What do you think - no difference between digital and analog?!

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone know if the old Agfa Brovira paper had brighteners in it? I am trying to account for what I think is a special luminosity. My perception might be so very wrong. Would placing a print under a blacklight (UV_A) reveal brighteners?

[adan]

Probably not, as to your first question. Most classic fiber photo papers use a barium/strontium-sulfate clay-like coating (Baryta or barite) beneath the emulsion, which does increase "brightness/whiteness" but also filled in the paper fibers for an ultra-smooth surface that also separated the image layer from the raw paper. Roughly (no, make that smoothly ) analogous to gessoing a canvas before painting on it.

 

Optical brighteners tend to wash away with extended immersion in liquids, so they are mostly used in RC papers, where the resin coating protects them, and reduces wash/wet times. Brovira-Speed, the RC version of Brovira, may have used brighteners.

 

One key point about Brovira and other silver-bromide papers (Kodabromide, DuPont Velour Black) is that they had cooler image tones than, say, Polycontrast, which had a faint greenish/brownish tint, or Agfa Portriga, intentionally built "warm" by using a heavy dose of silver chloride as well as silver bromide. The cooler tones looked "blacker" which stretched the apparent tonal range (D max, as we would call it today).

 

BTW - the top-end (read - expensive) inkjet photo papers have also adopted baryta coatings as their whitening agent. Less prone to fading, and in addition to the smooth surface, the baryta reduces ink spread in the paper fibers (dot gain = loss of resolution, darkening of print overall). And for the prestige value - "Hey, we have the same undercoating as real photo paper."

 

Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photographic_paper

Edited June 18, 2018 by adan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

This is Rule Number 1. Its probably the least appreciated step in the digital process. I can get stunningly good prints just using my Mac Book Pro screen by ensuring that its matched to ambient conditions. Colour management is less of an issue today than in the past with excellent screens and their lack of colour shift, but many people still have them switched up too bright.

Equally under appreciated, even with silver prints, is the effect of the type of glass and the type and intensity of the lighting used to display the final print.

 

One helpful tool is a viewing booth that uses the same lighting as the display lighting. But even then, expensive museum glass can block the UV needed for optical bighteners (if the paper has OBAs) to take effect. Every part of the chain.... from camera exposure to monitor display to final print display... is important, especially if one can distinguish between a good print and a print that really ‘sings’.

 

One of the benefits of using ImagePrint 10 is that one is always in softproof mode, and paper profiles can be specified for different temperature lighting. This is useful if one needs to change display location and conditions, and wants to save time and effort when reprinting.

 

But printing was never plug and play. There are good reasons why, in darkroom days, there were more great photographers than great printers. And today, sadly, most don’t bother to print digitally. Especially now that editing software, printers, papers and inks are better than ever.

 

Jeff

[Ambro51]

The worst thing with digital is that it put a near total end to “advancement” in film cameras and film technology. We are stuck in the 1970s and regressing at this point with film and it’s abilities. Personally I would rate any image made with a top shelf camera and K25 over any raw digital image.