What are Master Printers using for enlarging paper?

[Oren Grad]

It’s also worth noting it isn’t necessarily an all-or-nothing proposition.

True!

Regarding sensitometry (characteristic curves, film/paper matching etc.), yes some will claim that is important and/or that they have fine-tuned that relationship, but that is largely BS. If they didn’t know what they were using they would unknowingly work around it when printing, since that is where the real control is anyway, and that would be the end of it.

I'll respectfully disagree on this point. For a given result, I'd rather get there the easy way than the hard way. I'd rather print more different pictures than invest my limited time and energy in what feels to me like remedial work. With a good curve match the picture falls on to the paper with relatively little effort, and I'm free to move on. This latter is something I learned from experience; it turns out that Vestal made a similar point in the concluding chapter of his "Art of Black and White Enlarging".

Others enjoy, or at least don't mind, the manipulation as part of their craft, and that's OK too. It's just not my thing.

[PRJ]

I have a friend who used a certain Kodak paper. When Kodak announced they were quitting paper, a friend of his who was well known bought all of it in NA and had it sent to him. Things like that happen.

Personally I just move on. If you don't have a fortune laying around, what is the point of holding on to the past? Shame all the great papers of the past are gone, but at this point they are all toast too. I have a huge pile of all the old good papers, but they have all succumbed to age. I give them to friends that lith. There still are some good papers. I recently just switched over to Ilford Warm Tone. Not that anyone cares what I do. I did find Foma 111 to be rather lacking in blacks. I used it for years but the prints just didn't have that ooomph. I never thought to question the paper though. When I was setting up a Zonemaster meter last year I measured the blacks of the Foma paper and couldn't believe how weak they were. 13% reflectance compared to as low as 7% for the Ilford. That is a huge difference. I am loving life again since the switch.

Like John mentioned above, you can make your own. I am guessing that we will all be doing that at some point. When I was younger I made some beautiful prints with liquid emulsion. When one is not limited to only Barata paper it really opens up what one can do with a silver gelatin print.

[Ulophot]

John, Paul notes the print color of Fomatone Classic. I use Eco-Pro developer, different from Dektol. Note that you may need a longer development time with the Foma; I use 3 minutes whereas Ilford WT is 2. Also, the Foma emerges from the fixer (TF-5 in my case) wit the base looking quite warm. This neutralizes to become very close to Ilford after it's in the rinse/wash for a bit.

I use 1:80 (eighty) selenium with the Foma, and still it tones quickly; I keep it to about 3 minutes or less at 68 to room temp.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I did find Foma 111 to be rather lacking in blacks. I used it for years but the prints just didn't have that ooomph. I never thought to question the paper though. When I was setting up a Zonemaster meter last year I measured the blacks of the Foma paper and couldn't believe how weak they were. 13% reflectance compared to as low as 7% for the Ilford. That is a huge difference...

Was that FOMA 111 glossy or matt? If glossy, air dried? Is the Ilford you compared it to glossy, semi-matt or matt? Thanks in advance.

[PRJ]

Was that FOMA 111 glossy or matt? If glossy, air dried? Is the Ilford you compared it to glossy, semi-matt or matt? Thanks in advance.

Glossy/glossy. Air dried. The Foma was Fomabrom VC 111 just to be clear.

I occasionally use mat papers. The lack of density wouldn't bother me as much with a mat paper.

[LabRat]

Paper stocks get discontinued frequently, overseas shipments can suddenly stop, and existing stocks can be reformulated from time to time, so it is in a serious printer's bag-o-tricks to be able to adapt to the likely situation your favorite paper will be no more sooner or later... Stock up now, or figure how one might adapt to another (available) paper in the future... Printing requires flexibility/changes (from the printer)... ;(

Steve K

[Mark Sampson]

LabRat is right. Frederick Evans gave up photography when platinum papers became unavailable in England during WW1, and Edward Weston switched to silver printing in the same situation in Mexico in the early 1920s. Paul Strand bemoaned the loss of Kodak Illustrator's Special and spent the rest of his career trying t duplicate its look (even going so far as to varnish his prints, a conservator's nightmare).
I, too, am sorry that so many good papers have vanished. But I'll keep going with what's still available. Luckily there are a few good pairs out there to use, while I hope for the return of Adox.

[peter schrager]

I've been using Foma 131 glossy for years and it is a very good/great paper.
I also have been making my own Printing Out Paper for about 3 years now. it's work but so worth it because the prints are mine and are so easy to print.
I spend less and less time in the darkroom; only to develop negatives.
I've also begun to make my own Azo type paper...it's Gaslight paper and you print it by contact printing.

[bmikiten]

I've also begun to make my own Azo type paper...it's Gaslight paper and you print it by contact printing.[/QUOTE]

Please tell us more..... Tone? Scale? Speed? Examples?

[Drew Wiley]

Depends on the look someone wants, what happens to be on the market at the time, what they can afford etc. The reason there were so many paper choices is that they were so many different personal preferences. There is no generic answer to this kind of question, never will be. And today's paper choices are different from what they previously were anyway. I began with the great graded papers of yesteryear : Seagull G, Portriga, Brilliant Bromide, Ilford Galerie graded; and I still have a little EMaks graded left, another superb paper. Each of these papers had their own personality, and one could tailor specific images to whichever one worked best for a given specific image, like I did. Many others stuck with a single brand of paper as long as it was around. And today most papers are variable-contrast, with their own excellent options to pick and choose from as needed, with their own various personalities.

But regardless, it takes time to master anything; it doesn't happen just by mimicking someone else's paper choice. What an impoverished visual experience it would be if everyone did choose the same! You need to find the right fit for you, personally. And that will probably require a range of experimentation.