Examples of same image on different papers

[Tim Meisburger]

I have read a lot of discussion on the differences between various papers, but when I searched the forum I could not find any instances where people had posted the same image on two different papers, illustrating some particular characteristic of a paper. Can anyone point me towards examples on the forum, or if you have actually done comparisons, can you post some?

I raised this issue in another thread and the response was that I should just try a lot of different papers myself, but I live in Bangkok and have limited choices here, and its not easy or cheap to order a boatload of papers from the states on the off chance I might like one more than the others.

Best, Tim

[Joanna Carter]

Demonstrating the difference between papers is not an easy thing to do on a computer monitor. It is like comparing viewing a transparency to a print. The only way to do this is to see the results "in the flesh". Things like surface finish, degree of gloss, etc will be much more significant than can be demonstrated on a computer.

[Tim Meisburger]

Okay. I can understand how differnt paper textures would be hard to represent on a monitor, but people always talk about "deep velvety blacks" and warm or cool tones. Couldn't those be represented? Or are the differences between papers just to subtle to discern in a digital format?

If that is the case I will understand, as I recognize the laptop is an imperfect display medium.

Tim

[Gem Singer]

Tim,

One person's velvety black is another person's dark grey.

You're asking for the impossible.

Can't be done on a computer monitor.

[keeds]

Impossible as people say but here are examples of the same negative on different medium

Lith
POP (Gold Toned)
Palladium Na2
Lodima in Neutol WA

Actually the Lith is with a neg not Selenium toned to increase contrast. The other three are the same negative.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know if the paper manufacturers do this any more but they used to sell sample packets, with a couple sheets of various different kinds of papers so you could try them and see for yourself. You might check with Ilford and whoever else still makes b&w paper.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Keeds. Those are really interesting. Although they are quite different, I clearly prefer the look of the lith print and the Lodima, and makes me think I might try some of the Lodima sometime (perhaps not surprizing as I love the look of old Hollywood portraits).

What would be really interesting is to reduce the number of variables, use the same developer on four different papers, or perhaps use the recommended developer for each paper (although that might be over-complicated).

Gem, I understand that assessment is subjective, that one person/s gray may be another's velvet black, but that's why it seems to me that when discussing papers it would make sense to illustrate characteristics with images.

Anyone else have examples they can post?

[Tim Meisburger]

Keeds, looking at those images, I would say the Lodima has a longer or broader tonal range than the other images. Would you agree with that? How do you see the differences between these different approaches?
Best, Tim

[John Bowen]

Tim,

The guy who did the work for you is Bruce Barlow. About 5 years ago he did a series of articles for View Camera Magazine titled the Great Print/Developer Shoot Out.

Bruce contacted the different manufacturers, explained what he was doing and requested samples. He has 2 3" binders full of prints. I've taken a few workshops with Bruce, so have had an opportunity to view his work. His books are organized so you first view the same "proper proof" print on different papers. Once you identify the paper you prefer, you then view the same paper developed with different developers and different dilutions of the same developer until you find the combination you prefer.

The articles are available on Bruce's website

www.circleofthesunproductions.com

While you are there, check our Bruce's book "Finely Focused." It is well worth the $25.

I doubt Bruce would ship his work to Bangkok, but if you ever find youself in New Hampshire, give Bruce a call. He is a wonderful gentleman and I'm sure he would do his best to allow you access to his print binders.

My other advice would be to visit galleries/museums/university art shows and view the prints until you find what you like best, the inquire about the materials used to obtain that look. HOPEFULLY they are still available.

[Sevo]

Yep - it pretty much boils down to lecture, if you cannot get to see original prints. What with paper texture and reflectivity affecting a scanner different than the human eye, and enlarger, process, scanner and postproc plus the printer and scanner operator as variables in addition to the paper itself, a comparison of scans could at the very best tell you where to have your stuff printed and scanned...

[David A. Goldfarb]

I actually have a set of three of Keeds' prints from that neg in hand from one of the APUG print exchanges--Pd, POP, and Lodima. The Lodima print is particularly nice, and I'm surprised that it has such a solid black in Neutol WA 1+15, which was kind of a weak choice for Azo. Neutol WA 1+7 was somewhat better with Azo, but didn't come close to amidol or Ansco 130.

It's not quite the same as doing your own comparison with one neg, but you might consider joining the print exchange here on the LF forum or one of the APUG exchanges just to see what some other papers and processes look like.

I have to agree that you can only judge this sort of thing with prints in hand. Maybe you could find a single supplier like Freestyle who offers a selection of papers and order a bunch of 25-sheet packs of 8x10" to save on the shipping to Bangkok. I've done this and tried to get the best prints I could on a variety of papers and saved the prints for future reference. Of course these tests are only directly useful for a few years as papers change, go out of production, and new papers come onto the market. Then the old reference prints will let you make some retrospective comparisons.

[keeds]

David, I'm pretty sure it was Neutol WA 1+15 as that is what I always use for Ilford WT paper. It may have been 1+7 but I don't think so.

I agree the Lodima print is nice. The highlights are great with deep blacks. Very pleased with this.
POP - too flat
Pd - weak blacks

However, unfortunately I prefer the Lith version, which I did after sending you the other prints.

[Bill_1856]

[QUOTE=John Bowen;449857]Tim,

The guy who did the work for you is Bruce Barlow. About 5 years ago he did a series of articles for View Camera Magazine titled the Great Print/Developer Shoot Out.

The articles are available on Bruce's website

www.circleofthesunproductions.com

I agree with John that seeing Bruce's series was really helpful. Unfortunately, many of the papers he used are now gone.
My own favorite was Agfa Multicontrast developed in Amidol. Nearly equal was this same paper developed in Ansco 130 (my favorite developer). The Amidol stains your fingers, lasts only a few minutes, and is very expensive. The 130 is cheap, lasts forever, and doesn't stain. I think that the Agfa is back on the market, but when it was discontinued was when I started doing digital prints.

[Darren Kruger]

I raised this issue in another thread and the response was that I should just try a lot of different papers myself, but I live in Bangkok and have limited choices here, and its not easy or cheap to order a boatload of papers from the states on the off chance I might like one more than the others.

What are your paper choices? Maybe we can point out a small selection for you to try to see some of the differences.

-Darren

[Tim Meisburger]

Okay. I'm awake, sort of.

Thanks John for pointing out Bruce's work. That does sound like what I am after. I downloaded the article and wish Icouldget my hands on the example books.

Yes Sevo, but with all the post-processing capability provided by software, wouldn't it be possible for someone who actually understood photoshop to tweak digital images until they revealed the differences between papers? Even if those differences had to be somewhat exaggerated, that would still give a better illustration than a written description, right?

I guess I'm still sceptical that differences so obvious to people cannot be represented digitally in some way. Perhaps someone can post who has two prints of the same negative on different paper that they feel look quite different in life. If they look exactly the same on the screen, perhaps I will quit worrying about paper and get on with my life...

Thanks for the offer Darren. Paper available here is something called Tentenol TT Vario, Kentmere Fine print VC Glossy MG, and Kentmere VC Select Glossy. I have not tried either yet, as I had some Ilford MG glossy that I picked up during a quick trip to the US, but that is gone now, so if I want to print this weekend, I have to get one of the three above.

[Brian Ellis]

Keeds, looking at those images, I would say the Lodima has a longer or broader tonal range than the other images. Would you agree with that? How do you see the differences between these different approaches?
Best, Tim

All silver gelatin papers have essentially the same tonal range. The minor differences come in how the tones are distributed over the fairly limited available range. At least that's my recollection from reading Ctein's book "Post Exposure" some years back.