Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RC Luster paper used in framed prints under glass  (Read 705 times)
Bullfrog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« on: September 03, 2013, 06:52:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I was visiting some galleries to view other photographer's work and noticed that they were selling framed prints under glass printed on RC Lustre paper.  There were obvious reflections in sunlight when you viewed the image from certain angles which I suppose could be the glass but assume its the reflection of the paper against the glass which I felt made the overall look less attractive.

My question is:  why do people prefer RC luster paper in a framed print vs a watercolor paper or cotton rag?  I had always thought (perhaps wrongly) that photography images under glass should be printed on watercolour paper  but clearly that's not a rule people adhere to or even agree with.

Edit:  Not sure if this is the right section to post this question but will start here
« Last Edit: September 03, 2013, 06:56:50 AM by Bullfrog » Logged
rgs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338



WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2013, 07:43:56 AM »
ReplyReply

This is a complex subject with many variables. But, foolishly, I'm going to attempt a response.  Others may have vastly different opinions.

Many of the classic B&W images were printed on air dried fiber based glossy papers. Through the 70s and 80s this was the rather universal recommendation for B&W. If that paper was dried on a ferrotype tin, it would get a mirror shine like modern glossy papers. But air dried, it took on a gentle sheen which was very attractive. It was also more archival if air dried because the ferrotype tins tended to retain contaminants from earlier prints.   

I really like the air dried glossy surface but still can't make myself like RC mega glossy prints. Neither do I like most matte surfaces. They do not generally  have the depth I want. I've seen RC lustre papers that I liked except for the texture on the surface which seems to degrade sharpness slightly. A satin surface would be good but I don't like most of them otherwise. 

On consideration may be that dye inks often have better fade resistance on some RC surfaces. There are some very nice fiber based type surfaces today but dye ink may fade faster on them than on RC papers and some just take pigment ink better than dye.

Like I said, a very complex subject with many variables.
Logged

Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2013, 07:48:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Everyone has a preference on papers.  RC IMO makes a great print, has a wonderful DMAX, and a very durable finish.  

However I quit using for my framed prints for the simple reason, outgassing.  RC will outgas and fog the glass.

Yes, I know there are tons of posts about how to handle this issue, but in reality for me, none really work, especially on larger prints, say 23 x 33 or 30 x 40.  It's very easy to use some of the methods people list on smaller prints, say 12 x 18, 11 x 14 or even 20 x 30, but on large prints, you start to risk damaging the print in the process.  

When I had access to a heat press, I was able to dry mount with heat 125 degrees F, and most times this would eliminate all of the outgassing, however my connection to the press is gone so I am back to other methods.  

RC has curl which is very hard to totally remove even with a D-roller or similar tool.

I still proof on RC for many of my prints but the final work is done on either, Vibrance Rag, Breathing color, Canson Platine, or Epson Exhibition Fiber.  None of these will outgas to the front of the print.   Matte paper I still prefer Optica 1 (yes I know it has OBA's but I have yet to see any issues), and moving toward Pura Smooth, both from Breathing Color and Epson Hot press Bright.  For the watercolor paper effect I prefer Canon Arches 600 W.

I have torn down way too many prints, both in galleries and sold, that were printed on RC paper to clean the glass.  

Just one view, and I am sure there will others.

Paul Caldwell
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 11:18:11 AM by Paul2660 » Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Bullfrog
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2013, 10:09:41 AM »
ReplyReply

thanks.  I agree the Dmax was good.  I wondered if it was price motivated.  The prints were not numbered and were open edition.  Anyway, its obviously a choice some people make.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad