Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!unisoft!mtxinu!rtech!eric From: eric@rtech.ARPA (Eric Lundblad) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: Re: darkroom paper Message-ID: <361@rtech.ARPA> Date: Wed, 8-May-85 16:36:45 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.361 Posted: Wed May 8 16:36:45 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 02:15:15 EDT References: <2720024@acf4.UUCP> <661@asgb.UUCP> <77@harvard.ARPA> <117@brand.UUCP> Organization: Relational Technology, Berkeley CA Lines: 30 > > I too use the method of printing first on an RC paper before going with > > a fiber paper. Not only is it easier, but it is cheaper as well. > > Marty Sasaki net: sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} > > I don't understand how you can "learn" to print a negative on RC and then > print it on fiber paper. The different papers have different > characteristics and will not at all give the same results. As soon as you > get the print you want on RC (if that is possible), you will not get the > same on fiber paper. > > Herb Barad [USC - Signal and Image Processing Institute] *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER *** For me, learning to print a negative is not as much a matter of figuring out how long to leave it under the enlarger and in the developer. Instead, learning a negative involves deciding what values are pleasing for that image. Although I use fiber paper exclusively because I think it is better for fine images (which is not to say that I produce any :-)), I can see the argument for using RC paper in the early stages. On the other hand, if, as you say, fiber paper can be had for as little a RC paper, then why not use fiber? I don't buy the time to process fiber argument, since fiber can be processed in a marginally greater time than RC. (I do an initial 3 minute fix alone, and a final 3 minute fix with all photos together, as per Ansel Adams suggestion). Is my stand sufficently confusing? -- Eric Lundblad