papers, the choices!

[itf]

Ok, well in the couple of months I'm going to have to start thinking about paper, and what choice! In the last eight years (since I began b&w at high school) I've only ever used Ilford multicontrast resin, and that continued on into university; it just happened to be what was sold to us. Actually, I may have used something agfa once...

However, now I've decided to consider my options, I've got a lot to print and don't mind learning the ins and outs of a particular paper. But where to start?

Resin or fiber (fibre? spelling?)? What differences in development are required? And do they really outshine resin? I'm sure I've seen them around, but I'm afraid I look more at photos from the point of taking it than developing it, and just appreciating the photo for itself.

Graded or variable contrast, though that is probably a decision I have to make (figuring out what suits my negs and my tastes), but does it offer something 'more'? Tones is another personal taste thing.

And then brands...

One thing I'm not changing though is my 'not gloss' policy.

Problem is it's difficult to figure these things out on the computer; any photo I look at on here isn't on any paper at all. But does anyone have any particular papers they highly recommend?

How about the Foma, Forte or Arista (one of the former rebranded?) papers? Any recommendations!

 

[mbisc]

If you want truely archival quality prints then fiber/fibre-based paper is the only way to go. It's also what most photographers/artists/galleries prefer.

As far as which one, that is dependent on your artistic vision and other personal preferences. The one thing to consider, in addition, is longevity (i.e. long-term availability) of a particular paper and brand, as well as the QC (= consistency) of the manufacturer. My suggestion would be to pick one that seems like a reasonable choice, and is readily available to you -- and then preactice, practice, practice to get the results you want. Just like with film, I don't think it is a good idea to play around with 10 different papers. Just get a good one and learn its characteristics to get the results out of it that you want.


My personal choice these days is the warm-tone fibre-based paper from Ilford (and as variable contrast paper). With most developers it's actually pretty neutral in tone, if you want that. But as they say, YMMV.

Enjoy -- and I'm sure you will 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Forte's gone, so you can forget that.

I'd just try whatever you can get, to see if you like it.

You'll not find anything better than Ilford, though you may want to try Kentmere (now Ilford owned) and Foma or Bergger (contract manufactured for Guy Gerard by Harman).

I use MG WT for everything, RC glossy for repro, reference, work prints, RC matte for some exhibition prints, FB glossy unglazed (air dried) for 'fine prints'. Over 99% of the B+W on my website is on Ilford papers ancient and modern.

Cheers,

R.

 

[richiedcruz]

The main difference between RC and fibre is how long it takes for the image to reach full development 30 sec vs 1 min, and how long it takes to wash.

I got so fed up with using a tray siphon that I sprung for a versalab slot washer. But that only makes things go so much faster. Last night it took me almost three hours to wash and tone a dozen prints. That was just for washing, not enlarging and developing. I can run up the same number of RC prints in a little over a couple of hours, total.

Personally, I use Oriental Seagull VC in RC and fiber and the occasional pack of graded Seagull. The only time that I can tell a difference is when identical RC and fibre prints are put side by side. Even then, the difference is very subtle and not worth stressing out over.

Richie