Printable View
There's a similar thread in the digital section, but I want to know specifically which paper you like best for darkroom work, and why? Let's leave silver chloride papers out of the discussion and concentrate on paper for enlargers.
Feel free to discuss developers as well.
I'm impartial to the Adox MC RC papers. Yes, that's right, resin coated. For their high gloss, ease of use and rapid processing. They also tone quite well. Very affordable too. They make wet printing a worry free and rewarding effort for me.
You mean partial not impartial :D Impartial - Treating all parties, rivals, or disputants equally; not partial; not biased; fair.
My favourite is Forte Polywarmtone (FB) I still have a reasonable amount left from the last production run and did some exhibition prints on it yesterday, just flattening in my Dry mounting press as I write. Great tonality wonderful warm tones my all time favourite paper, I'm having to replace it with Ilord Warmtone FB.
My main paper developer is Ilford ID-78 once commercially available, I mix more concentrated than the published formula substituting Potassium Carbonate and a small amount of Sodium Hydroxide for the Sodium Carbonate that gives me an equivalent to Ilford Warmtone and Agfa WA developers, excellent control of image warmth/colour.
Ian
For me it doesn't make sense to think of a "best" or "favorite" paper, because what works best depends on the match between the paper's characteristic curve and the negative's characteristic curve. So pictures taken on different films and/or recording scenes with very different tonal scales will do best on different papers.
I try to keep in stock all of the current Ilford Multigrade emulsions - MG IV RC Deluxe, MG RC Warmtone, and MG RC Cooltone, MG FB Classic, MG FB Warmtone and MG FB Cooltone - since each has a different characteristic curve and so is best suited to different negatives. That's a lot of emulsions and so I don't have all of them in all sizes at all times, but that's the basic idea. An important point is that the Ilford RC and FB emulsions are not clones of each other. The RC and FB emulsions within each "pair" - RC Deluxe and FB Classic, RC and FB Cooltone, and RC and FB Warmtone - have quite different tonal scales.
EDIT: Forgot to add, I don't care that much about paper developers. Generally it's either Ilford PQ Universal or Ilford Multigrade, whichever I can get cheaper in the big 5 L jug.
I had high hopes for ADOX MCP 312, so ordered some directly from FOTOIMPEX, but was disappointed by this:
Instead, I rely on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC Pearl, developed in ADOX MCC paper developer
and then toned in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner diluted 1+19 for two minutes at around 75 degrees F. Dead neutral results with the high dmax of Ilford's warmtone paper, very low water usage and more than enough print life for my purposes, even if sealed in a frame.
I've settled on Ilford Multigrade Warmtone Fibre paper, the images just seem to sit better on it, the contrast is easy to work with, very controllable, predictable, even forgiving. It tones marvelously.
My favourite BW paper is Ilford Matt with Sepia, followed by Art 300 toned.
For documentary work I like Ilford Warmtone.
I've never seen anything actually labeled as "analogue" or even "analog" paper. I have no idea what that means. Seems like a nomenclature ploy invented by electronics marketing geeks to make darkroom workers seem like the odd man out, on the defensive. Forget that nonsense. Otherwise, I keep a variety of darkroom papers on hand, and I assume people are talking about b&w papers at the moment. I use the whole suite of Iford FB glossy papers: Ilfobrom Galeries, lots of MGWT, a certain amount of Classic and Cooltone. Have odds n' ends of numerous discontinued papers still on hand, including EMaks graded, Kentmere Fiineprint VC, maybe a bit of Polygrade V left. Plus some matte MGWT. I don't "standardize" on any one thing. I tailor the paper, developer, and toning regimen to specific imagery, but of course pick several related negatives in any given darkroom session to optimize my time and materials.
Duly noted. Perhaps we should include which film we are printing from in the posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
My word choice was predicated on choosing a term, that, however inaccurate it might be, most readers would understand to mean "paper for standard darkroom developing as opposed to digital printing." A retronym, if you will. Like land-line, hardcover book, manual typewriter/transmission, or desktop computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Good assumption about B+W. I should have clarified. If it's not too late to edit I'll correct the initial post.
For large format, mostly HP5 Plus here these days. And with that film and making contact prints, I find myself using mostly MG RC Warmtone, sometimes MG RC Cooltone for denser negatives, once in a while something else to solve a special problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
PS: Your word choice was fine - your meaning was clear.
I will agree with Oren -- the paper choice comes down to a melding of image, negative qualities, and process/paper to achieve the print one wants. When I am photographing, all three come into play and are equally important to me.
When I was silver printing, for desert, sea, snow and rock images, I enjoyed the clean (neutral color) look of Ilford Gallery, glossy. For images under the redwoods, I preferred the warm tones (and surface!) of Portriga Rapid 111. Now I make my own print material (alt processes), and generally am thinking in terms of the platinum process or carbon process when photographing. The processes require negatives of different charateristics -- and sometimes I will even expose two negatives and process one for Platinum and one for carbon. But carbon printing reverses the image, so compositionally, that does not always work.
Drew - when you do your large scale exhibits , do you not find it confusing to the audience to be looking at a smorgasbord of types of papers , tones. I do not understand this thinking of trying to match each image to a paper.
I have always tried to do a gallery show with consistent print to print so that it hangs together as one body of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I think approaches vary, most likely because of the end goal which may differ quite substantially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
In my case I'm mostly working on coherent exhibition sets and print everything in a set in a similar way, same paper/developer and ocassionally have to reprint images where my initial interpretation may perhpas not fit well in a sequence despite being my prefferred interpretation as an indivdual print. It's mostly contrast/density rather than any dodging/burning.
With warm tone papers choice of developer has a big impact and is quite critical so I find your comment odd :D
Ian
Absolutely not, Bob. I mix sizes, frame styles, and even color prints with black and white. I even like to put tiny little grainy 35mm prints next to big immaculately
detailed glossy Cibachromes. Of course, all this is carefully choreographed, with nothing arbitrarily selected or arranged. In fact, I once basically split a public retrospective where the curator himself interspersed, side-by-side, my big rather Zen-ish color Cibas between classic vintage black and white mural prints by
someone whose first and last initials happen to be the same. The geographic content was similar, but the two ways of looking at things as different as they could be; but the overall effect accentuated both of us. I certainly don't care for cluttered walls like the Victorian fad of pictures everywhere, much less the
zombified ineractive paintballs wars in current in certain public art venues. But I'm also left a bit cold by the overtly neat bug-collection mentality of many traditional exhibitions. I like to hit viewers at different levels - give them a big arcane subject with a ton a detail in it that has them wondering why the hell someone took and framed that thing in the first place. Then they walk up to a tiny little print beside it, then start noticing the incredible detail in the big one,
back off and take a second look, get bothered. It grows on them. What I utterly despise, even worse than postcardy stuff, is the instant-gratification "gotcha"
mentality of advertising photography. Fine for ads, but leave it out of frames. Maybe that not the best strategy for selling things, but if I just wanna sell commodities, I've done that my whole life. The darkroom is for me first, my personal satisfaction, then its up to the viewers to decide if they like something or not.
Some 320TXP, some Delta 100. All sheets, all developed in XTOL (1+1.5 for the 320TXP, 1+3 for the Delta 100).Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
Drew once again I am flummoxed by your post. San Fran must be an eclectic place , We are quite boring here in the East with our approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
This is a good point, and similarly Bob's concern about exhibiting. I might do the same, depending on what I was intending to show.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanG
Bob, I even pull these kinds of stunts on architectural advice. People spend stunning sums of money refinishing old homes with all their now nonexistent old cuts
of redwood or hardwoods. It is utterly impossible to make this kind of project look like boring formica when they get done. Live with the character of the flaws,
luxuriate in them, and when that doesn't work, throw a coffee table into the room made from an utterly unrelated wood species, distinct and complementary yet not clashing. That pulls everything together. Or throw up some gorgeous bright seashell into an alcove. I wouldn't call it eclectic. I call it comparison, weighing one thing against another, just like a good chef would do. Gotta keep the taste buds cleansed and refreshed. Chase your wine with something else before tasting another sample. OK, OK, go ahead with another California stereotype if you wish, but yeah, there is a lot of wine and cheese around here, a lot of microbrew ale
too.
It seems to me there's more than one valid approach for curating an exhibit, but as interesting as the discussion is, it's veering off-topic. Time, perhaps, for a new thread?
I presently have two shows up. One is a mix of 16x20 silver gelatin prints, 8x10 and 4x10 platinum prints, and a 5x7 carbon print. Not exactly a gallery setting (the Taproom of the Mad River Brewing Company), but it is my introduction as a photographer to the local community I have moved to. It works.
The other show is in a gallery setting. I have mostly 2 1/4" sq. platinum prints matted and framed. Half in black wood frames 5"x5". The other half are framed in misc. metal frame samples from a framing shop...so the two halves of each frame do not exactly match (in profile they do, but may be different in color or texture), and of course no two frames are alike except in the outside dimensions. In addition I have a 3 foot by 7 foot digital print (vertical) hanging on the wall (of girders of the Golden Gate Bridge) in the middle of these small prints just to throw a big shift of scale at the gallery visitors. Lots of fun!
But many times I have gone the route of normal behavior and consistent printing style/presentation. Me at my Philly show a few years back...thanks Harris Fogel for the photo!
PS -- it was a mix of 8x10 platinum prints and carbon prints -- segragated by walls.
I'm currently getting to know MCC 110. I'm also using some MG Classic but still not quite sure about it. It has a relatively unique curve shape in comparison to other contemporary VC papers, and the former MGIV. I just need to adapt to it I guess. I've used other papers in the past. On the warm tone side I occasionally use MGWT.
With respect to developers, current enlarging papers generally have most of their characteristics "baked in", so to speak. So they are less responsive to older developer controls. I've found it takes a fairly radical alteration to the developer to make any real difference on the various papers I've used (although warmer toned papers are generally more flexible than neutral/colder toned papers), so besides experiments, it's basically Dektol nearly all the time for me, followed by mild selenium toning.
I generally prefer a relatively neutral print colour for most of my work.
To slightly re-frame what I said before, I think the relevant underlying issue here is whether the attributes of a paper - color, FB or RC base, surface finish, DMax, etc. - are central to one's expressive purposes. If so, "what is your favorite paper?" might have a clear answer and might drive one's other technical choices, to enable use of that paper and/or optimize results with it. On the other hand, if one sees paper as secondary to other choices - in my case film choice and exposure habits are primary - then paper may be chosen to best suit the resulting negatives and the idea of "favorite" loses much of its punch, though one might still prefer some products over others to meet the range of requirements posed by one's negatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by seezee
Of course, for others all of that might be highfalutin nonsense, any of a wide range of papers might be basically OK and picking one could be mostly a matter of convenience - availability, price, whatever.
Anyway, I understood you as hoping people would identify specific papers they prefer to use and talk about why.
So to elaborate a bit more on the reasons for my choices: I tend to prefer quiet prints with a gentle, open tonal scale with information all the way from deepest shadows to brightest highlights. Also, I don't usually have patience for spending hours in local manipulation to try to shoehorn a negative into a paper that doesn't really fit. That's why curve match is a key consideration for me. And in particular, the steeper the shoulder in my negatives, the longer the toe I look for in my paper. MG RC Warmtone is very handy in that respect. MG IV RC Deluxe is arguably more powerful medicine, but it has a kink in its characteristic curve that is a mixed blessing - it helps make the brightest highlights more readily printable, but often at the price of sucking the vitality out of the upper midtones and lower highlights.
my favorite paper is expired rc and fb paper, and hand coated with liquid emulsion, and
i put it in a film holder or back of a camera and make paper negatives with it. i'd rather coat
smooth paper ( like "virgin" (uncoated) butcher paper ) for me at least,
it comes out really nice ... im not too particular about printing, i print on whatever i can find too..
Well said, and I thank you for your careful analysis of personal choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
I use fixed-out photo paper (usually very expired, and glossy) as my final support for my single-transfer carbon prints. My stash of paper is pretty sweet -- a lot of 11x14 Elite and Brovira.Quote:
Originally Posted by jnanian
I'm a fiber base, graded, glossy kind of guy. I've got a variety of the stuff stocked in my freezer, enough to last quite a few years, but at last look is seems like Ilford Galerie is about the only one Freestyle still carries.
Realistically, I see paper selection as part of an ensemble, depending on film, subject, and chemicals used. It's sort of like a combo----cheeseburger, fries and a soda. The "right" paper compliments the desired effect----just like the right cheese on a cheeseburger. Pepper Jack, Horseradish Cheddar, Maytag Blue, or ?
(slightly off-topic again) ... but I admire your marketing scheme, Vaughn, attracting crowds into a print venue by advertising a taxidermied Sasquatch in the middle
of the room.
This will be my favorite when I can find someone to print with it for me...
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...690b31bbc2.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...3c26d82930.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...f8f2755019.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...9aada7cf59.jpg
Anyone want to trade? I'll split whatever paper is in here 50/50 if you make prints for me.
How about it Drew? You say you're the expert on ilfo or cibi, will you be my printer?
But seriously this stuff has been frozen until I got it last month and I would like to get some images made while there's any chance of it still being usable.
The 20x24 got wet when taken out of the freezer and the ice melted on it but inside is good.
So yea, this is now my favorite paper.
Thanks Stone; but I only have enough chem on hand for my own remaining frozen stash of 20x24 CPM Ciba. The concentrated P3 chem itself is probably
still fine, but even frozen the highlights in the paper might have drifted into crossover zone. No way of knowing until I start color printing again, which certainly
won't be this year at all. Got way too many pre-retirement chores going on, though the lab itself is pretty much ready to go with its upgrades, other than reconfiguring a work station or two for eventual dye transfer printing. I've got quite a backlog of both drymounting and RA4 printing once I do retire from the day
job.
Currently: Ilford Multigrade Classic FB - souped in Moersch 4812. This combo offers great D-Max and a brilliance which to me mimics the addition of a restrainer. Highlight protection achieved with Pyro developers for films. Also, Ilford Multigrade Warmtone FB - souped in Moersch SE-6. A bit counterintuitive...but gives me brilliance and depth - and a "KRST-ish" tonality.
In Another Life: The "Old" Oriental fiber (graded) - souped in sequence: first in Selectol, then Dektol - timing each to fine tune contrast. Amazing!
Also...the "Old" Agfa Portriga (graded) - souped in Dektol or LPD - for a "strident" (not mushy) warmth and tonal depth which remains unmatched...but I can get very close currently with the Ilford Warmtone/Morsch SE-6 combo.
The Developer Chems are still available fresh (at least past B and part C) you don't need old stock developer so that's no issue I'll spend the $40 + $30 for it ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
So we are good? This is a yes since the Chems are taken care of?
We can PM if you're willing to make them if I can get you the chemistry.
Bleach is the problem. Basically sulfuric acid, so tricky to ship just anywhere. If you need me to print something, the paper first has to be balanced, which tends to be a rapidly moving target once the paper is old. It shifts balance rather quickly once thawed; and the whole box has to be used up within a three months or so.
I don't know if I'm even going to get a chance to print Ciba again. The last of it is intended for a handful of key 8x10 images of my own.
Yikes!
Having set aside a pretty good stash, I haven't bought printing paper in quite awhile.
Imagine my surprise to find one of my favorites, Fomabrom 111 no longer available---gone like last week's pay, next month's rent and real rock and roll----gone like a freight train, gone like yesterday, gone like a soldier in the Civil War bang-bang.
What a revolting development.
I buy outdated FB paper in sealed boxes at bargain prices. More than half not good but the other half with all its silver just a pleasure to use. I've used really outdated Brovira, Varilour, and Varigram with excellent results. If the paper's no good I just use to make Chemigrams with.
When I print silver gelatin I use only the original Oriental Seagull in the blue box. It has a more pleasing scale, along with velvety blacks and nice clear whites. Ihave tried newer Seagull, Ilford Multigrade, Adox and a few others, but stay with this one.
hi jim,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
i still have a few sheets left of that stuff, bought in the 80s. ( random 8x10 and a few 11x14 ) it was all i printed on for years. they used to say it had more silver than any other paper ,,,
im not sure what it was --- i agree, a really nice rendition. if they still made it today i am sure it would cost a forutune, it was the most expensive thing sold between 84-90.
I really like Adox MCC in moersch eco 4812. I tone in moersch mt5 and like the results even more.
Yeah ... I should probably use up my own remaining sheets of 20x24 Seagull G before they're too old, if they aren't already. That was my go-to paper for quite a stretch. The reintroduced version just didn't have the same snap, and their VC versions were disappointing. Adox MCC is a nice paper for certain subjects; but I
find it somewhat lacking in flexibility toning-wise.
I'm fortunate to have a stash of the "old" Portriga Rapid in the 111 glossy finish - PRK-PRN-PRW. My favorite paper by far - great warm color, exceptional midtone contrast and beautiful creamy whites. I've had it frozen for many years and still prints like it did back in the 80's. I'm a graded paper guy and I develop in Dr. Beers which allows me some degree of contrast control as well. My second choices are the current Ilford warmtone fiber and Platinum-Palladium on COT 320.
Attachment 152333
Another classic paper, long gone! Them wahr the days! I have figured out how to get Portriga-like images specially toning MGWT.
I know in my case since I only print carbon transfer I have found many papers that fit my vision. In the last eight years of printing carbon I was set on Glossy Fiber paper. I have some '64 Ilford Bromide paper on rolls. Amazing stuff. I got as much of the Varycon Fiber Matte paper that I could before they closed their doors. I wish I could find more of that. Anyone have some?
Ten months later, a question. How would you characterize the image tone of this combination, both before and after KRST? What KRST dilution do you use and for how long? Thanks in advance.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Layton