matt fury
Well-known
I've used mostly Kodak D lustre Polycontrast paper for my (albeit short) printing career. I understand that for art printing, nobody really takes RC paper seriously. I bought a swatch book of Foma paper, and a package of bohemian semi-matte Arista paper, but I'm having a problem discerning what makes FB paper so awesome. Not the archivablity stuff, that I understand. I bought a pack of RC Illford glossy paper, and I can see why people wouldn't want to use that, but especially after tdoay's darkroom session, I'm having a hardtime imagining what's better than my unavailable D Lustre paper.
So, what's a type of paper I can get that will show me why FB is regarded so highly? I plan on doing a lot of printing in the next few months, and I don't want to regret my choices in the upcoming years. Thanks in advance!
So, what's a type of paper I can get that will show me why FB is regarded so highly? I plan on doing a lot of printing in the next few months, and I don't want to regret my choices in the upcoming years. Thanks in advance!
S
Stephan
Guest
It's all a matter of personal preference, there are probably about a a hundred types of FB paper floating around and tha'ts one of the great things about it, each one has a different look and texture. Your local photography store might have some example pictures you can poke at to make up your mind, if not it's difficult to choose really, you can't choose that kind of thing on the internet I'm afraid. Personally I stay away from warm tone papers most of the time and prefer fine texture over coarse canvas-like textured paper. A good place to start is probably simple Ilford multigrade FB matt for example just to get a feel for the process, plus I really like it 
Remember you'll need some way of flattening the dried prints also
Remember you'll need some way of flattening the dried prints also
kmack
do your job, then let go
You may want to do some research at apug black and white forum. I am just about to start doing some LF contact printing and I have been looking at the Kentmere Bromide paper. The Kentmere Fineprint VC FB Warm Tone Semi Matte specifically.
Wayne R. Scott
Half fast Leica User
Kentona from Kentmere developed in Amidol for contact printing.
Wayne
Wayne
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
the fact is that just about any FB paper will make RC paper look like, well lets just say there is no comparison and the little extra $ for FB is well worth the investment.
froyd
Veteran
Agreed that most FB paper will make RC look significantly inferior, even good RC.
You mentioned Ilford glossy RC. When you try the multi-contrast glossy Ilford FB, you'll notice theat the gloss is not nearly as obnoxious. Pictures won't look quite as sharp, but the tonal range and the richness of the blacks will be unmatched.
However, I find printing on FB a pain. Unless mounted, I cannot get any of my prints to lie fully flat, like an RC print. Drymounting is the only way I can achieve a flat FB print.
You mentioned Ilford glossy RC. When you try the multi-contrast glossy Ilford FB, you'll notice theat the gloss is not nearly as obnoxious. Pictures won't look quite as sharp, but the tonal range and the richness of the blacks will be unmatched.
However, I find printing on FB a pain. Unless mounted, I cannot get any of my prints to lie fully flat, like an RC print. Drymounting is the only way I can achieve a flat FB print.
pesphoto
Veteran
I agree that the look of fiber paper blows away Rc, at least in my mind. But it is a pain to use for EVERYTHING. How do other people do it. Maybe test prints on RC, smaller 5x7 test prints then finals on Fiber, etc? Just curious what others work flow is in the darkroom.
froyd
Veteran
If it is a print that I know will require some work, I might be a cheapskate and practice a few prints on RC. However, I still do one more test on FB before the fianal print because I find the tonality changes enought between the two papers to warrant some adjustments.
CJP6008
Established
There are no rights and wrongs here. If you find a paper you like the look of, be it FB or RC they use it. What looks best to you is probably best for you!
That said, FB papers can give you more flexibility. There is more variety out there, they tend to tone better and react much more to choice of developer. One can therefore tune one's paper/developer/toner combinations to particular images. A notable exception is Forte who tend to use the same emulsions on both the RC and RB ranges.
Warmtone papers tend to be more senitive to different developers and toners.
A useful exercise I once did in a B&W printing class was to print the same neg on a load of different papers in different developers, toners etc (noting on the back what I did). Can be a real eye opener as to what is possible.
Have fun!
That said, FB papers can give you more flexibility. There is more variety out there, they tend to tone better and react much more to choice of developer. One can therefore tune one's paper/developer/toner combinations to particular images. A notable exception is Forte who tend to use the same emulsions on both the RC and RB ranges.
Warmtone papers tend to be more senitive to different developers and toners.
A useful exercise I once did in a B&W printing class was to print the same neg on a load of different papers in different developers, toners etc (noting on the back what I did). Can be a real eye opener as to what is possible.
Have fun!
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
FB paper seems to have more depth... richer blacks and the glossy paper without ferrotyping has a look that is unique.
However i find RC paper perfectly acceptable for me, even though I do not like the glossys since they look plasticky and prefer Ilford Pearl finish (since my beloved AGFA MCP is dead)
However i find RC paper perfectly acceptable for me, even though I do not like the glossys since they look plasticky and prefer Ilford Pearl finish (since my beloved AGFA MCP is dead)
FrankS
Registered User
I use Ilford pearl MC RC paper. If I ever take a life's master piece image or am asked to exhibit in a museum, then I will print on FB paper. If a print is mounted behind glass, framed, and hung on a wall, the difference would not be noticeable.
S
Stephan
Guest
pesphoto said:
Yep, you got it. First do a perfect but small RC, with all the masking you need etc, then test your times with strips of FB and you only need to do one large FB final print (If it all works out
).Filmnut
Member
I have this love hate relationship with fibre paper, I love the look of it, but hate all the extra time it takes. Also, here in Toronto, Ontario, fibre is nearly twice the price of RC paper as well.
So I use both, I do prints on RC, sometimes to decide which neg to use the good paper on, or for casual display (pined up on the wall for instance), then print the "chosen ones" again on fibre. Plus I can use the the exp. time and contrast plus a "fudge factor" to get me in the ballpark on the first test. If I'm lucky, that is. Family stuff uually goes onto RC as well, as other people think there's something wrong with prints that aren't flat and smooth looking.
I usually use Agfa (I still have a supply) or Ilford, on a pearl or glossy finish, don't like too matte a paper, but that's just personal. I haven't tried any other paper in quite a few years, although I hear many good things about other brands.
So I use both, I do prints on RC, sometimes to decide which neg to use the good paper on, or for casual display (pined up on the wall for instance), then print the "chosen ones" again on fibre. Plus I can use the the exp. time and contrast plus a "fudge factor" to get me in the ballpark on the first test. If I'm lucky, that is. Family stuff uually goes onto RC as well, as other people think there's something wrong with prints that aren't flat and smooth looking.
I usually use Agfa (I still have a supply) or Ilford, on a pearl or glossy finish, don't like too matte a paper, but that's just personal. I haven't tried any other paper in quite a few years, although I hear many good things about other brands.
nightfly
Well-known
I don't miss the darkroom much but when I open up my print box and look at some of my old fiber prints, it makes me want to go back.
It really depends what you like. I love cold tones and rich blacks and found that Forte paper was my favorite, I forgot which one, but whatever their cold tone paper is, I think Polygrade V.
From what I understand many of the really good cold toned papers were long gone before I started printing a few years ago. People rhapsodize about old Agfa papers etc.
I have just embraced inkjet printing because all the darkrooms I used to rent time at closed.
It really depends what you like. I love cold tones and rich blacks and found that Forte paper was my favorite, I forgot which one, but whatever their cold tone paper is, I think Polygrade V.
From what I understand many of the really good cold toned papers were long gone before I started printing a few years ago. People rhapsodize about old Agfa papers etc.
I have just embraced inkjet printing because all the darkrooms I used to rent time at closed.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I am not up on current papers; my favourites were Zone VI Brilliant and Ilforbrom, both no longer available.
In both cases (and what I would do now) I used glossy paper but dried it matte (face down on fiberglas screens), which gives a nice sheen that I prefer over a matte paper.
I also found that developer was important to getting the last bit of quality out of a paper. Dektol was good, but my standard was Weston's Amidol. The blacks were rich and deep; looked like you could reach in all the way up to your elbows. With prints like that, I very rarely used RC again ... only for inexpensive production prints for customers when speed was the primary requirement.
Other than that, even my contact sheets/proofs were on fibre. A beautiful proof print is inspiring; I wanted the most inspiration I could get. Life is too short for compromises.
In both cases (and what I would do now) I used glossy paper but dried it matte (face down on fiberglas screens), which gives a nice sheen that I prefer over a matte paper.
I also found that developer was important to getting the last bit of quality out of a paper. Dektol was good, but my standard was Weston's Amidol. The blacks were rich and deep; looked like you could reach in all the way up to your elbows. With prints like that, I very rarely used RC again ... only for inexpensive production prints for customers when speed was the primary requirement.
Other than that, even my contact sheets/proofs were on fibre. A beautiful proof print is inspiring; I wanted the most inspiration I could get. Life is too short for compromises.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I just read a post over on APUG by Simon from Harman/Ilford, who indicated that they would introduce, in 2007, a 'stay flat' FB paper with little or no warpage/curling properties post processing. So if the curling issue is an annoyance preventing you from taking full enjoyment of FB paper, there's a solution on the way.
As for the look of FB, I would recommend you purchase some small packs of various papers through your favorite mailorder house (like 10-sheet packs, if available), and try a selection. In general, you can narrow down your search by warm/cold tone, and flat/pearl/glossy, to at least get a reasonably small assortment that won't break the bank.
Keep in mind that paper/developer/dilution combinations also effect print tone, so if tone is important, that'll be a whole 'nother research project.
I process lots of RC grade 2 glossy paper for use as ortho 'film' in pinhole box cameras (which works well as 'film' but the surface properties are less than inspiring as a print medium); when I get around to enlarging or contact printing my paper negatives, it's always on FB paper, and I'm constantly re-amazed at how much I like the physical properties of FB glossy paper, especially Forte Polywarmtone and Ilford FB warmtone.
As for the look of FB, I would recommend you purchase some small packs of various papers through your favorite mailorder house (like 10-sheet packs, if available), and try a selection. In general, you can narrow down your search by warm/cold tone, and flat/pearl/glossy, to at least get a reasonably small assortment that won't break the bank.
Keep in mind that paper/developer/dilution combinations also effect print tone, so if tone is important, that'll be a whole 'nother research project.
I process lots of RC grade 2 glossy paper for use as ortho 'film' in pinhole box cameras (which works well as 'film' but the surface properties are less than inspiring as a print medium); when I get around to enlarging or contact printing my paper negatives, it's always on FB paper, and I'm constantly re-amazed at how much I like the physical properties of FB glossy paper, especially Forte Polywarmtone and Ilford FB warmtone.
gareth
Established
I do all my general b&w portfolio work on RC paper. Mostly I print on Ilford MGIV RC Pearl, and a few are printed on MG warmtone RC pearl.
If it’s a display print it has to be fibre. I thought perhaps that I was getting fussy, but I’ve showed a number of prints to non-photographer friends. Often identical images, one on RC, the other on fibre. They all see what I see. They all want the fibre print.
Fibre paper is just beautiful. It has a deep almost three dimensional look to it. The tonal range and spread is superior, and no it doesn’t loose it’s advantage when framed and stuck behind glass.
It’s a bugger to work with, slow to develop, a pain to tone, a pain to wash and a pain to dry. It has to be dry pressed, but if you want the best from a b&w display print, it’s worth the hassle.
For fibre I use Ilford MGIV glossy. I always stick it through very strong selenium to rid it of it’s, well in my opinion anyway, green tinge. It’s takes on a very mild cold blue hue along with a reasonable increase in D-max. The selenium does have to be strong and fresh. Unlike it RC cousin, it’s very reluctant to react with selenium, but it will do it.
Occasionally I also print on Ilford wramtone fibre glossy. Again I tone it in selenium, but a much weaker solution and for a fairly short time, just to get that big D-max increase that you get with selenium and warm papers.
In short, fibre is worth the pain, but for me for display prints only.
If it’s a display print it has to be fibre. I thought perhaps that I was getting fussy, but I’ve showed a number of prints to non-photographer friends. Often identical images, one on RC, the other on fibre. They all see what I see. They all want the fibre print.
Fibre paper is just beautiful. It has a deep almost three dimensional look to it. The tonal range and spread is superior, and no it doesn’t loose it’s advantage when framed and stuck behind glass.
It’s a bugger to work with, slow to develop, a pain to tone, a pain to wash and a pain to dry. It has to be dry pressed, but if you want the best from a b&w display print, it’s worth the hassle.
For fibre I use Ilford MGIV glossy. I always stick it through very strong selenium to rid it of it’s, well in my opinion anyway, green tinge. It’s takes on a very mild cold blue hue along with a reasonable increase in D-max. The selenium does have to be strong and fresh. Unlike it RC cousin, it’s very reluctant to react with selenium, but it will do it.
Occasionally I also print on Ilford wramtone fibre glossy. Again I tone it in selenium, but a much weaker solution and for a fairly short time, just to get that big D-max increase that you get with selenium and warm papers.
In short, fibre is worth the pain, but for me for display prints only.
Max Power
Well-known
I'm one of the skeptical converts too. I usually use Ilford MG RC either Glossy or Pearl depending upon my mood for the standard, messing around stuff. If it's anything important, though, it goes on Ilford MG FB Glossy. Yes, it is a royal PITA to work with, but I have to admit that when I make two prints, one RC and the other FB, the FB stands out as far superior.
Although I've not yet tried my print dryer for drying FB prints, I have used the microwave...IMHO the result with Ilford MG FB Glossy is nothing short of stunning. Les MacLean opined that it might be like ferrotyping, which is why I picked up a print dryer...Just a little safer, and flatter drying
Just my $0.02,
Kent
Although I've not yet tried my print dryer for drying FB prints, I have used the microwave...IMHO the result with Ilford MG FB Glossy is nothing short of stunning. Les MacLean opined that it might be like ferrotyping, which is why I picked up a print dryer...Just a little safer, and flatter drying
Just my $0.02,
Kent
Toby
On the alert
I've generally used FB paper for all important prints. FB paper has a thicker emulsion layer than its RC equivalent and that what makes for its richer tones. I also love the tactile quality of the paper, its one of those things in photography that elicits a response beyond the logical. Just as I know that overall my Eos 20d is more competent than my bessa but I could sell all my canon gear tomorrow without shedding a tear, but to sell my bessa kit would be a real wrench.
gareth
Established
I got a print dryer when I started doing fibre just a couple of years ago.
But I've stopped using it.
All I do now, is after the final wash I hang two prints back to back using 6 clothes pegs from one of those indoor washing stands. 2 at either end of the print, 1 in the centre, same top and bottom. They then dry fairly flat, a few days under some boxes of paper and they are completely flat. But of course to keep em flat long term you need to dry press em.
My general portfolio prints are 10x8 inch on RC paper.
The display prints are fibre on 16x12 inch paper.
But I've stopped using it.
All I do now, is after the final wash I hang two prints back to back using 6 clothes pegs from one of those indoor washing stands. 2 at either end of the print, 1 in the centre, same top and bottom. They then dry fairly flat, a few days under some boxes of paper and they are completely flat. But of course to keep em flat long term you need to dry press em.
My general portfolio prints are 10x8 inch on RC paper.
The display prints are fibre on 16x12 inch paper.