PDA

View Full Version : Ilford FB Classic and FB Cooltone review



Ektar
8-Jan-2014, 03:14
I've been playing around with a few sheets of each of the new papers and posted some early impressions here (http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com).

Bottom line? They're beautiful papers and I can't wait to get some more!


The Gate. FB Classic, Mamiya Press 6x9
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jJb8T4xHPbg/Ur9ib9kWWCI/AAAAAAAAIEo/icqSuUxz1qo/s1600/gate+colour.jpg

Drew Wiley
8-Jan-2014, 09:33
I put my initial impressions on a previous thread. I still have some basic experimenting I want to do on the Cooltone before I get involved with the Neutral version,
but am particularly interested in how these two products compare relative to toning.

Drew Wiley
8-Jan-2014, 09:59
Having just read your complete online review, about all I can say is that Cooltone does have a distinct amt of drydown, equivalent approximately to MGWT. It's an
undeniable factor.

Ektar
8-Jan-2014, 17:24
Having just read your complete online review, about all I can say is that Cooltone does have a distinct amt of drydown, equivalent approximately to MGWT. It's an
undeniable factor.

Thanks for pointing that out Drew. I have to say that I never noticed much dry down to speak of in either of the prints I made but I'll do a test for it when I get some more paper.

Drew Wiley
8-Jan-2014, 17:32
It's going to be a bit of a learning curve for me, because with this paper it's a very fine line between almost pure white and very subtly detailed high-key greys.
So you can either win or lose the entire ballgame on very minor differences of exposure, and it's really hard to judge until complete drydown, though heat-drying a
test strip obviously gives a clue. I'm fairly amazed at how much fine detail can be held in the high zones. The DMax might not knock your sox off like it can with
MGWT, but is distinctly better than MGIV, with excellent gradation in the shadows too. I don't know if this will turn out to be an A+ paper for me like MGWT, but
it definitely deserves a solid A- at a minimum on the report card. But it takes awhile to fairly judge anything new. It is a damn easy paper to print, once you get used
to the FAST speed.

Ektar
9-Jan-2014, 01:58
It's going to be a bit of a learning curve for me, because with this paper it's a very fine line between almost pure white and very subtly detailed high-key greys.
So you can either win or lose the entire ballgame on very minor differences of exposure, and it's really hard to judge until complete drydown, though heat-drying a
test strip obviously gives a clue. I'm fairly amazed at how much fine detail can be held in the high zones. The DMax might not knock your sox off like it can with
MGWT, but is distinctly better than MGIV, with excellent gradation in the shadows too. I don't know if this will turn out to be an A+ paper for me like MGWT, but
it definitely deserves a solid A- at a minimum on the report card. But it takes awhile to fairly judge anything new. It is a damn easy paper to print, once you get used
to the FAST speed.

I agree that it's important to be on the money where the correct exposure time is concerned but I found it easy to get a couple of nice prints done without much bother which is always a good sign. I wanted to get the highlight on the white paintwork on The gate just right and managed it OK. I never noticed any dry down effect on this highlight which is why I said I didn't see any. But I've only done a couple of prints and it might well be the case that if I pay more attention to this aspect I'll see it too. You certainly seem to be more familiar with the paper than I am.

Bruce Barlow
9-Jan-2014, 07:59
Having just read your complete online review, about all I can say is that Cooltone does have a distinct amt of drydown, equivalent approximately to MGWT. It's an
undeniable factor.

Drydown is a simple test. That said, betcha it's 10%.

Ektar
10-Jan-2014, 02:54
I just noticed that I posted the URL of my blog's home page rather than the URL of the actual Ilford review in my first message. Sorry for that. You'll get something different if you go there now so here's the review URL:

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/ilford-fb-classic-and-cooltone-first.html




I've been playing around with a few sheets of each of the new papers and posted some early impressions here (http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com).

Bottom line? They're beautiful papers and I can't wait to get some more!


The Gate. FB Classic, Mamiya Press 6x9
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jJb8T4xHPbg/Ur9ib9kWWCI/AAAAAAAAIEo/icqSuUxz1qo/s1600/gate+colour.jpg

Drew Wiley
10-Jan-2014, 09:20
Bruce, 10% is a probably a realistic factor, but with a paper like this, capable of bringing detail well up the scale, very small differences can distinguish between a good print and a great one. So I won't abandon my habit of making minor variations in printing, then evaluating them after a complete air drydown when my eyes are fresh. Drying test strips gets close, but doesn't always hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately, I've gotten some richness of detail that would probably be difficult to appreciate if the print were even framed under glass - really delicate, the kind of thing where you want to hold the print in your hands. And the paper seems rather resistant to selective bleaching with Farmers, but I state that tentatively, because my experimenting is needed. But if this proves true, one more reason to hit those highlights exactly. ... not that I'm claiming this paper is difficult to use. It isn't. It just gives one more control in the highlights than MGIV did.

Ektar
10-Jan-2014, 16:48
Bruce, 10% is a probably a realistic factor, but with a paper like this, capable of bringing detail well up the scale, very small differences can distinguish between a good print and a great one. So I won't abandon my habit of making minor variations in printing, then evaluating them after a complete air drydown when my eyes are fresh. Drying test strips gets close, but doesn't always hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately, I've gotten some richness of detail that would probably be difficult to appreciate if the print were even framed under glass - really delicate, the kind of thing where you want to hold the print in your hands. And the paper seems rather resistant to selective bleaching with Farmers, but I state that tentatively, because my experimenting is needed. But if this proves true, one more reason to hit those highlights exactly. ... not that I'm claiming this paper is difficult to use. It isn't. It just gives one more control in the highlights than MGIV did.

If FB Cooltone were a woman, I'd swear that you had a wee thing going for her, Drew. :)

Drew Wiley
10-Jan-2014, 17:02
Well ... it would be cheating, because my real dame at this point in time is MGWT ... but ya never know!

Bruce Barlow
11-Jan-2014, 06:42
Bruce, 10% is a probably a realistic factor, but with a paper like this, capable of bringing detail well up the scale, very small differences can distinguish between a good print and a great one. So I won't abandon my habit of making minor variations in printing, then evaluating them after a complete air drydown when my eyes are fresh. Drying test strips gets close, but doesn't always hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately, I've gotten some richness of detail that would probably be difficult to appreciate if the print were even framed under glass - really delicate, the kind of thing where you want to hold the print in your hands. And the paper seems rather resistant to selective bleaching with Farmers, but I state that tentatively, because my experimenting is needed. But if this proves true, one more reason to hit those highlights exactly. ... not that I'm claiming this paper is difficult to use. It isn't. It just gives one more control in the highlights than MGIV did.

In ancient times, when I tested 12 papers and 12 print developers, I also tested for drydown (free downloads of the articles I wrote on the bwbarlow.wordpress.com site - don't we wish some of these papers were still available...). Almost all the papers I tested came in at 10%, the notable exception being Galerie.

I kept a chart on the wall. When I'd print, I'd make the best print I could when looking at it wet. Then for final prints, take off the drydown percentage from the initial exposure. Actually, I have a Zone VI drydown timer that does it on all exposures - including when I'm dodging and burning. Voila! The final prints would look light when wet, but perfect when dry.

I did a project of hand-made books with real prints, and had to make 25 identical prints from each portrait. I got to where I could make all 25 easily, compensating for dry-down automatically. The worst part was the boredom developing prints 5 at a time.

Ektar
11-Jan-2014, 15:31
In ancient times, when I tested 12 papers and 12 print developers, I also tested for drydown (free downloads of the articles I wrote on the bwbarlow.wordpress.com site - don't we wish some of these papers were still available...). Almost all the papers I tested came in at 10%, the notable exception being Galerie.

I kept a chart on the wall. When I'd print, I'd make the best print I could when looking at it wet. Then for final prints, take off the drydown percentage from the initial exposure. Actually, I have a Zone VI drydown timer that does it on all exposures - including when I'm dodging and burning. Voila! The final prints would look light when wet, but perfect when dry.

I did a project of hand-made books with real prints, and had to make 25 identical prints from each portrait. I got to where I could make all 25 easily, compensating for dry-down automatically. The worst part was the boredom developing prints 5 at a time.

That's pretty hardcore, Bruce. Henry Ford would have been proud of you!

Bruce Barlow
11-Jan-2014, 16:33
The portrait book roject was hard core. Adjusting for drydown is automatic.

Gregg Cook
17-Jan-2014, 16:49
You have more highlight control than with MGiv? I love it already.

Thanks for the reprints Bruce!!!!!