I can accept that; point is well take Art. It certainly explains some of
the infrequent but continuing set of strange problems that I have
experienced with RC papers over the years ( particularly with Ilford's,
which I like and use a lot) such as the sudden fading and uneven fading,
yellowing of the paper base, or strange color stains appearing when I have
attempted to wash spotting dyes out of a print in cases of spotting errors.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see.
I think the issue here is not that people were unaware that RC papers
were less archival than fiber based. I think this was pretty much a
given, although I do recall reading at one point about the advantages of
RC papers because they did not (in theory) absorb the thiosulfate
radicals into their base (since they basically are plastic coated
stocks) which was supposed to have some advantage, since thiosulfate
radical is damaging to silver prints and take a lot of water to migrate
out of fiber paper (I usually used a hypo-clearing agent to lessen the
time necessary).
I think what Wilhelm is discovering is that RC papers often have
"catastrophic" failures which were not expected nor did manufacturers
allude to. These include emulsion failures, binding failures, base
paper yellowing or disintegrating, sudden fading, uneven fading, etc, etc.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
>> "crud"
>
>
> Isn't that a technical term?
>
> Like inkjet prints, B&W RC photographic prints are getting better in terms
> of longevity; but they are not anywhere near fiber based prints. They
never
> have been hyped as being archival unlike some inkjet prints. I am
surprised
> you did not know that they were not as archival as fiber based prints and
> that you are surprised by this. However, I bet you knew it all along and
> are just pulling out legs. :-)
