foon
Established
After looking around on ebay for a while, I decided to look for local ads
saves a lot on shipping, and probably won't be any more expensive than the bay
I think I'm going to have my own darkroom really soon, if the equipment seems right when I go up to see the stuff
Anyway, I think I should start ordering some paper now, so by the time I got everything set up, I won't have to wait for it coming in the mail
I keep wondering the differences between resin coated paper and the fiber based ones?
Can anyone tell me?
Which one should I choose, and suggestions for cheaper paper,at least till I can get the hang of printing?
Also, what does double weight mean?
saves a lot on shipping, and probably won't be any more expensive than the bay
I think I'm going to have my own darkroom really soon, if the equipment seems right when I go up to see the stuff
Anyway, I think I should start ordering some paper now, so by the time I got everything set up, I won't have to wait for it coming in the mail
I keep wondering the differences between resin coated paper and the fiber based ones?
Can anyone tell me?
Which one should I choose, and suggestions for cheaper paper,at least till I can get the hang of printing?
Also, what does double weight mean?
I like Ilford resin-coated paper... I know that real artists prefer fiber-base paper but the stuff tends to warp and not take well to mounting flat. RC papers absorb chemistry and water only in the emulsion so dry very quickly and lie flat. A modern convenience... Double weight is a thicker paper base than single weight.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I'll let others go into the real details of the paper differences. However, I will say that you should start with RC paper. It's much easier to work with, development and fix times are faster, and the washing is simpler, too.
After you get the hang of that, you can try out FB paper.
allan
After you get the hang of that, you can try out FB paper.
allan
Ralf
Established
RC papers are much more conveneint, quciker to dry, don't bend as much, and much quicker to sinse clean, and are generally cheaper.
I like Ilford papers especially the warm tone versions, but they are more expensive. I use 90% RC and 10% FB paper, the latter mostly for a print I may hang on a wall as I like the "look" of the FB papers, although for most folks looking thru glass at the print would be hard presses to tell the difference. In FB paper, I really like the Ilford, it seems to be a very clean white, and the warm tone has an off white tone to it.
I think it alos pays to pick a paper and stick with it quite a while, and in no time, you'll get a feel for a negative and be able to guess an approximate exposure. Don't forget that like film, the papers will have different speeds, henec an exposure time for one paper, is propable different for another paper.
Double weight papar is thick paper and usually (always??) fibrebased paper.
I beleive the main difference between FB and RC is that the "paper" which supports the emulsion is protected by a layer of plastic on either side to stop it absorbing water and chemicals. That's why RC paper dries so quickly, the paper has not absorbed as much water.
Enjoy
I like Ilford papers especially the warm tone versions, but they are more expensive. I use 90% RC and 10% FB paper, the latter mostly for a print I may hang on a wall as I like the "look" of the FB papers, although for most folks looking thru glass at the print would be hard presses to tell the difference. In FB paper, I really like the Ilford, it seems to be a very clean white, and the warm tone has an off white tone to it.
I think it alos pays to pick a paper and stick with it quite a while, and in no time, you'll get a feel for a negative and be able to guess an approximate exposure. Don't forget that like film, the papers will have different speeds, henec an exposure time for one paper, is propable different for another paper.
Double weight papar is thick paper and usually (always??) fibrebased paper.
I beleive the main difference between FB and RC is that the "paper" which supports the emulsion is protected by a layer of plastic on either side to stop it absorbing water and chemicals. That's why RC paper dries so quickly, the paper has not absorbed as much water.
Enjoy
foon
Established
Thanks for everyone's input
Seems like RC paper's the choice, maybe I should just start with the cheapest paper I can get for a while, before experimenting on other paper
Is there a particular brand that I should avoid?
One more question, are there different developers for paper like film? and do they behave differently? I have read somewhere the papers stop developing after a while, unlike the negatives. Does that mean the developing time is always the same?
Seems like RC paper's the choice, maybe I should just start with the cheapest paper I can get for a while, before experimenting on other paper
Is there a particular brand that I should avoid?
One more question, are there different developers for paper like film? and do they behave differently? I have read somewhere the papers stop developing after a while, unlike the negatives. Does that mean the developing time is always the same?
aizan
Veteran
only one i have readily available is ilford. easy decision there! variable contrast multigrade iv.
the_other_dirk
Member
"One more question, are there different developers for paper like film? and do they behave differently?"
Yes and yes... Different brands give slightly different results (I like Amaloco better than Ilford Multigrade for instance). Maybe you should just get one developer first, use it for a while, and only then start experimenting with other developers. Also, there are neutral and warm tone developers (I guess there are also cold tone developers, but I have never looked for them). Although on some papers these developers don't make much of a difference, they do on other (especially FB) papers. You just need to experiment a little to see what you like best. (I use neutral tone Ilford MG paper with warm tone developer from Amaloco, which gives pleasing tones)
"I have read somewhere the papers stop developing after a while, unlike the negatives. Does that mean the developing time is always the same?"
That info is in the back of my mind also, although I'm not sure how it got there. I've also read that extending development times can affect contrast. In an interview with Black & White Photography, Malvin Cambettie-Davies says "You don't have to stick with recommended paper development times - extending the development can have a dramatic effect on contrast" (B&W photography, issue 44, 2005, p.55).
Only one way to find out: experiment. I have and found that extending dev times can indeed change contrast a little; one of my friends absolutely denies that it's possible -- so what works for you may not work for someone else I guess...
if you're just starting out, just pick a good paper (Ilford eg), a good developer (Ilford MG for instance) and just use the standard dev times. after a while, you can start experimenting.
Yes and yes... Different brands give slightly different results (I like Amaloco better than Ilford Multigrade for instance). Maybe you should just get one developer first, use it for a while, and only then start experimenting with other developers. Also, there are neutral and warm tone developers (I guess there are also cold tone developers, but I have never looked for them). Although on some papers these developers don't make much of a difference, they do on other (especially FB) papers. You just need to experiment a little to see what you like best. (I use neutral tone Ilford MG paper with warm tone developer from Amaloco, which gives pleasing tones)
"I have read somewhere the papers stop developing after a while, unlike the negatives. Does that mean the developing time is always the same?"
That info is in the back of my mind also, although I'm not sure how it got there. I've also read that extending development times can affect contrast. In an interview with Black & White Photography, Malvin Cambettie-Davies says "You don't have to stick with recommended paper development times - extending the development can have a dramatic effect on contrast" (B&W photography, issue 44, 2005, p.55).
Only one way to find out: experiment. I have and found that extending dev times can indeed change contrast a little; one of my friends absolutely denies that it's possible -- so what works for you may not work for someone else I guess...
if you're just starting out, just pick a good paper (Ilford eg), a good developer (Ilford MG for instance) and just use the standard dev times. after a while, you can start experimenting.
S
Stephan
Guest
the_other_dirk said:
You're right: it does change contrast a little after a quite long time. Actually what changes the contrast is the fact that after you've reached the paper's maximum gamma curve (densitiy restitution in relation to exposure), after quite a long dev time you'll end up with a little extra density in areas that are supposed to have 0 density (pure white). If I remember correctly, you'll see this result only after about 10 minutes in normal paper developper for RC paper, havent tested FB paper.
CJP6008
Established
Nice to hear Melvin is still about. He is a wonderful printer and a master with marshall oils. He is based in Shoreditch in London, his company is called Master Mono.
I concur with what has been said previously re RC and RB papers. RC are a good way to learn the basics but are not so great for learning about toning or the effects of different developers etc.
RC papers are usually developer incorporated, ie they have developer actually in the emulsion. This is to help with speedy machine processing. It does mean that chioce of developer (warm tone/cold tone etc) does not have any great effect. The exception to this rule is/was Forte RC papers which used the same emulsions as their RB counterparts. I know that things have changed a bit at Forte and have not used any papers of theirs produced after their recent period of financial difficulties.
Similarly, RC papers tend not to tone very well. Polymax was better than most but no longer available. Agfa is going if not gone. Ilford RC paper needs to be virtually dynamited with selenium to get any colour shift. Ctien writes very informatively on the subject of printing in his excellent book "Post Exposure".
Melvin is right re flexing development times however I am not sure that anyone would recommend over extending dev times. Generally one is not looking to develop every bit of silver to completion - try it, the prints look horrible. More often folks shorten dev times, esp with warm tone papers when looking to achieve the warmest look. (It's to do with silver particle size - smaller particles give a warmer look). Not really relevant to RC papers though. Melvin will be printing mostly RB papers for exhibitions/portfolios etc. hence his comments.
At this stage I would advise working with a standard dev time (as advised on the bottle of developer) and teaching yourself about contrast grades and exposure. Standardising dev times removes that variable and allows you to concentrate on studying the effect of the other two factors. A useful experiment is to take one negative and to print it at each contrast grade to see the effect that has.
For me there are no rules to printing - the print simply has to please you, perhaps by reflecting the way you imagined the scene appearing on the print when you took the shot. With a good deal of fiddling about I the darkroom you will learn what you like. Do though try to train your eye to notice the subtleties of tone and density (darkness). Just as a master of wine has trained his or her palette to recognise the subtleties of wine so the good printer must have a good eye to be able to create prints that get the best out of the negative, that are sympathetic to the subject matter and convey the right feeling and emotion.
Have fun!
I concur with what has been said previously re RC and RB papers. RC are a good way to learn the basics but are not so great for learning about toning or the effects of different developers etc.
RC papers are usually developer incorporated, ie they have developer actually in the emulsion. This is to help with speedy machine processing. It does mean that chioce of developer (warm tone/cold tone etc) does not have any great effect. The exception to this rule is/was Forte RC papers which used the same emulsions as their RB counterparts. I know that things have changed a bit at Forte and have not used any papers of theirs produced after their recent period of financial difficulties.
Similarly, RC papers tend not to tone very well. Polymax was better than most but no longer available. Agfa is going if not gone. Ilford RC paper needs to be virtually dynamited with selenium to get any colour shift. Ctien writes very informatively on the subject of printing in his excellent book "Post Exposure".
Melvin is right re flexing development times however I am not sure that anyone would recommend over extending dev times. Generally one is not looking to develop every bit of silver to completion - try it, the prints look horrible. More often folks shorten dev times, esp with warm tone papers when looking to achieve the warmest look. (It's to do with silver particle size - smaller particles give a warmer look). Not really relevant to RC papers though. Melvin will be printing mostly RB papers for exhibitions/portfolios etc. hence his comments.
At this stage I would advise working with a standard dev time (as advised on the bottle of developer) and teaching yourself about contrast grades and exposure. Standardising dev times removes that variable and allows you to concentrate on studying the effect of the other two factors. A useful experiment is to take one negative and to print it at each contrast grade to see the effect that has.
For me there are no rules to printing - the print simply has to please you, perhaps by reflecting the way you imagined the scene appearing on the print when you took the shot. With a good deal of fiddling about I the darkroom you will learn what you like. Do though try to train your eye to notice the subtleties of tone and density (darkness). Just as a master of wine has trained his or her palette to recognise the subtleties of wine so the good printer must have a good eye to be able to create prints that get the best out of the negative, that are sympathetic to the subject matter and convey the right feeling and emotion.
Have fun!
the_other_dirk
Member
"More often folks shorten dev times, esp with warm tone papers when looking to achieve the warmest look. (It's to do with silver particle size - smaller particles give a warmer look)."
thanks for bringing that up, I knew I had read something about it somewhere, but wasn't quite sure anymore that shorter dev times would produce a warmer tone. Okay, let's hope I'll remember it now!
Also quite true that RC papers generally don't respond very well to toning. I often use selenium toner, but it's effect is only faintly visible on RC paper (although it removes the ugly greenish cast that I find Ilford MG IV RC and Agfa MCP 314 to suffer from - agfa being even worse than Ilford BTW)
thanks for bringing that up, I knew I had read something about it somewhere, but wasn't quite sure anymore that shorter dev times would produce a warmer tone. Okay, let's hope I'll remember it now!
Also quite true that RC papers generally don't respond very well to toning. I often use selenium toner, but it's effect is only faintly visible on RC paper (although it removes the ugly greenish cast that I find Ilford MG IV RC and Agfa MCP 314 to suffer from - agfa being even worse than Ilford BTW)
markinlondon
Elmar user
Another vote for Ilford RC Warmtone. The difference between RC and FB is lost under glass and on the web, who can tell?
RC Warmtone is wonderfully flexible, I use it with Fotospeed selenium which at first ups the contrast and cools the tone, then on longer immersion warms it. Great, one paper for nearly all occasions. I also use Ilford Cooltone for cityscapes, but haven't tried toning it. On the whole I don't care for vanilla Multigrade IV.
One day I'll try a different developer as well
Mark
RC Warmtone is wonderfully flexible, I use it with Fotospeed selenium which at first ups the contrast and cools the tone, then on longer immersion warms it. Great, one paper for nearly all occasions. I also use Ilford Cooltone for cityscapes, but haven't tried toning it. On the whole I don't care for vanilla Multigrade IV.
One day I'll try a different developer as well
Mark
david b
film shooter
I would buy all Ilford products. They are excellent materials, probably the best available and they are in it for the long run.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
foon said:
RC papers are papers that have received a treatment to cover the base in plastic.
In that way the paper doesn't soak up chemicals as much as a non-coated would and thus they are faster and easier to process and wash. And they are harder to scratch.
I would certainly reccomend you start with RC paper, it makes the work more rewarding.
And once you get a hold of the process go to Fiber based papers which require longer washing times but yield images with a different character.
I think that Agfa MCP, Ilford or Forte papers are an excellent starting point. Yyou can buy the FORTE and ILFORD cheaper from Freestyle under their house brand (AristaEDU and AristaPro respectively).
Arista EDU page here
Single, double and museum weight refer to the thickness of the paper base.
foon
Established
Thanks everyone. I love this place!
Now it's time to start shopping...
What paper size should I buy, 8x10 seems to be the most common, but I'll have to crop a lot or waste a bit of paper. 5x7 is good for viewing, but is it too small for learning to judge a print?
How about fixer, the only bottle I have now is really small. It'd probably run out real quick if I start printing. There are hardening ones and non-hardening ones, which one would be better for prints?
How much should I stock my developers? I really don't have any idea how many prints I can get from one tray of developer. Do you print after a number and change some new ones?
Sorry for asking so many questions, but I'm excited
Now it's time to start shopping...
What paper size should I buy, 8x10 seems to be the most common, but I'll have to crop a lot or waste a bit of paper. 5x7 is good for viewing, but is it too small for learning to judge a print?
How about fixer, the only bottle I have now is really small. It'd probably run out real quick if I start printing. There are hardening ones and non-hardening ones, which one would be better for prints?
How much should I stock my developers? I really don't have any idea how many prints I can get from one tray of developer. Do you print after a number and change some new ones?
Sorry for asking so many questions, but I'm excited
Last edited:
I usually make a contact sheet on single-weight 8.5x11, in contact with my PrintFile page. I'll mark the possibly good negs and print those 5x7. From the 5x7 pile I select those to be printed larger, size depending on the project. I have never gone beyond 11x14, as my paper easel, developing trays, and washer all are sized for 11x14.foon said:
I'd suggest not being a slave to the proportions of either your negatives or your papers. I'd prefer to print all of the neg but recognize that most negs have a better crop. While it's possible to force a crop to the paper proportions, and these results are often acceptable, I think it's not ideal. Don't avoid use of your paper cutter to adjust the paper size! I further cut these slices to 3-4" length and keep them in a small box for use as test strips.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Yes, get both 8x10 and 5x7
8x10 is great for contacts and forenlarging good ones.
For proofs and for those you don;t want that big 5x7s are good.
I normally stock both sizes of the same brand, and use the 5x7 to test for local exposure contrast even when enlarging to 11x14
Fixer, since you are in CA, you maybe able to find Sprint or Clayton Fixers, which are cheaper than other brands and work as well. Get at least a 1 l bottle, and don;t use hardener.
As for developer also those off-brand ones are excellent for learning, and they come in liquid concentrate which is a plus. I generally use one tray of developer per session. However IF the time of development becoms exttemely long is time to mix another batch.
If I were you , I'd get a copy of the UPTON Photography book (in a used book store they go for $10 or less) excellent reading and starting point.
You can get more detailed books afterwards.
8x10 is great for contacts and forenlarging good ones.
For proofs and for those you don;t want that big 5x7s are good.
I normally stock both sizes of the same brand, and use the 5x7 to test for local exposure contrast even when enlarging to 11x14
Fixer, since you are in CA, you maybe able to find Sprint or Clayton Fixers, which are cheaper than other brands and work as well. Get at least a 1 l bottle, and don;t use hardener.
As for developer also those off-brand ones are excellent for learning, and they come in liquid concentrate which is a plus. I generally use one tray of developer per session. However IF the time of development becoms exttemely long is time to mix another batch.
If I were you , I'd get a copy of the UPTON Photography book (in a used book store they go for $10 or less) excellent reading and starting point.
You can get more detailed books afterwards.
foon said:Thanks everyone. I love this place!
Now it's time to start shopping...
What paper size should I buy, 8x10 seems to be the most common, but I'll have to crop a lot or waste a bit of paper. 5x7 is good for viewing, but is it too small for learning to judge a print?
How about fixer, the only bottle I have now is really small. It'd probably run out real quick if I start printing. There are hardening ones and non-hardening ones, which one would be better for prints?
How much should I stock my developers? I really don't have any idea how many prints I can get from one tray of developer. Do you print after a number and change some new ones?
Sorry for asking so many questions, but I'm excited