Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Leica MM and M9 Comparison
From: roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark)
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:29:35 -0700
References: <CAJ3Pgh40rkhcb2G=EnFKR8eoXbajiY-NN5J0qL09RJi9n0vG=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CC6A7BB8.2320C%mark@rabinergroup.com>

Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote:
> ...
> It was brought to my attention that there never was a darkroom paper that
> was 100% rag. ...

This is getting a bit OT, and I apologize for that.

The situation with the wet darkroom paper is worse than it not being
rag.  Good alpha cellulose, which most good wet darkroom paper was, is
very nearly as good as rag.  The real problem was that it could not be
buffered due to the acidic chemicals used.  As such, our silver prints
are being attacked by air-borne acids.  I have seen in my own metal
cabinet yellowing after 20 years of storage.  The good inkjet
cellulose (rag or alpha), not having to withstand the development
chemicals, are buffered and should resist the acids much better.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


Replies: Reply from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] Leica MM and M9 Comparison)
In reply to: Message from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] Leica MM and M9 Comparison)
Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Leica MM and M9 Comparison)