Fiber paper

J

jpa66

Jan as in "Jan and Dean"
Local time
4:40 AM
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
804
I just started printing with Ilford MGIV and some Kentmere Fineprint Neutral Tone, both Matte finish. It's the first time I've used either, as in my first return to the darkroom earlier this week, I used some old Portriga Rapid and Brovira, which has started to turn bad.

Anyway, the new papers are OK, but I'm not really satisfied with either of them. I'd like deeper blacks, ones that almost suck you in, and I want a paper that has a true Matte finish. These finishes to me look almost like there's a slight lustre on them both.

Does anyone have any experience with a new paper ( ie. one that I can actually still buy ) that has the following qualities:

1) Fibre-based
2) True matte finish
3) Deep blacks

I'd love to have a graded paper, but those are few and far between.

To go off on a slight rant, I hate glossy papers, tolerate "pearl" or lustre finishes, hate RC paper ( except for contact prints ), and don't care for MC paper, although I have no choice but to use it. I know that it's been said before, but it's a cryin' shame that the old classic papers are no longer made.

I must be turning into an old curmudgeon...


JP
 
Forte "Semi-matte" is actually quite matte, deeper blacks than I get with RC papers, and sharper. Central Camera might still have some. B & H does.
 
I never got the chance to use the Dupont stuff - a toddler would never have been allowed in the darkroom :)

I was planning on making a Freestyle purchase soon, so I'll try out the Slavich papers.

The Forte may be worth a shot, too. I've been curious about the Bergger "semi-matte" finishes, wondering how matte they actually are.

I'll check at Central Camera for the Forte. I'm off to Pittsburgh ( my original home ) this weekend, and may be able to find some there. The joke about Pittsburgh that I always found that best captures it's essence is: I want to be in Pittsburgh when the end of the world comes, because things always happen there ten years later.

Thanks guys.
 
I always go for double weight papers- single weight are too easy to damage, and generally don't hold up as well.

As for not being able to get the good deep rich blacks from matte paper, and not liking glossy papers, I sympathize- but things have really changed in the last few years. First off, graded papers have disappeared- and the few that are left are only available in grades 2, 3 and 4- if that. The longer tonal ranges of grades 0 and 1 are gone. Dupont isn't going to start making papers again, and the other manufacturers aren't going to bring back their beautiful, classic papers either.

But multi-contrast papers have come a long way. By using split contrast printing, I can get an incredibly long tonal range- even longer than with grade 0 papers "back in the day". As for finishes and those rich, deep blacks, well, my experience is that these days you have to go with glossy papers to get it. But there's good news. The glossy finishes of some papers- Berger and Oriental especially come to mind- are not nearly as cheap and obnoxious as they were 20 years ago.

We have to make do with what's available today. There's no point in simply bemoaning the loss of so many good papers from years ago. (Believe me, I could get right on that bandwagon, if it wouldn't give me a heart attack.) But if you can let go of old prejudices and learn how to handle modern materials, you'll find plenty of papers available today that will give you really beautiful prints that will make you happy.
 
Deep blacks and Matt surface requirements are a bit contradictory.
Glossy surface can reach more density of black than matt.

You're right, Kentmere Fineprint is semi-matt (finegrain) and so is MGIV Warmtone, but I like them because they are not glaring and they have higher black density. Developer choice is also important, I haven't been lucky with Ilford paper developers, but Tetenal Eukobrom and Amaloco AM 6006 did the job well.
 
Double weight papers all the way. Single weight papers seem cheap and fragile to me.


I primarily used Kodak developer in the past, but the darkroom I "belong to" here only has Ilford developer. I have been wondering if I could get a better print with some other type. I may have to try some other ones.

I know I shouldn't bemoan the loss of great paper - It's just tough trying to find a suitable replacement. That and the fact that I have a couple of prints that I gave away years ago that I want to print again, but the paper I printed them on is gone. Maybe I should track down the people I gave them to and "re-appropriate" them :)
 
The Kentmere will give you super deep blacks; so will Foma, among others. These are both great papers. I have only worked with glossy. I love Ilford, but am personally not a fan of Multigrade IV.

What developer are you using. I can say that both of the papers above, Kentmere and Foma, can achieve super rich blacks with Ilford Ilfobrom developer at 1:3. Of course, sufficient contrast must be employed upon exposure.

Best wishes.
 
Am surprised that dw glossy paper dried matte is not matte enough, I think there are differences between brands on that account. I really liked the old papers that Picker was selling, and they were made by Bergger, so perhaps the new production can match some of the old Zone VI papers?

I have forgotten what name the ORWO plant is operating under, I think they were using old Agfa formulas, so if I can find a box, will let you know, or someone here should know. There are other plants that were in the Soviet bloc that used old Agfa formulations.

I used some of the Dupont and the Ansco papers, though I think they were out of production when I got them, and they did have that beautiful black. My understanding is that Dupont sold the Varigam patent to Kodak and decided to keep the XRay film business?

Personally, I might bug some of the manufacturers for some sample prints, they all used to have them, would be surprised if they still do, but give it a shot.

I know Forte reformulated about ten years ago, I think most manufacturers did -- something about Cadmium?

As long as we are wishing, I wish someone with some Moxie would buy the old Neobrom plant in Brno, and resume some of the terrific and by today's standards, exotic niche products. E.G.-- A silver iodide contact paper, photo linen, and the fabulous Chamois, a "Karton" weight graded paper with beautiful tones, plus a dozen others, I still have the samples somewhere.

I used to haul a suitcase back on each trip, then I custom ordered 5000 sheets air freighted to Cleveland. ;-) Afraid what remains is a bit out of date, but some is still in the fridge.

Preferred Neutol for developing. You might find some chemistry magic in some additives, some people add some KBr, and I have fiddled with raising the pH. Bit of Alchemy, with all the information out there on line, it should give you a lot to experiment with.

Jan Bruning in Berlin had put up a site for various formulations, many vintage.

Electronic scales are pretty cheap, so you can do some adjustments, just make sure you stick with the SI (Metric) system. ;-)



Regards, John
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure which type of Ilford developer is in the darkroom. I think it's simply Ilford's multi-grade developer.
 
jpa66 said:
I just started printing with Ilford MGIV and some Kentmere Fineprint Neutral Tone, both Matte finish. It's the first time I've used either, as in my first return to the darkroom earlier this week, I used some old Portriga Rapid and Brovira, which has started to turn bad.

Anyway, the new papers are OK, but I'm not really satisfied with either of them. I'd like deeper blacks, ones that almost suck you in, and I want a paper that has a true Matte finish. These finishes to me look almost like there's a slight lustre on them both.

Does anyone have any experience with a new paper ( ie. one that I can actually still buy ) that has the following qualities:

1) Fibre-based
2) True matte finish
3) Deep blacks

I'd love to have a graded paper, but those are few and far between.

To go off on a slight rant, I hate glossy papers, tolerate "pearl" or lustre finishes, hate RC paper ( except for contact prints ), and don't care for MC paper, although I have no choice but to use it. I know that it's been said before, but it's a cryin' shame that the old classic papers are no longer made.

I must be turning into an old curmudgeon...


JP
Click to expand...

I just got an email from my friend Jan in Berlin, who really has a storehouse of information on old and new papers and developers.

The old papers and the new ones print to a DMax of about 3.2, anything more is not really visible. He also referred to Post Exposure by our old friend Ctein, and we both recommend it.

He and I both agree you would be better off with Neutol. Jan feels the Ilford paper developers may not give you the Dmax in your papers I am reading that you are looking for.

He also interestingly added that the Dmax of RA 4 papers is higher, but you are going to have to deal with RC paper. I have not seen fiber paper for RA 4.

I used the Jobo slot processor for RA 4 and really liked it. Jobo also made single wavelength led safelights for color paper, and I think I have an old Zone VI that works as well, but I also put a dimmer on some of my lights. I have never used the B&W paper designed for RA 4, but my lab uses it. If you find a paper the lab uses that you like, you can buy a bulk roll of it, cutting it as you like.

Jan also said that processing longer than 3 minutes begins to lower Dmax. I always liked about 3 minutes for crisp prints with a good black, and I also preferred Neutol which someone else makes, or the formulas are available for mixing yourself. I did not check B&H to see if they still stock it.

And of course dry down and aging of the paper affects Dmax.

In your situation, I might collect some smaller packs of a variety of papers and using Neutol print the same negative, or a gray scale and see where that leads. I forgot I used to include a gray scale in the edge of my prints, or on a test strip when I began printing for the day. That did tell me something quantative about the papers I was using. If I wanted more data, I used my Pentax One Degree spot meter and a calibrated step scale. I used the densitometer at Campus Camera in their print lab to check my scales. A good lab used to run tests and chart the data daily.

I recall that Ctein was the accepted ultimate source of data and intrepretation on such things, as he has the hard science background and the collected experimental data.

Some of the old Fred Picker books explained the photo facts of life rather well for me.

Hope there is some grain of information here for you.

Regards, John
 
drewbarb said:
We have to make do with what's available today. There's no point in simply bemoaning the loss of so many good papers from years ago. (Believe me, I could get right on that bandwagon, if it wouldn't give me a heart attack.) But if you can let go of old prejudices and learn how to handle modern materials, you'll find plenty of papers available today that will give you really beautiful prints that will make you happy.
Click to expand...

Good reminder and assurance especially for those of us (myself included) who just started with darkroom printing. We don't have the luxury of using "the old beautiful so-and-so paper" and we have to make do with what we have.

I really hope that there will be a resurgence of interest in darkroom printing. It really has nothing to do with digital vs film, since you can just as effectively create negatives with digital means.

If things go the way it is, many creative and brilliant artists of the next generation will be denied the opportunity to even try printing the traditional way. And I for one find it very sad.
 
Regardless which variable contrast paper I'm using I usually give it a very brief exposure through the highest contrast filter I have to "punch up" the blacks. It really doesn't affect the rest of the print.

Ilford used to make, and perhaps still does make a #00 filter. It wasn't part of the filter kit. You had to order it seperately. It works with other brands of paper as well.
 
palec said:
Deep blacks and Matt surface requirements are a bit contradictory.
Glossy surface can reach more density of black than matte.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was going to say. My last foray with printing was with Zone VI Brilliant (tells you how long ago it was :( ), developed in Amidol. I used glossy, but dried it matte, i.e. face down on fibreglas screen drying racks. This gives a sheen but not gloss; it may not be to the OP's taste, i.e. not matte enough, but when mounted and properly lit, I find it to be optimum both technically and for viewing. The Amidol gave me the deepest, richest blacks on all papers. I used Ilford papers as well, from time to time.

jpa66 said:
I primarily used Kodak developer in the past, but the darkroom I "belong to" here only has Ilford developer. I have been wondering if I could get a better print with some other type. I may have to try some other ones.
Click to expand...

I would give that a try. Aside from Freestyle, spend some time on the Photographer's Formulary site, send them some emails. APUG is worth some reading, too.

jpa66 said:
I know I shouldn't bemoan the loss of great paper - It's just tough trying to find a suitable replacement.
Click to expand...

This is the thing I least look forward to when I reconstitute a wet darkroom. Not only is it a chore to reinvent what took me so long to achieve, but it's far more expensive to do so now.

Good luck.
 
JohnTF said:
I really liked the old papers that Picker was selling, and they were made by Bergger, so perhaps the new production can match some of the old Zone VI papers?
Click to expand...

Actually, I am fairly certain they were not made by Bergger, at least the initial iteration. They were made by a French company, whose name I cannot recall.
 
Deep black and matte finish is in contradiction while glossy papers have always deeper blacks.

However on the Foma range I can recommend you the Fomabrom Variant 112 and as special paper the Fomatone MG 532 II.

Here is the Foma paper code:

2167202941_2404d0bf55_o.jpg
 
Trius said:
Actually, I am fairly certain they were not made by Bergger, at least the initial iteration. They were made by a French company, whose name I cannot recall.
Click to expand...


Am fairly sure I read it somewhere, and Picker went to another company when Bergger suspended production. I believe their literature states they were the oldest producer of photo paper in the world.

They seemed quite nice, and sent me some samples in Paris when they started up again, oddly, they were harder to find at the shops in Paris than Agfa, Kodak, and Ilford.

I was told that the main difference at that time between their paper and Picker's was the color of the box. ;-) Green Boxes?

Had to be at least 15 years ago? I was buying mostly from Picker's Zone VI place then, should have picked up one of those nice field cameras.

Regards, John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom