The joy of printing

Deardorff38 said:
If you liked Forte paper you'll find something from Foma that's of similar level of quality. I use a lot of Foma Variant 111 FB as well as the Fomatone 131 FB warmtone.
Click to expand...
Forte was my favourite paper back in the 1980s. It had a dark moodiness about it. The Multigrade Classic FB that I use now is clean and bright. I do appreciate that, but sometimes I miss the moodiness.
 
A new paper aspect I´d like to bring to the discussion:
Bergger Variable CB has a lovely warmtone emulsion.
I compared it to the much more expensive Ilford Multigrade Warmtone and could not detect any disadvantage. Bathed in a warmtone developer like Moersch Meritol it gives wonderful results.
 
Harry the K said:
A new paper aspect I´d like to bring to the discussion:
Bergger Variable CB has a lovely warmtone emulsion.
I compared it to the much more expensive Ilford Multigrade Warmtone and could not detect any disadvantage. Bathed in a warmtone developer like Moersch Meritol it gives wonderful results.
Click to expand...
It's always been a nice looking paper no matter who produced it. It is now made by Harman/Ilford.
At N American suppliers they're close to the same price. Bergger VCCB 11x14/25 sheets = $ 115 USD & Ilford WT FB 50 sheet box $210 USD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Harry the K said:
A new paper aspect I´d like to bring to the discussion:
Bergger Variable CB has a lovely warmtone emulsion.
I compared it to the much more expensive Ilford Multigrade Warmtone and could not detect any disadvantage. Bathed in a warmtone developer like Moersch Meritol it gives wonderful results.
Click to expand...
This can be fine to use it for a picture where the effect of the developer fits well. However, I am looking for a paper on which I can print all my good negatives. So it must have variable contrast, be white, have an average gloss and the black/grey must have a neutral colour. It is annoying if a collection of photos is not printed on one type of paper.
 
Erik van Straten said:
This can be fine to use it for a picture where the effect of the developer fits well. However, I am looking for a paper on which I can print all my good negatives. So it must have variable contrast, be white, have an average gloss and the black/grey must have a neutral colour. It is annoying if a collection of photos is not printed on one type of paper.
Click to expand...
There is also Bergger NB which meets all your criteria - CB is the warmtone paper, NB is the neutraltone. But it is no more available than other niche papers (i.e. not very available). And it is not available in 18x24cm, only 8x10 inch. I think Ilford and Foma are going to be it for a while.

I’m not sure where it is cheaper; everywhere I have seen it, it is about the same price or slightly more than Ilford.
 
Last edited:
Erik van Straten said:
Thank you very much, Marty!

Printed on Ilford Multigrade FB, scanned tonight:

gelatin silver print (nikkor-s 50mm f1.4 No.414866) nikon s2

Amsterdam, 2023

View attachment 4841618
Click to expand...
I really wish I had standardised on a film, paper and size early in my photography. I have thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of prints all over the place in every random farmat, size, surface and print type you can imagine. A lot of it was necessary because I was testing materials or processes for clients, but just having everything in one place in one format that keeps the focus on content rather than the process has a lot to recommend it.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Freakscene said:
I really wish I had srandardised on a film, paper and size early in my photography. I have thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of prints all over the place in every random farmat, size, surface and print type you can imagine. A lot of it was necessary because I was testing materials or processes for clients, but just having everything in one place in one format that keeps the focus on content rather than the process has a lot to recommend it.

Marty
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, but the most important is the negative system. I started mine in 1971 and have now 1171 pages with on each page seven strokes of film with on each stroke six pictures! The whole thing is for 100% chronological. I never have in more than in one camera a film. I'm glad I never started with digital.
 
Freakscene said:
I really wish I had srandardised on a film, paper and size early in my photography. I have thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of prints all over the place in every random farmat, size, surface and print type you can imagine. A lot of it was necessary because I was testing materials or processes for clients, but just having everything in one place in one format that keeps the focus on content rather than the process has a lot to recommend it.

Marty
Click to expand...
M, I have negatives in 35mm,645,6x6,6x7,6x8,6x9cm, 4x5", 5x7", 8x10", 4x10".... and stacks prints and paper from 8x10" to 20x24". A lot of that variation is from personal interest but i've never sold an 8x10" print, but lots of 16x20" and 20x24" prints on request. It would be a different world entirely to have worked with only one film & print size for decades. Convenient and organized for sure, but definitely did not match my experience.
 
Erik van Straten said:
Yes I agree, but the most important is the negative system. I started mine in 1971 and have now 1171 pages with on each page seven strokes with on each stroke six pictures! The whole thing is for 100% chronological. I never have in more than in one camera a film.
Click to expand...
I worked as a photographer for long enough that this was never an option for me. My catalogue is very large, and is more like a heap than an archive.

I vastly prefer Lightroom, in which I can find every digital photo by time and many by gps points so I know exactly where they were taken.
 
Last edited:
Darthfeeble said:
I've always wondered if the pictures you post are scans of the negative and processed or scans of the prints. They are so clear and detailed, wonderful work.
Click to expand...
Thanks, they are scans of the prints. Scans of the negatives and then make them digitally positive is also possible, but for me gelatin silver prints are very important. They are the final product of the photographic workflow IMO. After 200 years they can be still there, while most digital photos will no longer be visible because technological development. This will certainly come, sooner than you think. Gelatin silver prints will always remain visible if they are stored properly. Digital prints do not last long.
 
Last edited:
Of the few I do, I scan the negatives and print from those scans and it hasn't been very satisfactory. I had the lab do a set of prints from one of my 120 rolls and even that wasn't any better. Thus I will be sticking to digital. Thanks for the reply, I really enjoy your work.
 
Freakscene said:
@Jonathan R was talking about 25 years ago. But it is easy to do today too.

In Germany, not so far away, Fotoimpex have several print developers Erik, and Moersch Fotochemie makes some really innovative ones including several suitable for, and a kit specifically for 2 bath development. Freestyle Photo in the US makes a Selectol Soft copy off the shelf.

It’s also really easy to make Selectol Soft yourself:

Water 52C. 750mL
Metol. 12.3g
Sodium sulfite (anhydrous) 36g
Sodium carbonate (anhydrous). 30g
Potassium bromide 10% solution. 18mL
Cold water to make 1L

Scale it up as you need it. You can buy the chemistry from dozens of sources. It works extremely well as the ‘soft’ developer with Dektol/D-72.

I showed someone how to print on graded paper in two baths on Thursday. It’s not so hard.
Click to expand...
I don't remember if I have thanked you for this formula yet but I'll do it now while I am thinking of it. Getting ready to do some more printing so this will be put to good use shortly. Thank you very much.
 
Pioneer said:
I don't remember if I have thanked you for this formula yet but I'll do it now while I am thinking of it. Getting ready to do some more printing so this will be put to good use shortly. Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
No problem, you are very welcome. While I am at it - during its production, Selectol Soft changed formula. In fact it went back and forth a few times. These formulae are fairly plastic - the ratios of chemicals change the look and particularly are lower or higher contrast. You can make a 'soft' developer with a bit of hydroquinone that works very well as a developer on its own. In my experience, Selectol Soft prints needed a little contrast boost even on negatives that required a lot of contrast reduction to produce nice prints. So D-52 was good for negatives that needed some contrast management but looked too flat in Selectol Soft. The only thing is D-52 tends to produce quite warm tones, but I liked how it made cold tone paper look. I also provide a Selectol Soft type formula that is really soft, and Gaevert G253, a developer that is only marginally more active than water with metaborate in it (that's a joke).

Edit: also note that the commercial version of D-52 was called Selectol but not Selectol Soft. Kodak were never good at naming things.

D-52
Water around 52C/125F 750 milliters
Metol 1.5 grams
Sodium Sulfite 22.5 grams
Hydroquinone 6.0 grams
Sodium Carbonate 17.0 grams
Potassium Bromide 1.5 grams
Water to make 1000 milliliters

Selectol (really) soft (later formula)
Distilled water (50°C) ................ 750 mL
Metol ................................. 6.0 g
Sodium sulfite (anhy) ................. 25.0 g
Sodium carbonate (mono) ......... 37.0 g
Potassium bromide .................... 0.5 g
Distilled water to make .............. 1000 mL

Gaevert G.253
Water at 52C 750ml
Metol 3g
Sodium sulfite 20g
Sodium carbonate (mono) 23g
Potassium bromide (KBr) 1g
Water to make 1 liter

There are also Ansco 120 and Agfa 105 which are similar.

Any of these can be used 1+1 or 1+2.

The only real loss in having few graded papers and a limited selection of VC papers available these days is that highlight contrast is hard to manipulate. VC papers tend to have low highlight contrast and changing the contrast by filtration doesn't alter highlight contrast much. Cachet used to make an amazing VC paper with very high highlight contrast, but it's long gone. The newest Ilford VC FB paper has higher highlight contrast than the previous version, but it is now moderate and used to be low (arguably very low). If you find you don't get enough highlight contrast you can print a little too dark and bleach back the print. Bleaching can be hard to control; Ilford papers in particular are very resistant to bleaching and it is hard to improve the highlights without either over-doing it or getting uneven bleaching. Foma papers bleach better than Ilford.

Marty
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom