Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........  (Read 1101 times)

Dinarius

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 986
Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« on: June 29, 2012, 11:40:55 AM »

1. How big is the area of the stamp?

2. What fixed text (if any) does it contain?

3. What text (if any) do you add to it by hand?

4. Do you need special ink pads to avoid smudging on RC papers?

5. Do you need special ink to avoid damaging archival papers - e.g. Hahnemuhle

Many thanks.

D.
Logged

langier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 881
    • Celebrating Rural America, the Balkans and beyond
Re: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2012, 03:40:35 PM »

1. Size is up to you. It can be a single slug of text (©Your Name) or elaborate, say specific to a portfolio with rules for inscribing title, image numbers, names, signatures, etc.

2. Same as above. There are no rules. What works for my projects may be different than what you need. For my promo prints, I simply use labels from my laser printer (ink jet works too), both custom and generic. On my labels I include my ©, name, website, sometime phone number and other contact info, along with branding, if needed. I use both 1x4 and 1/2x2 inch labels for this.

3. You can leave space for a date/year, file number, caption/title.

4. YES! Fast-drying, compatible ink is needed for most digital and RC papers. Not so crucial with fine art/fiber papers. YRMY. The only sure way of knowing is to test the ink. You can search on Google for compatible inks. You still need to let prints dry a bit after stamping to be on the safe side.

For a portfolio we produces last year, 50 total with 50 prints for a museum show and a copy to each contributor, we had a stamp made with info on the portfolio and then hand-wrote the photographer and title on each space within the stamp. Numbering each set was left to the photographer when he got it since there were already 2500 pieces that needed to be stamped and inscribed. We used archival pens to write the print into. Luckily, we had a lot of volunteers to help get this thing done!

5. Not sure. If the ink is not too gooey and sloppy, I wouldn't think that it could soak through the fibers to mess with the image on the other side. One possible solution is to leave a nice border on the print and stamp the back in that margin.
Logged
Larry Angier
ASMP, ACT, and many more!  

syncrasy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2017, 10:02:52 PM »

Did the original poster ever find what you were looking for? I'm interested in using a stamp too, specifically for the back of b&w gelatin silver prints on Agfa, Ilford and similar papers (circa 1970s-90s). I'm concerned about bleed-through from the back to the front of the paper (even in the border).

I found two possibilities for inks (but I haven't tried them yet):

Ranger Archival ink pad
http://rangerink.com/?product=archival™-0-pads-2
(according to the video, this is an oil-based ink)

Clearsnap ColorBox archival dye ink pad
https://www.clearsnap.com/dye-ink-colorbox-archival-full-size

Unfortunately I don't have any unused paper to test the ink on. Has anyone used such inks?
« Last Edit: December 15, 2017, 10:59:16 PM by syncrasy »
Logged
-- Mark

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17378
Re: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM »

Did the original poster ever find what you were looking for? I'm interested in using a stamp too, specifically for the back of b&w gelatin silver prints on Agfa, Ilford and similar papers (circa 1970s-90s). I'm concerned about bleed-through from the back to the front of the paper (even in the border).

I found two possibilities for inks (but I haven't tried them yet):

Ranger Archival ink pad
http://rangerink.com/?product=archival™-0-pads-2
(according to the video, this is an oil-based ink)

Clearsnap ColorBox archival dye ink pad
https://www.clearsnap.com/dye-ink-colorbox-archival-full-size

Unfortunately I don't have any unused paper to test the ink on. Has anyone used such inks?

I always stamped every print that left the studio, right up to the early 80s when I left studios behind and went totally trannies... I used normal rubber stamp ink pads fom the local stationery supplier and can't recall ever having problems.

Commercial work was done on single weight, white smooth glossy Kodak papers; sometimes, if the ink was too heavy (I'd stamp blank papers to reduce its strength before stamping the commercial print) there was the idea that it could show through ever so vaguely on white areas, but I never had a print returned because that was happening. Prints for myself were done on double weight, simply so they'd last longer under handling; they also had a better tactile presence...

Just avoid applying the ink too strongly and you shouldn't have a problem.

Rob
« Last Edit: December 17, 2017, 04:28:43 PM by Rob C »
Logged

syncrasy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 85
Re: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2017, 04:44:21 PM »

I always stamped every print that left the studio, right up to the early 80s when I left studios behind and went totally trannies... I used normal rubber stamp ink pads fom the local stationery supplier and can't recall ever having problems.

Commercial work was done on single weight, white smooth glossy Kodak papers; sometimes, if the ink was too heavy (I'd stamp blank papers to reduce its strength before stamping the commercial print) there was the idea that it could show through ever so vaguely on white areas, but I never had a print returned because that was happening. Prints for myself were done on double weight, simply so they'd last longer under handling; they also had a better tactile presence...

Just avoid applying the ink too strongly and you shouldn't have a problem.

Rob

Thanks, Rob. I don't know weights, so I'm curious... Would my father's Agfa and Ilford papers be closer in weight to your Kodak "single weight" or your personal "double weight" papers. Judging from the empty boxes, the specific paper types are Agfa Portriga-Rapid PRN111 ("1", "2" and "3") and Ilford Galerie IG "1.1K" "2.1K" and "3.1K".
Logged
-- Mark

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17378
Re: Rubber Stamping back of prints - Do you? And if so........
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2017, 05:06:25 AM »

Thanks, Rob. I don't know weights, so I'm curious... Would my father's Agfa and Ilford papers be closer in weight to your Kodak "single weight" or your personal "double weight" papers. Judging from the empty boxes, the specific paper types are Agfa Portriga-Rapid PRN111 ("1", "2" and "3") and Ilford Galerie IG "1.1K" "2.1K" and "3.1K".

Most people during the period I was working used only two brands of paper for their businesses: Kodak and Ilford. Commercial printing, in the sense of advertising/fashion/commercial was done on white smooth glossy, simply because glossy displayed the widest range of tones and was the surface which magazines, books, all printed publications could best use from which to make their reproductions which started post-photography life via massive copy cameras on rails, the images lit with carbon arc lights and ending up at the end of the process as printing plates on a press. The last thing anyone desired was the intrusion of paper surfaces forming part of the reproduced image!

The world of the high street: hatches, matches and dispatches - was far removed from mine, and I suppose that was where funny surfaces found their sales - much as today with canvas.

The differences between Ilford and Kodak, in practical darkroom terms, was that Ilford's grade numbers worked out as a half-grade softer than Kodak's. In other word, if you had a negative that really needed the difference between Kodak Grade 2 and Kodak Grade 3, you could choose Ilford Grade 3 because it was just that bit softer in tonal reproduction. In reality, almost any printer could make the print without switching brand just by playing with more exposure and slightly less development.

To explain the meaning of grades: you began with Grade 0 which was as soft/flat as any paoer would let you print, moving upwards through Grades 2, 3. I can't remember if a higher (more contrasty) grade was made than 3, since I never had to use or buy it.

Your choice of paper grade was a function of the state of your negative. If your negative was too contrasty you would try the soft grades such as 1; normal-looking negatives would usually suit 2, and thin, underexposed ones could print better on 3, simply because the contrast inherent in 3 would better reveal/accentuate the smaller differences of density within the thin negative.

It all sounds far more complicted in writing about it than it ever was in practice. In practice, you soon learned how to expose and develop your negatives to give you your ideal of normality. That was why it was so important to process your own shoots: how else could you know if you were consistently over- or under-exposing your images, or under- or over-developing your films? I almost never had to use papers other than Grades 2 or 3. I do remember that there was another brand of paper that was reputed to be very much more contrasty, but can no longer remember what it was, so sorry.

Muligrade papers, introduced by Ilford, were another game altogether, and I didn't play it (until long after I retired and started an amateur darkroom again, where I used the above stuff in its RC iteration, and hated the look. I soon closed the darkroom again). You bought a box of that Mulitigrade stuff and another box of filters, and instead of changing between paper grades you swapped filters to soften or to highten contrast. I stuck with what worked very well for me.

The difference between single weight and double weight refers only to the thickness of the paper on which the emulsion rests. It played no part in the look of the print, just its physical feel or presence when looked at as an unframed print.

The types of papers you listed above were never used by me, so can't offer any personal knowledge about them.

Ciao -

Rob
Pages: [1]   Go Up