I'm trying Fiber papers for the first time.

[sruddy]

I haven't been in a darkroom since I was a teen and I have no idea what type of stock I used back then. I have recently started doing analog printing and up until now have use ilford MGRC. I like it because it lays flat after drying but I hate the way it feels. I was an offset lithographer for many years so I have an appreciation for different types of stock, so I'm starting to try fiber enlarging papers. I was printing a 10.5 x 10.5" image on 11 x 14 Ilford MGFB Classic then I decided to try doing a print on 8 x 10 Adox MCC110 with no adjustments. I was using a Durst AC800 which adjusts exposure according to the height of the head, but so far has required an exposure tweak. I'm mentioning this as the first exposure was darker, than than my Ilford Classic but more importantly it seemed way flatter!! So much so I didn't feel I could get a close match using the same #2 contrast filter I did on the Ilford paper. So I put in a 3# for the Adox and dropped the density a bit. I didn't have the time to work further on it, but the Adox had flatter contrast. BTW, at least for now I'm sticking with one type/brand developer for all papers. I gave the Adox paper the same 1.5 minutes in the Ilford multigrade developer I gave the Ilford Classic. Then I read the Adox pdf and found they are recommending 1 minute in a developer I don't use and no Ilford developer cross reference. I'm guessing the density difference maybe partially due to over development but the contrast difference seems significant! I think I may really like the Adox once I learn how to print it. It's a bit warmer and seems to have a smoother tonal range, but doesn't seem to be nearly as bright. the whites don't seem to pop like they do on the Ilford classic. So that's about it, just would like to hear others experiences.

[koraks]

I print quite a lot on adox mcc110 and 112. No lack of contrast here and no specific requirements on developers; it just works. Over developing a print is not really a concern if development times remain somewhat reasonable. Your 1 minute is maybe on the short side but it depends on the developer and dilution you use. I generally develop for 1m30s in ID78 1+9 or D72 1+2 or so. Note that different papers/emulsions have different curves, so exposure and contrast settings will have to be adjusted when going from one paper to another; this is completely normal.
Have fun printing fb; I hear you on the different feel of different stocks and the appreciation of various paper characteristics. You won't regret going to fb once you've figured your paper(s) out.

[Fred L]

Filtration that may look great on MGFB may not work with another brand. You're not going to be able to translate print data from one paper to another imo. Same with developing times. With Formulary 130, I process at least 3 minutes for Bergger Neutral.

Guess the point is you're probably going to have to experiment until you find a paper you love. For me that's Bergger (and what I have left of Zone VI Brilliant Graded, and the blue box Oriental).

[Jeroen]

Adox MCC-110 is a great paper with very deep blacks, but manufacturers are always way too optimistic when it comes to developing times, especially with fiber papers. I develop Adox MCC-110 in Adox Neutol WA 1+9 / 1+14 @20 deg C. for at least 3 minutes, sometimes up to 4 minutes. Just try it out.

[awty]

I can never get away with not doing a test strip to work out exposure times and contrast. Also let dry, because some papers dry darker than others.
Agree that 2 mins in the developer minimum. I usually wait till it looks fully developed in the tray and leave it for another minute.

[LabRat]

Just be careful when doing extended development, as little change sometimes is visible wet, but often shadow areas can darken excessively when bone dry...

Also, final dry will happen even after normal drying, and it will finally happen when the print is flattened in a hot press, where the final remains of moisture are driven out of the paper...

This happens due to the silver that is suspended in the swollen gelatin that allows light to penetrate, but as the thickness gets thinner and thinner, the grains start to overlap each other, and fills the space to make the dmax...

Too much developed silver there = higher density in shadows...

Steve K

[martingewis]

I haven't been in a darkroom since I was a teen and I have no idea what type of stock I used back then. I have recently started doing analog printing and up until now have use ilford MGRC. I like it because it lays flat after drying but I hate the way it feels. I was an offset lithographer for many years so I have an appreciation for different types of stock, so I'm starting to try fiber enlarging papers. I was printing a 10.5 x 10.5" image on 11 x 14 Ilford MGFB Classic then I decided to try doing a print on 8 x 10 Adox MCC110 with no adjustments. I was using a Durst AC800 which adjusts exposure according to the height of the head, but so far has required an exposure tweak. I'm mentioning this as the first exposure was darker, than than my Ilford Classic but more importantly it seemed way flatter!! So much so I didn't feel I could get a close match using the same #2 contrast filter I did on the Ilford paper. So I put in a 3# for the Adox and dropped the density a bit. I didn't have the time to work further on it, but the Adox had flatter contrast. BTW, at least for now I'm sticking with one type/brand developer for all papers. I gave the Adox paper the same 1.5 minutes in the Ilford multigrade developer I gave the Ilford Classic. Then I read the Adox pdf and found they are recommending 1 minute in a developer I don't use and no Ilford developer cross reference. I'm guessing the density difference maybe partially due to over development but the contrast difference seems significant! I think I may really like the Adox once I learn how to print it. It's a bit warmer and seems to have a smoother tonal range, but doesn't seem to be nearly as bright. the whites don't seem to pop like they do on the Ilford classic. So that's about it, just would like to hear others experiences.

I often use Fomaspeed 313 RC paper to get going with a print, and then I continue with Adox MCC. The exposure times do not differ that much, but the contrast filter has to be adjusted. This might be true between Ilford and Adox as well. Often, when the proper contrast filter is 3 on Foma, I have to use 4 on Adox to get approximately the same result. Where I find Adox MCC to be particularly strong, is in getting very subtle tonal ranges, especially in the highlights. Very nice paper indeed!

Verstuurd vanaf mijn Nexus 9 met Tapatalk