FB Paper...suggestions?

[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.