What is your current favorite paper/developer combo and why?

xia_ke

xia_ke

Established
Local time
2:14 PM
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
196
I moved about 2 years ago and ended up having to sell my darkroom at that time. I've been taking my time the past two months getting the gear I want for a new darkroom set-up. I'm starting to think about what I want for paper and developer. I prefer to stick with one combo so that I can get really dialed in. My favorite before was Fotokemika Varycon FB with Ethol LPD developer. This was a really nice warmtone combo and LPD was great in that it has a long shelf life. Unfortunately, it seems like the Varycon has been discontinued. Freestyle still has some left, but I would like to pick something that will be around for a while, though I know there are no guarantees.

So to help me in my decision process, I'm curious as to what you all are printing with right now and what it is about the combo you like, whether it be aesthetics, versatility, availability, or even that it is just a cheap and affordable combo.
 
Iford Art 300 MG in Ilford Warmtone. Gorgeous tonality and superb texture (the prints feel like vintage engravings). It's expensive, and it's fibre base (lots more hassle than RC), but if you're trying to make exhibition prints why use anything but the best?

Cheers,

R.
 
Loved kodak papers. I really like oriental fb!
I mostly Switched to tasteless ilford papers because of availability. I like the matte FB tor its finish. Ilford Warm Tone is definitely their best. I like Dektol 1:1.

Haven't tried Ilford 300 as I still have a stock of over 3000 sheets to go through.
 
Thanks for the input :)

Roger, I'll have to check out Ilford 300. No worries on FB, I much prefer it over RC despite it being fussier to work with. I had tried their warmtone developer years ago, but something about it caused me to move on. I'll have to check my printing notes, but IIRC I was having issues with green casts in my prints. Perhaps it was just the paper I was using at the time, which I think was Slavich Unibrom?

Clint, I had always heard good things about Kodak paper, but they were getting out of paper just as I was getting into printing. Have you tried the warmtone Oriental?
 
I have seen variances with using different developers with the same paper. Depending on the combo, the differences have typically been subtle, akin to the difference of developing Tri-X in HC-110 vs developing it in Rodinal. I have seen some combos that had big differences in tonality, contrast, black rendering, etc though. Would have to dig back through my notebooks for some examples.
 
Moersch ECO 4812 is my favorite print developer hands down. Lasts and lasts in the bottle, in the tray and even as a bottled working solution. As a bonus it delivers wonderful print color and tonality on the Seagull VC, Adox Warmtone VC and Ilford Multigrade papers I most.

The ART 300 is lovely stuff, as are several of the FOMA offerings. There are plenty of fine FB papers to choose from these days. Sadly tho just one in single-weight, and that's in few sizes. A 9x12 SW would be my dream. Proofsheets just ought to be on SW fiber. I'm about halfway through a stash of 9x12" ADOX Multicontrast on SW base from a test coating. I'm into the benzotriazole with it now, but it still is looking great.
 
Ilford Warmtone RC Pearl finish in Sprint developer and then toned with Selenium. Gives a nice split tone look and I appreciate the convenience of RC since we're on well water.
 
Thanks again :)

sepiareverb, the Moersch was on my list of possibilities. I haven't tried it yet myself, but know many people that love and swear by it. Question for you. what are the differences between a single weight and a double weight paper? Obviously one is thicker than the other, but what are the advantages of a single weight over a double weight?
 
SW is like a BP Leica. Made to be touched, roughed upon. Ages gracefuly with creases all over. A Joy to behold and toss around. Write on it. It's mainly used for proof sheets. The more you touch it, the more it becomes valued. It's a piece of art unto itself with all those little photographs on the strips.

DW is a regular FB photo paper with all its meaning: Quality. Timeless. Highly luxurious to the touch. Thick enough not to bend like a cheap newspaper.

RC: same feeling as a plastic (garbage) bag.

:)
 
Clint, I have to agree with you about RC paper. When I first started printing everyone suggested RC paper because it is "easier to work with" and less expensive, so I picked up a couple boxes. I used it for my first printing session and haven't touched it since. I wanted to get into darkroom work after seeing the beauty of FB prints. Yes, RC prints are less expensive and easier to work with. Plus, if your goal is just to share prints online, there is no difference in the scans. But, when it comes to seeing and handling prints in person, there just is no comparison to a well done FB print IMO.
 
xia_ke said:
Plus, if your goal is just to share prints online, there is no difference in the scans.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. A glossy RC paper is easier to scan than a glossy FB one. Been battling some glossy fiber papers lately here.

xia_ke said:
Thanks again :)

sepiareverb, the Moersch was on my list of possibilities. I haven't tried it yet myself, but know many people that love and swear by it. Question for you. what are the differences between a single weight and a double weight paper? Obviously one is thicker than the other, but what are the advantages of a single weight over a double weight?
Click to expand...

SW is thinner. Emulsions the same as DW. But one can hold a SW proofsheet up to a light or window and see what's going on in the shadows or in a thin neg. Plus, handling a SW proof sheet is so much nicer than RC. Paper not plastic. A China Marker writes on it and stays put till you rub it off. Showing my age here I suppose, but a proof sheet should be made on SW paper. Old habits die hard.

The 4812 from Moersch is exceptional. I also use the Blue and the Sepia, and blend them depending on what I'm doing, but the 4812 is my go to developer for most work. I make my SW proofsheets in Sprint Quicksilver with a good bit of Benzotriazole added, only because I wouldn't save the working solution and the Sprint is a little cheaper. Before I found 4812 Sprint was what I used for all my work and proof prints.
 
Ilford Multigrade, mostly RC, sometimes FB. Galerie at times. I develop in LPD developer, which just keep going--like the Energizer Bunny, and you can change from warm tone to neutral to cool by varying the dilution.
 
Liquidol paper dev, easy to mix, lasts forever (a couple printing sessions if the nber of prints are low per session), ships free from Amazon.

Slavich Unibrom, graded, single weight, fiber, matte, smooth finish. Has a nice charcol black matte that pops and is so cold (I'm a cold tone kinda folk). Not that into WT papers.

Also love messing with Ektalure, but that stuff's as scarce as hens teeth...
 
moersch chemistry is great. by using different developers like blue and meritol you can achieve visibly different results. while blue gives deep blacks and a cool tone, meritol provides a very rich tonality and a wonderful warm tone. and there are many other moersch products to play with.

for me adox mcc is the paper to go.
 
sepiareverb said:
Not entirely true. A glossy RC paper is easier to scan than a glossy FB one. Been battling some glossy fiber papers lately here.
Click to expand...

Good point on that. I have done battle in the past with FB prints that I couldn't get completely flat and had issues with reflections in the raised areas.
 
sepiareverb said:
Not entirely true. A glossy RC paper is easier to scan than a glossy FB one. Been battling some glossy fiber papers lately here. . . .
Click to expand...
Indeed, for scanning, Art 300 isn't very good (surface texture): MG WT RC is much better. I was thinking of exhibition prints.

Cheers,

R.
 
excuse me, no provocation intended, but what´s the sense of scanning an fb- print? the print is the end- result, isn´t it? to show off on the net it´s enough to scan the neg, right?
 
straightmp said:
excuse me, no provocation intended, but what´s the sense of scanning an fb- print? the print is the end- result, isn´t it? to show off on the net it´s enough to scan the neg, right?
Click to expand...
Not really. Many people find it a LOT easier to make a good wet print than to work from a scanned negative.

Cheers,

R.
 
straightmp said:
excuse me, no provocation intended, but what´s the sense of scanning an fb- print? the print is the end- result, isn´t it? to show off on the net it´s enough to scan the neg, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, the print is the end result, but if I want to share that result I need to scan it for posting. There is a very big difference between a B&W neg scanned in grayscale and a finished print scanned in color to capture the subtle hues and tonalities. Another thing to keep in mind is that very often negatives are not just straight printed. There is a degree of selective dodging/burning. Sure you could recreate all of that by photoshopping a neg scan, but why bother if you can just scan the print?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom