FB Paper...suggestions?

[Julie-Anna]

Hey guys!
I am new to the forum. I just purchased my first 4x5 camera (very excited) and need to purchase BW film and paper. I have always used Kodak or Agfa film, sometimes Ilford (don't like Ilford as much).

My biggest wonder is paper. My love was Agfa FB glossy--for mosty portraiture. I have tried different Ilfords and it wasn't the same as Agfa. Any suggestions? Bergger? Foma? Kentmere? Oriental? Varycon?

Are there any former Afga paper lovers who have found another type that they're happy with?

[jeroldharter]

Adox is the new Agfa. I suggest buying a number of likely suspects in packs of 25 8x10 (i.e. small quantities) from Freestyle and make a print of a common subject for you. Pick the one you like best. Don't forget to take it through toning. Some papers respond much more to toning than others.

[IanG]

Forte was the new Agfa. Polywarmtone was the bees knees of all papers. Adox (Fotoimpex) hope to bring it back.

Fomatone MG Classic is really nice, and today I've used some Ilford Warmtone which is a superb paper now it's on a whiter base.

After 20 years of only using Agfa papers (Record Rapid & then MCC) I'm not sure yet what to switch to once my Polywarmtone supply dwindles, however I'm not sure I'll go back to MCC, as I much prefer Polywarmtone. I have some 24"x20" Polywarmtone prints drying as I write :D and some smaller Fomatone & Ilford Warmtone prints as well.

|Ian

[Julie-Anna]

Thank you Ian and Jerold!
...I didn't realize until last night that you had posted comments...sorry for the tardy thanks. I am going to order paper tonight: Forte, Adox and I will retry Ilford Warmtone. Wish me luck!

[Daniel Stone]

Julie-Anna,

you probably already know this, but use negatives you've printed to your liking on the Agfa papers, and compare the new prints to the older ones if you have some to reference from. This will help to set a "standard" to go by when comparing older(and liked) prints to the new ones, for an accurate comparison.

-Dan

btw, after being away from enlarging for a while, I've really come to like the Ilford warmtone fiber paper, I never used the older variant(supposedly on a creamier base color-wise), the new stuff is just nuts-awesome. Balls-out bad ass paper IMO. Still have to try MCC(adox), lots of people have been raving about it.

[Merg Ross]

Fomatone MG Classic is really nice, and today I've used some Ilford Warmtone which is a superb paper now it's on a whiter base.

|Ian

Ian, do you know when Ilford Warmtone switched to a whiter base? I am working my way through a three year old supply; would it be on the whiter base to which you refer?
Thanks,
Merg

[bob carnie]

Ilford Warmtone gloss for the last 15 years or for how long it has been in available.
I like this paper very much, and have found it to be consistant, year in year out.
Tones lovely in selenium

For slight sepia tone I like Ilford MG4, funny enough the matt surface is wickedly good.

[Jerry Bodine]

Ian, do you know when Ilford Warmtone switched to a whiter base? I am working my way through a three year old supply; would it be on the whiter base to which you refer?
Thanks,
Merg

Merg,

This information might be useful. It comes from an Ilford publication I recently received from Simon Galley at Harmon Technology (but no date given in it). It’s titled “Ilford Multigrade Papers, A Manual for the Darkroom.” Catalog #1927328. Here’s an excerpt:

OPTICAL BRIGHTENERS
In other paper characteristics, Ilford continues to make progressive improvements to the Multigrade system. The optical brighteners that give Multigrade papers their brilliant, sparkling whites stay exactly where they are needed --- in the highlight areas of the print. All Multigrade papers, except Multigrade FB Warmtone, have anchored optical brighteners which means they won’t wash out and the paper stays white. With Multigrade FB Warmtone, the brighteners can be removed with extended washing for an even warmer base tint.

[MIke Sherck]

And, let's not forget: Forte paper is no more. Adox wants to bring Polywarmtone back; whether they can or will has yet to be seen. In the meantime, I'll second Ilford Warmtone.

Mike

[Greg Blank]

Azo. Learn to make a perfect 4x5 contact print with a light bulb then you will know something worthy of respect.

Every time someone states they like brand X over Y - I cringe. As a good printer one should be able to accomplish the same look with any materials. So what you get is really a reflection of personal skill rather than the materials in my less than humble opinion & experience.


Hey guys!
I am new to the forum. I just purchased my first 4x5 camera (very excited) and need to purchase BW film and paper. I have always used Kodak or Agfa film, sometimes Ilford (don't like Ilford as much).

My biggest wonder is paper. My love was Agfa FB glossy--for mosty portraiture. I have tried different Ilfords and it wasn't the same as Agfa. Any suggestions? Bergger? Foma? Kentmere? Oriental? Varycon?

Are there any former Afga paper lovers who have found another type that they're happy with?

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

This information might be useful. It comes from an Ilford publication I recently received from Simon Galley at Harmon Technology (but no date given in it). It’s titled “Ilford Multigrade Papers, A Manual for the Darkroom.” Catalog #1927328. Here’s an excerpt:

OPTICAL BRIGHTENERS
In other paper characteristics, Ilford continues to make progressive improvements to the Multigrade system. The optical brighteners that give Multigrade papers their brilliant, sparkling whites stay exactly where they are needed --- in the highlight areas of the print. All Multigrade papers, except Multigrade FB Warmtone, have anchored optical brighteners which means they won’t wash out and the paper stays white. With Multigrade FB Warmtone, the brighteners can be removed with extended washing for an even warmer base tint.

Jerry, thank you. I was not aware of the brighteners being removed with extended washing; that is indeed good to know.

For now, I will assume that there have been no changes to the paper base since my initial use about ten years ago.

[Merg Ross]

As a good printer one should be able to accomplish the same look with any materials.

I disagree. Materials do matter, as evidenced by the choices made by master printers.

Also, Azo would not be at the top of my list of discontinued chloride papers.

[Arne Croell]

Adox is the new Agfa. I suggest buying a number of likely suspects in packs of 25 8x10 (i.e. small quantities) from Freestyle and make a print of a common subject for you. Pick the one you like best. Don't forget to take it through toning. Some papers respond much more to toning than others.
Since Adox makes several papers, lets be more specific: Adox MCC 110 is the same as Agfa MCC 111 except for the paper base which is now full white instead of natural white, and a slight increase in speed. Its made based on Agfa's MCC recipe on former Agfa machines with the help of former Agfa employees. The paper base change was not Adox' decision, the old paper base was just no longer available. Actually, when Agfa Photo went bankrupt, the remaining uncoated paper stock was bought by Foma, so in terms of paper base color Foma's FB 111 was/is for a while the closest to the old MCC.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Arne,

Thanks for this post! I have always liked the Foma FB 111 and now I know why. This paper, along with the Adox MC 110, are my two standard papers.

For years my standard was Ilford FB Warmtone and I still have a big supply as it is a fantastic paper and tones beautifully in Selenium 1+10.

Also, I was recently playing around with a box of Oriental VC FB which is not a paper I ever thought much of, but to my surprise it turned out to be really nice. The base is a bright white, it tones very well and has a nice surface when dry. On top of that, the price is not bad at all.

[IanG]

I disagree. Materials do matter, as evidenced by the choices made by master printers.

Also, Azo would not be at the top of my list of discontinued chloride papers.

Apologies Merg, I missed your earlier question about the paper base.

It changed sometime in the past 3-4 years, I can't tell you an exact date. However I went to the large UK trade show, Focus on Imaging, about 5 or 6 years ago just after Agfa ceased paper production and looked at all the options for a replacement for MCC, I remember a long discussion on the Ilford stand about the creamy white paper base which I didn't like at all.

The old base was a very distinct creamy white, I was told that the paper manufacturer stopped making it so Ilford had to switch to the whiter base they used for other papers.

Ian

[John Bowen]

Also, Azo would not be at the top of my list of discontinued chloride papers.

Merg,

Out of curiosity, what would be at the top of your list for discontinued chloride papers?

Thanks,

[Merg Ross]

Merg,

Out of curiosity, what would be at the top of your list for discontinued chloride papers?

Thanks,

John, over the years I have used five now discontinued chloride papers: Haloid (Haloid Co.), Contactone (Agfa/Gevaert), Illustrator's Azo (Kodak), Azo (Kodak) and Lustrex (GAF). Haloid and Contactone would be at the top. However, any of these papers, with special attention to choice of developer could yield fine results.

[Merg Ross]

Apologies Merg, I missed your earlier question about the paper base.

It changed sometime in the past 3-4 years, I can't tell you an exact date. However I went to the large UK trade show, Focus on Imaging, about 5 or 6 years ago just after Agfa ceased paper production and looked at all the options for a replacement for MCC, I remember a long discussion on the Ilford stand about the creamy white paper base which I didn't like at all.

The old base was a very distinct creamy white, I was told that the paper manufacturer stopped making it so Ilford had to switch to the whiter base they used for other papers.

Ian

Ian, thank you for that bit of information; I knew you would have the answer.

Merg

[John Bowen]

John, over the years I have used five now discontinued chloride papers: Haloid (Haloid Co.), Contactone (Agfa/Gevaert), Illustrator's Azo (Kodak), Azo (Kodak) and Lustrex (GAF). Haloid and Contactone would be at the top. However, any of these papers, with special attention to choice of developer could yield fine results.

Thanks Merg.

[Ole Tjugen]

If I can get Ilford Galerie G2, that is all I need. With a little chemical trickery the contrast can be easily varied, so I see no need for a multicontrast paper.

And the tone scale of a graded paper is - supreme. MG papers don't come anywhere close, in my opinion.

[Roger Thoms]

Azo. Learn to make a perfect 4x5 contact print with a light bulb then you will know something worthy of respect.

Every time someone states they like brand X over Y - I cringe. As a good printer one should be able to accomplish the same look with any materials. So what you get is really a reflection of personal skill rather than the materials in my less than humble opinion & experience.

I'm not sure why you would recommend a paper that have been out of production for a number of years, is increasing difficult to find, and can be expensive.

And materials do make a difference. For instance I really like Adox MCC-110. I find the paper a joy to print on. Much easier than my previous paper and with better results. So even if I possessed the skills to achieve equal results from my former paper why would I want to go that route.

Roger

[Oren Grad]

Every time someone states they like brand X over Y - I cringe. As a good printer one should be able to accomplish the same look with any materials. So what you get is really a reflection of personal skill rather than the materials in my less than humble opinion & experience.

If the characteristic curve of your paper is well matched to the curve of your negatives, printing is easy. If it's poorly matched, it may be impossible to achieve a tonal scale you're happy with regardless of how much energy, time and materials you spend in the effort.

I like my printing to be easy. I keep on hand a range of papers with different curves, so I can get my pictures from negative to satisfying print without heroics.

[Greg Blank]

Then again your taking one line from my complete thought. After years of printing I found myself about 10 years ago getting a chance of working in a prolab making contacts in a production atmosphere. It was enlightening to try and make consistent exposures, printing for "every pro photographer" that should have had perfect exposures-but they did not. My statement to the OP was not to use Azo, but to state a relative point, that is: making precise prints using a rather basic approach can teach one a lot more than going for someone else's preset style-merely using a suggested paper. I have printed on most of the modern VC papers available and a few discontinued and have compared them using very controlled methods. For a time I was doing the sensitometric testing of all the Forte paper coming into the US - working for the distributor. I tested Forte agianst most of the existings papers. I still contend that I can duplicate results using "any VC paper with a given negative" Or shall we say get the results very close. That does not rule out toning and processing a given paper differently than another.



I disagree. Materials do matter, as evidenced by the choices made by master printers.

Also, Azo would not be at the top of my list of discontinued chloride papers.

[Greg Blank]

Notice how I said "Brand" and not a specific paper.

And of course Your policy though is a good one. Especially if you chose graded papers, which I might are a good choice if one wishes to be a more precise printer.....Basically VC papers have made the world somewhat lazy in this regard.



If the characteristic curve of your paper is well matched to the curve of your negatives, printing is easy. If it's poorly matched, it may be impossible to achieve a tonal scale you're happy with regardless of how much energy, time and materials you spend in the effort.

I like my printing to be easy. I keep on hand a range of papers with different curves, so I can get my pictures from negative to satisfying print without heroics.

[Merg Ross]

My statement to the OP was not to use Azo, but to state a relative point, that is: making precise prints using a rather basic approach can teach one a lot more than going for someone else's preset style-merely using a suggested paper.

I agree, and apologize for my Azo comment which was not really relevant to the topic.

However, I will stand by my statement that materials do make a difference. In fifty-five years of silver printing, I have seen a lot of good papers disappear. Of those remaining, there are still choices, some being better than others. That very slight difference makes a difference, in my opinion.

[bob carnie]

Lets compare two papers.
Ilford Warmtone and Ilford MG4

I use both, and though I have made a few prints in my life , I do not think it is possible to make these two papers look the same.

Historically somewhat nuetral Silver Prints that I am use to seeing in books and exhibitions.
I would use Ilford Warmtone with a slight selenium tone 1:5 for 30-45 seconds.
this gives a slight change to the overall tone of the print, primarly in the low tones, but to my eyes resembles a historically nice silver print.
There is no way in hell I can make the same quality print from the same negative with MG4 using the same formulas. the Warmtone print just has more sparkle, tone, brilliance , vocabulary , whatever you want to use to describe the difference.

Sepia Toned or slight sepia tone prints
now the reverse is true, I would not waste my time with Ilford Warmtone but rather go to MG4 and with bleaching time varied to the amount of warmth I want.
The blacks hold better with MG4 and I will state that no way in hell can one make the same type of sepia print with these two different papers using the same neg.

Multiple , Duo , Tri and Quad toned prints.
-Now all bets are off as both papers can work well and give wonderful results that I can sell to my clients.
Once again there is no way in hell that you can match prints using different paper but with same neg/ formulas.


I have used both these papers extensively and my observations on these two papers come from the darkroom making prints for myself and others, there may be some who can match these papers , but I am skeptical of this.
I do not switch brands very often, I tested extensively years ago when the availability of paper was solid, lately I have stuck with Ilford as there product is consistant and therefore I can envision the final look of a print before I walk in the darkroom and have confidence the paper is fresh, not greyed out, emulsion scratched or many common problems that can occur with suspect paper.
About 7 years ago I questioned my stubborness of the Ilford line and tested.
forte, bergger, oriental, rembrance, kodak , Agfa, and the Ilford papers.
used the same neg/formuals and tried to match the overall look and feel of the scene.

I always gravitated to the Ilford Warmtone and there for stuck with it. Only veering away when multiple toning or sepia was called for.

[Greg Blank]

At the time I tested Ilford Warm-tone it was one of the least warm-tone papers on the market. Only by toning it were we able to get it to be what I would call warm-tone- or close to how it was being represented in marketing. That stated the printers developer choice greatly changes paper appearance. I have tried many developers because I have had access to them. Once I started formulating my own developers it opened a lot of options.

Lets be frank, if a paper base is cream and another is white its hard to say exact duplicate- no matter how you print the image on it. People will see the two differently.
I actually ran a test doing this, I printed the same image identical on warm and cool nuetral tone papers. The contrast was measurablely the same but folks I showed them to could not see that the contrast was the same.

I guess what I am driving at is relative contrast among papers, that is what I will say that I can match. I also like Ilford papers, nice and consistent. That is why I splurged this year and bought the 44"x100 foot Ilford roll to print from some of my 8x10 negatives :)



Lets compare two papers.
Ilford Warmtone and Ilford MG4

I use both, and though I have made a few prints in my life , I do not think it is possible to make these two papers look the same.

Historically somewhat nuetral Silver Prints that I am use to seeing in books and exhibitions.
I would use Ilford Warmtone with a slight selenium tone 1:5 for 30-45 seconds.
this gives a slight change to the overall tone of the print, primarly in the low tones, but to my eyes resembles a historically nice silver print.
There is no way in hell I can make the same quality print from the same negative with MG4 using the same formulas. the Warmtone print just has more sparkle, tone, brilliance , vocabulary , whatever you want to use to describe the difference.

Sepia Toned or slight sepia tone prints
now the reverse is true, I would not waste my time with Ilford Warmtone but rather go to MG4 and with bleaching time varied to the amount of warmth I want.
The blacks hold better with MG4 and I will state that no way in hell can one make the same type of sepia print with these two different papers using the same neg.

Multiple , Duo , Tri and Quad toned prints.
-Now all bets are off as both papers can work well and give wonderful results that I can sell to my clients.
Once again there is no way in hell that you can match prints using different paper but with same neg/ formulas.


I have used both these papers extensively and my observations on these two papers come from the darkroom making prints for myself and others, there may be some who can match these papers , but I am skeptical of this.
I do not switch brands very often, I tested extensively years ago when the availability of paper was solid, lately I have stuck with Ilford as there product is consistant and therefore I can envision the final look of a print before I walk in the darkroom and have confidence the paper is fresh, not greyed out, emulsion scratched or many common problems that can occur with suspect paper.
About 7 years ago I questioned my stubborness of the Ilford line and tested.
forte, bergger, oriental, rembrance, kodak , Agfa, and the Ilford papers.
used the same neg/formuals and tried to match the overall look and feel of the scene.

I always gravitated to the Ilford Warmtone and there for stuck with it. Only veering away when multiple toning or sepia was called for.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg- your conclusion would be valid only under the odd condition that densitometer
results could be read in braille. For those of us who use our eyes instead, papers differ
significantly. Saying one can "duplicate results" is a pretty ambiguous statement. If
that were the case, I wouldn't have so many different kinds of papers, developers,
and toners around. One shoe just doesn't fit all, unless of course, you're willing to
tolerate a relatively uncomfortable fit. Simply getting the scale of the negative onto
the paper is Little League.

[Greg Blank]

Drew when you get to the point where you have answered as many questions about B&W printing to little leaguers as I have, come back and we will have a discussion :)

I have seen oh so many poorly done tests to show me what were percieved as faults of paper, only to use my own negatives and see none of those faults reappear.




. Simply getting the scale of the negative onto
the paper is Little League.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg - I was not implying that you yourself are little league. But stating that any image
can be printed on a single selected paper is just like competently playing chords on a piano over and over, without ever making music. Of course the labs do it because they
need to keep overhead low and keep things moving right along. Around here they used
to standardize on Polygrade V, but now seem to use Kentmere. Good strategy, if you're
a lab. But some of us like to belive that ice cream comes in more flavors than just
vanilla, and that there's a good reason for it.

[Greg Blank]

At five foot six I guess I could still try out ;)


Greg - I was not implying that you yourself are little league. But stating that any image
can be printed on a single selected paper is just like competently playing chords on a piano over and over, without ever making music. Of course the labs do it because they
need to keep overhead low and keep things moving right along. Around here they used
to standardize on Polygrade V, but now seem to use Kentmere. Good strategy, if you're
a lab. But some of us like to belive that ice cream comes in more flavors than just
vanilla, and that there's a good reason for it.

[Drew Wiley]

Greg - when I was little and came up to bat, the school flag flew at half mast. Baseball was the one sport I was terrible at, and the only Little League team I ever
joined was the Indian Res one - I was double pariah both because I was the only
white guy on the team and because, well, ... there's a reason they wanted me way,
way out in left field, past the fence and standing amidst the cow pies. I'll agree with you that some beginners simply make things too complicated and would learn faster if they stuck to a simpler list of options in the dkrm. I've got one of those folks tagging along with me lately. But I'm an omnivore myself, and some of the very best prints I ever made were fortuitous blunders working with unfamiliar materials. It just depends on the individual temperament and budget. So I'm not particularly in sympathy with Michael Smith's doctrine that there's only one correct way to learn contact printing, or with Barnbaum's monopolistic notion of how to learn conventional silver printing. For some folks, the wolverine is a better example of how to proceed: simply devour everything in sight, digest it, and learn from experience.