ago between Michael Reichmann and Clyde Butcher http://www.luminous-landscape.com/search/?q=clyde+butcher&Search=Search&area=all.

As for how one looks at the prints - indeed - generally straight-on; but I thought it would be fun putting this to the test. I have my Toronto panorama (done with a Phase One P40+) hanging on a wall (no glass) - that copy printed on Canson Baryta Photographique in an Epson 7900. I wanted to see first of all at how much of angle I could view it while still seeing the image properly, and next, whether the paper finish interferes with the apparent acuity of image detail. It's well-lit for viewing, which I think is a useful starting condition. This of course is totally unstructured and anecdotal as a method of determining any thing; however, for what it's worth, unsurprisingly, I found that the greater the viewing angle the less of the photo I could see properly, but while I was still in reasonable enough alignment to see the detail, the paper finish didn't interfere at all. It's always a compromise. One can avoid all risk of surface texture interference by using high gloss, but then there are reflections to deal with. And short of Luster, there is Matte, with its lower black density. Etc.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2011, 08:13:25 AM »
ReplyReply

A bigger issue in my mind is the use of glazing.  It's funny you mention your panorama being displayed with no glazing.  I was talking with a good photographer friend just prior to leaving for Europe two weeks ago and he is framing things without glazing these days.  His comment to me, "I can always reprint if need be."  I have some problematic lighting in my house and normal good acrylic is a poor chose in some locations because of glare.  I haven't yet tried the anti-reflecting acrylic such as the Tru Vue brand which seems to be pretty cost effective to see what the trade off is in lack of resolution.  Maybe I will also mount some without glazing to see what the impact of normal environment is on the print.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2011, 08:38:11 AM »
ReplyReply

A bigger issue in my mind is the use of glazing.  It's funny you mention your panorama being displayed with no glazing.  I was talking with a good photographer friend just prior to leaving for Europe two weeks ago and he is framing things without glazing these days.  His comment to me, "I can always reprint if need be."  I have some problematic lighting in my house and normal good acrylic is a poor chose in some locations because of glare.  I haven't yet tried the anti-reflecting acrylic such as the Tru Vue brand which seems to be pretty cost effective to see what the trade off is in lack of resolution.  Maybe I will also mount some without glazing to see what the impact of normal environment is on the print.

Hi Alan - I said no glass, but you're right, also no glazing. No matter what I read about the merits, I'm just afraid to use the stuff and I don't know whether it's worth the high cost. It's also not completely clear to me (perhaps with your background in chemistry you have informed insight) what the long-term effects could be of the interactions between the glazing chemicals and the paper/ink surfaces. I have prints of the grand-children tacked on the fridge door since a good four years ago printed on "lowly" Epson Enhanced Matte, no protection whatsoever and they look fine. The OBA has faded very evenly to the point that the paper white is quite close to the back-side of a new sheet of Epson Enhanced Matte (or whatever they call it these days) but the images still look fine. And indeed, if the time comes that it seems necessary, one will be able to reprint - perhaps on yet better papers and in better printers than we are now using.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2011, 09:01:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Alan - I said no glass, but you're right, also no glazing. No matter what I read about the merits, I'm just afraid to use the stuff and I don't know whether it's worth the high cost. It's also not completely clear to me (perhaps with your background in chemistry you have informed insight) what the long-term effects could be of the interactions between the glazing chemicals and the paper/ink surfaces.
I don't think there is any danger of interaction with acrylic glazing.  The polymerization process is complete so that there would not be any reactive chemicals left.  The cost is a factor with good acrylic costing between $3-8(US) per square foot depending on whether you want UV protection or not.  We purchased an Ansel Adams Yosemite print several years ago and they use acrylic in framing them and I know that in his book "The Print" this was Adams's recommendation.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2011, 09:42:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, if it's good enough for Ansel and you, it should be good enough for me :-). Cost-wise, this price range makes it almost a toss-up between reprinting on high quality paper or glazing.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2011, 09:56:20 AM »
ReplyReply

A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2011, 09:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.

John

John, do you notice this same effect with the highest quality museum glass? I've seen prints under such glass, and of all the glass solutions it looked the best to me, but of course very costly. Colour cast didn't strike me in the face, but then again I wasn't looking for it, so could have by-passed me.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2011, 10:04:51 AM »
ReplyReply

John, do you notice this same effect with the highest quality museum glass? I've seen prints under such glass, and of all the glass solutions it looked the best to me, but of course very costly. Colour cast didn't strike me in the face, but then again I wasn't looking for it, so could have by-passed me.

Mark, I have not been able to compare samples over a plain white background, which of course one would need to do. However, we have a professional framer just down in the village, so next time I see him I will ask his opinion. I was just thinking that acrylic should not suffer from this effect. Ansel started using it because of the problems he was having with shipping his prints for exhibition, notably weight and breakages en route. I don't think archival qualities were foremost in his mind.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1605


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2011, 11:10:26 AM »
ReplyReply

A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.

John
I've always used acrylic so have not noticed this at all.  The Ansel Adams print that we have is here:  http://www.anseladams.com/Merced_River_Cliffs_Autumn_p/5010116-u.htm and we had the studio frame it for us.  I've not noticed any color cast at all but don't know whether they use UV-protecting acrylic or what.  The print looks stunning and it's a relative cheap way to have an Adams on the wall!!
Logged

Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2011, 01:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I've always used acrylic so have not noticed this at all.  The Ansel Adams print that we have is here:  http://www.anseladams.com/Merced_River_Cliffs_Autumn_p/5010116-u.htm and we had the studio frame it for us.  I've not noticed any color cast at all but don't know whether they use UV-protecting acrylic or what.  The print looks stunning and it's a relative cheap way to have an Adams on the wall!!

That was John's point. Glass, if not Museum standard, gives a green tint and acrylic is pure transparent, with no tint.
I'm going to exhibit later this year, in Oct, and I'm leaning more and more to try with no glazing at all.
It looks a bit odd, but when getting used to it, it's feels actually more "natural" and "neutral". One really downside is that
the artwork isn't protected at all.

1. Standard glass; low cost, green tint, fragile, high weight, reflections, artwork protected
2. Acrylic; medium cost, no tint, not fragile, low weight, easily scratched, reflections, artwork protected
3. No glazing at all;..............no protection of artwork

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2011, 01:40:10 PM »
ReplyReply

If I were to make the effort of getting some work accepted for an exhibit I think I would select the no glass- no glaze option. People who go to galleries and the gallery owners themselves are usually well-behaved in how they handle or don't handle the art, so the risk of damage is probably quite low, while the native image quality impact would be quite high.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2011, 01:51:14 PM »
ReplyReply

There is a problem with acrylic, and that's static. The stuff just seems to have a magnetic attraction for dust and fluff. It is also very easily scratched when handling in transit.

We can note that in the wider world of the visual arts, oil paintings are never glazed. But of course they are usually finished with a protective varnish layer. Whereas water colours and drawings, prints and engravings, all of which are more akin to photographs, are almost always glazed when framed for their own protection. This I fear is a conundrum which we will never truly solve - I hate reflections in the glass which wreck the viewer's appreciation of the picture, but I have tried unprotected prints and they really do suffer as a result from cooking fumes, fire ash, cat hairs and all the other noxious pollution in my cottage. Not to mention the evil damp, which today stood at 85% RH indoors  Wink

John
« Last Edit: June 12, 2011, 01:57:09 PM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2011, 02:18:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, but as Mark put it, within an exhibition condition (art gallery) the effect from not protecting will be minimal.
If I (hopefully) sell some pieces of art, I probably have to glaze-protect them.

I remember in the good-old-days in the 70-80's, people thought it was to "arty" to frame a photograph Cheesy

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2804


« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2011, 02:19:05 PM »
ReplyReply

A problem that you rarely see mentioned is that almost all glass has a slight bluish-green tint, and this does cool the image a fraction. It's a very minor effect, but it does trouble me sometimes with my B/W prints.

John

There is Water White Glass, a low iron content glass.
http://www.waterwhiteglass.com
There are more companies that can supply it.

It is for example the glass in flatbed scanners.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop

http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2011, 02:20:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hate reflections in the glass which wreck the viewer's appreciation of the picture

But this is not a problem so much with the glass as where they are hung and how they are lit.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2011, 02:26:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Provide the gallery visitors with Polaroid Glasses  Wink

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad