Paul, PS. quite often a FB paper dosen't "snap" until its selenium toned this of course applies to RC papers but they don't seem to show the effect quite as much. Regards,
Paul, PS. quite often a FB paper dosen't "snap" until its selenium toned this of course applies to RC papers but they don't seem to show the effect quite as much. Regards,
Paul, After using only RC papers for years I too am making the transition to FB and, coincidentally, like yourself started with Multigrade IV double-weight glossy (which I selected at random). I was very disappointed in the resulting 8x10 contacts when compared with Polycontrast III RC prints from the same negative; they were dull with a matte-like finish resembling a lustre surface paper. So I looked to some of my favorite photographers and found that Ansel made extensive use of Ilford Galerie dw graded (Print, pp. 49-50)and that John Sexton had printed much of Listen to the Trees on Kodak Polymax Fine Art variable contrast (p. 88, "absolutely beautiful prints"). Freestyle Camera announced the second coming of Oriental Seagull G graded as "one of the finest, professional quality photographic papers ever made,...." (cf. AA, Print, p. 50). I testprinted all three with one of my landscape-architectural negs and compared with Polycontrast III RC. I found all three FB papers equally luminous and the Seagull G superior in tonal separation and three dimensional sense of depth. Curl is a problem but not an insuperable one; it is well treated in several previous posts. Some kind of print washer is a necessity. The fiber papers have a pleasing lightly textured finish; are easier to work with because they are double weight; hold up to the heat of dry-mounting; and are of *known* permanence. Good luck, Nick.
All the answers on this thread were good ones. I have to agree with several that stated use what pleases you. I too, had a bit of a learning curve when I started using FB papers. But I had seen the great prints from some of the masters and was determined to find out how these prints had such great deep blacks and stand out highlights. I am now finding the best mix of film and paper for my photos. You should try selenium toning also. The results will speak for themselves. Try the Ilford multigrade warm tone paper. It is great. Also if you want to stay in the RC realm try the Kodak fine art paper. It is a matte finish RC paper made for colorizing. It has a very pleaseing low lustre to it. I think over time you will find that the fiber papers will give you much more printing expression than the RC papers you have grown accustomed to. Good Luck.
The fact that Paul has been less than impressed with Multigrade IV FB after using RC paper should not be surprising. In this Velvia era, anything less than exaggerated (color vs. color or b/w vs. b/w) fails to make an impact on eyes with shifted thresholds. Appreciating subtlety takes time and accommodation. Practice and patience, Paul.
I just can't seem to stay away from this discussion. I agree that you can make a really nice print on RC. However, the original post implied that RC might actually produce better prints than fiber. This just is not in my realm of reality after working with both. I use RC for contact prints and test prints while trying to decide if a negative is worthy of my efforts with fiber. I also use RC for snapshot like images for my friends. Fiber takes time to learn how to use properly. If you take the time to figure it out you won't have anymore questions about which looks better. Paul, you ask the question "am I missing something"? Yes, you likely have not spent enough time to learn how to use it yet.
Just last night I printed a desert scene on MG IV RC and then on the fibre version of the same. The fibre is richer, has much better darks and looks cleaner overall. The higher tones on the fibre were far better than the RC. The contrast on the RC was about one-half grade less than the fibre in Dektol. I use both papers, both Ilford MG's, on a regular basis. I would never say the RC is as good as the fibre, and would not consider using it for serious work. In fact, when I decide to just print some quicky work to see what some negatives look like on RC paper, I always end up grabbing the fibre to see what they actually look like. That is what happened last night. But, if you really like RC, go ahead, it just makes other people's work look better. Incidentally, I was always amazed how good Kodak RC paper can look, at least until it dries! When wet the stuff is great, but it loses much of its richness in drying.
This is a fairly long thread and I may have missed it but has anyone picked up on the fact that air-dried glossy FB won't produce the same surface as air-dried glossy RC? In order to have an apples to apples comparison you would have to Ferrotype the glossy FB. Then, if done right, there would be no question as to the superiority of FB.
A glossy surface on any paper will increase the reflected range and produce greater "luminosity". It's a question of taste and a trade- off between a gutsy image and one without a lot of distracting reflections.
Regards, bw
What no one has mentioned so far in reply to the original query is that no black and white RC paper can be sold as a permanent image. I had the unfortunate experience of printing a commission of 20 large prints (16 x 20 and 20 x 24) on Agfa RC, (on RC at the insistence of the client to save money) which were then beautifully framed. I did not selenium tone the prints or treat then in Sistan--otherwise they were properly processed and washed. Within six months all the prints begin to have orange areas a nd silvering out, a result of contamination of the emulsion by the plasticizers in a sealed frame environemnt. I had to reprint all the prints on fibre based papewr despite the fact that I originally did not want to do the job on RC paper. This effect has been well documented by Ctein in his magazine reports. All RC papers, when in a closed environment, are susceptable to contamination by the plasticizers in the paper. The effect is somewhat unpredictable as to timing but usually occurs within a year of framing, especially if the framing is done very soon after processing. Selenium toning or treatment in Sistan helps, but no one knows for how long. Now, as to the aesthetics of RC versus fibre, there is no doubt to the casual observer, RC can look as good or sometimes better than fibre. They lie flatter, the glossy versions have a higher surface gloss, and the emulsions on many RC papers are identical to the fibre ones and produce equivalent blacks and toning results. But, if you look very carefully at matched sets of fibre and RC papers from the same manufacturers, there are very subtle but real differences. I think the most imposrtant one is highlight gradation and tone curve. To my eye at least, the Fibre versions of most papers produce a much finer and visibly superior delineation of highlight details. Highlight on even the best RC papers tend to flatten out and have less detail.
What no one has mentioned so far in reply to the original query is that no black and white RC paper can be sold as a permanent image. I had the unfortunate experience of printing a commission of 20 large prints (16 x 20 and 20 x 24) on Agfa RC, (on RC at the insistence of the client to save money) which were then beautifully framed. I did not selenium tone the prints or treat then in Sistan--otherwise they were properly processed and washed. Within six months all the prints begin to have orange areas a nd silvering out, a result of contamination of the emulsion by the plasticizers in a sealed frame environemnt. I had to reprint all the prints on fibre based papewr despite the fact that I originally did not want to do the job on RC paper. This effect has been well documented by Ctein in his magazine reports. All RC papers, when in a closed environment, are susceptable to contamination by the plasticizers in the paper. The effect is somewhat unpredictable as to timing but usually occurs within a year of framing, especially if the framing is done very soon after processing. Selenium toning or treatment in Sistan helps, but no one knows for how long. Now, as to the aesthetics of RC versus fibre, there is no doubt to the casual observer, RC can look as good or sometimes better than fibre. They lie flatter, the glossy versions have a higher surface gloss, and the emulsions on many RC papers are identical to the fibre ones and produce equivalent blacks and toning results. But, if you look very carefully at matched sets of fibre and RC papers from the same manufacturers, there are very subtle but real differences. I think the most imposrtant one is highlight gradation and tone curve. To my eye at least, the Fibre versions of most papers produce a much finer and visibly superior delineation of highlight details. Highlight on even the best RC papers tend to flatten out and have less detail. In addition, many people love the sheen of the emulsion of a glossy air-dried fibre base print. I think the best cold-toned RC paper by far is Agfa Multicontrast Premium RC; both in its glossy and lustre versions it is a very fine match in tonal colour and tone curve for Forte fibre base cold-toned multicontrast paper. But I think Forte Polywarmtone fiber base paper is a richer and better paper than Forte cold-toned paper. Both Forte products in my opinion are better than Oriental which tends to have a very different tonal curve--really good mid-tone separations but flatter looking highlights. The old Galerie fibre base was a wonderful paper, the new Galerie is also a very fine paper in terms of its depth of blacks, but it is a graded paper and not so easy to work with or tone as Forte papers. Finally, none of the fibre based papers existing today have as white a base as Agfa RC paper, but those RC papers are simply not permanent.
David, Seagull G in grades 2 and 3, as well as the VC version, exhibit pronounced toes that produce the "flat" highlights you describe. Rather similar to Azo grade 2. This can be overcome if desired by flashing grade 4 Seagull, but my usual solution (for normal range negatives) is to print on Zone VI Brilliant Bromide II. It has a more conventional curve shape, and is just as beautiful a paper IMHO. That said, long-toed Seagull is great to have available for negatives with extended dense highlights.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks