Anything Close to Polycontrast III RC?

This may be a question for those of you who have been around a while:

Looking at an assortment of 8x10 prints tonight, some going back 30 years to my first days in a darkroom. Everything from the first few years is on Kodak Polycontrast III RC (pretty sure it was version III), glossy (F) surface. I didn’t think much of it at the time and moved on to other papers, but now I appreciate the deep true blacks, many grays, and fine rendering of detail. Sure, it wasn’t the best paper ever made, but it was good for what it needed to be, and no doubt it would be a premium offering among today’s options.

Which glossy RC paper out there comes close? Ilford Portfolio? Ilford Cooltone? MGRC v5? Foma 311?

Specifically, a super glossy variable contrast RC paper with a true neutral black. Does it exist anymore?

Admittedly I have not tried the most obvious option, Ilford’s newest V5 RC paper in glossy, just pearl. Nice, but it’s noticeably warmer than V4. Not necessarily bad, very good actually, but it doesn’t have the snap of the old Kodak. Perhaps KRST would cool it down?

FYI, a sample of Fomabrom Variant 111 FB that I ferrotyped looks even better than the old Kodak, but I’m not going to bother with that. Much too tedious.

AZD said:

This may be a question for those of you who have been around a while:

Looking at an assortment of 8x10 prints tonight, some going back 30 years to my first days in a darkroom. Everything from the first few years is on Kodak Polycontrast III RC (pretty sure it was version III), glossy (F) surface. I didn’t think much of it at the time and moved on to other papers, but now I appreciate the deep true blacks, many grays, and fine rendering of detail. Sure, it wasn’t the best paper ever made, but it was good for what it needed to be, and no doubt it would be a premium offering among today’s options.

Which glossy RC paper out there comes close? Ilford Portfolio? Ilford Cooltone? MGRC v5? Foma 311?

Specifically, a super glossy variable contrast RC paper with a true neutral black. Does it exist anymore?

Admittedly I have not tried the most obvious option, Ilford’s newest V5 RC paper in glossy, just pearl. Nice, but it’s noticeably warmer than V4. Not necessarily bad, very good actually, but it doesn’t have the snap of the old Kodak. Perhaps KRST would cool it down?

FYI, a sample of Fomabrom Variant 111 FB that I ferrotyped looks even better than the old Kodak, but I’m not going to bother with that. Much too tedious.

Click to expand...

Kodak Polycontrast III RC is not a paper I look back on fondly. It was hardto print and despite being VC, it always felt too hard. It was the paper that drove me to Ilford FB, and I never looked back. Nevertheless, it seems that you preferred what I disliked. I have never run into a paper quite as bad as Kodak Polycontrast III RC again.so, I can't help. KRST will not make up for the difference but starting with a very hardnegative may giveyou what you want.

Interesting observation. It’s been too long to recall specific details of printing with it, though I do kind of remember using the 0-2 filters frequently. I made plenty of terrible muddy prints too. Both may be related to haphazardly processed TMax 100 and 400. But it often worked quite well.

In any case, I suppose I’m only using the successful prints as a reference point. It’s the final look that is sometimes striking. Next to an assortment of other matte, pearl, and glossy prints, the old Kodak stuff just has a certain bold look to it that I like for some images.

Reality is I’ll just have to pick something and see how close I can get.

Closest I've seen to it was Kentmere paper that may no longer be made. I don't know - it was a few years ago. The glossy surface of Polycontrast III is almost glassy. That and the hardness Ralph mentioned is what made me think of the Kentmere paper, which I find doesn't reduce contrast that easily.

Multitone is somewhat hard and glossy, but not like PC III. I guess I would order 25 sheet packs of the contenders, print the same negative at grade 2, 3, and 4, dry with a hair drier, seems that the heat brings up the gloss a bit.

I used Kodak PC III RC Glossy for many years without any problems, but like any paper you need to run some tests (there's that dirty word again) to see what it is capable of, and see it meets your tastes.

For obvious reasons I had to move on to Ilford VC RC Glossy paper -- which has evolved over time, but I find it perfectly suitable in every way -- but of course I tested it, and expose and process it to my needs -- and most importantly, I expose and develop my films to meet the paper being used.

I've never found either paper to be too hard, but my C.I. is relatively low and my starting point is a diffusion head on the en;larger. It's much easier to add contrast than to minimize it.

I use some Kentmere VC RC Glossy as well only because it comes/came in 20" wide long rolls -- great for panoramas.

Also, all the Polycontrast III I've come across recently has been usable (if not light-fogged, that is).

AZD said:

Which glossy RC paper out there comes close? Ilford Portfolio? Ilford Cooltone? MGRC v5? Foma 311?

Specifically, a super glossy variable contrast RC paper with a true neutral black. Does it exist anymore?

Admittedly I have not tried the most obvious option, Ilford’s newest V5 RC paper in glossy, just pearl. Nice, but it’s noticeably warmer than V4.

Click to expand...

If you don't like warm, then definetly avoid Fomaspeed Variant 311. It has a very yellowish warm paper base compared to icy white Ilford Multigrade RC V5. It is quite beautiful though with old lenses and classic film types if you wish to reproduce a retro look. E.g. this photo I recently posted was printed on the paper: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/wake-for-children-killed-in-gaza.72068/

Don_ih said:

Also, all the Polycontrast III I've come across recently has been usable (if not light-fogged, that is).

Click to expand...

Hadn’t considered that, but maybe an option. I have long expired papers that are just fine, but others that are dead. Had kind of written off an old RC paper, but if a deal comes along…

Marco B said:

If you don't like warm, then definetly avoid Fomaspeed Variant 311. It has a very yellowish warm paper base compared to icy white Ilford Multigrade RC V5. It is quite beautiful though with old lenses and classic film types if you wish to reproduce a retro look. E.g. this photo I recently posted was printed on the paper: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/wake-for-children-killed-in-gaza.72068/

Click to expand...

Nice, I actually like that a lot. Different than what I’m looking for here, but I have some images that could make use of those qualities. Strange, Foma 312 has a base that looks colder and slightly blue compared to MG V5 (pearl, at least), which itself noticeably colder (base, not emulsion) than my regular Foma 111. Glad you mentioned this.

AZD said:

I have long expired papers that are just fine, but others that are dead.

Click to expand...

Polycontrast III is aging very well. I have a few packs that don't seem impacted by their age at all. Polycontrast II can be ok, also, but more likely to have lower contrast and fog - not worth any risk.

The main problem with buying any of that paper is the possibility it has seen daylight. Every day that passes seems to increase the likelihood.

Don_ih said:

Polycontrast III is aging very well. I have a few packs that don't seem impacted by their age at all. Polycontrast II can be ok, also, but more likely to have lower contrast and fog - not worth any risk.

The main problem with buying any of that paper is the possibility it has seen daylight. Every day that passes seems to increase the likelihood.

Click to expand...

Gotta love the occasional seller who takes a picture of the paper itself to show us all how it’s still flat and clean. Well, I guess you don’t know what you don’t know.

Marco B said:

If you don't like warm, then definetly avoid Fomaspeed Variant 311. It has a very yellowish warm paper base compared to icy white Ilford Multigrade RC V5.

Click to expand...

I've compared it to Adox MCP and the base color is virtually indistinguishable to me. Maybe the Ilford material is even more loaded with optical brightening agents, making it look 'cool' under daylight conditions? Fuji does that with their color papers - they've effectively gone overboard with it. Have you compared the Ilford and the Foma base color under artificial light (e.g. white LED)? Is the difference still the same? In any case, I never felt the Fomaspeed paper has a very warm base - in contrast to Fomatone, which definitely is warm-toned.

The blacks on Fomaspeed are a little weaker than on some other papers BTW.

koraks said:

I've compared it to Adox MCP and the base color is virtually indistinguishable to me. Maybe the Ilford material is even more loaded with optical brightening agents, making it look 'cool' under daylight conditions? Fuji does that with their color papers - they've effectively gone overboard with it. Have you compared the Ilford and the Foma base color under artificial light (e.g. white LED)? Is the difference still the same? In any case, I never felt the Fomaspeed paper has a very warm base - in contrast to Fomatone, which definitely is warm-toned.

The blacks on Fomaspeed are a little weaker than on some other papers BTW.

Click to expand...

Traditionally baryta (bariumsulphate) is the whitener. Maybe the Ilford RC paper has such an extra layer, and the Foma not. That baryta is often used in FB papers does not exclude it being used in RC paper as well.

It is difficult to photograph, but left is Fomaspeed Variant 311, right Ilford Multigrade IV or V RC De Luxe.

Marco B said:

Traditionally baryta (bariumsulphate) is the whitener. That baryta is often used in FB papers does not exclude it being used in RC paper as well.

Click to expand...

Both FB and RC papers can (and often do) contain OBAs. These OBAs are not barium sulfate; in FB papers they are mostly fluorescent dyes that are present in addition to barium sulfate.

Whether or not RC papers may contain traces of barium sulfate I couldn't say, but I don't expect this to be the case as there's no necessity for it to be in there, and there's very little sense to adding stuff to a paper that's not needed. It'd be a waste of money.

Fomaspeed does indeed contain OBAs as can easily be demonstrated; see here a collection of random bits of paper I could easily grab, exposed to 365nm UV:

Topleft is Fomatone MG, top right Fuji DPII color, bottom left is Fomabrom matte, bottom right is Fomaspeed 311. They all fluoresce significantly, the Fomabrom and Fomaspeed more so than the other two papers. They all contain OBA's.

It's also easy to tell that the barium sulfate is not the OBA responsible for the whiteness through fluorescence by looking at the back of the papers, which in the case of FB paper will for sure not be baryta-based - after all, the baryta layer is on the image side:

The shadow in the foreground is actually a sheet of Schut Laurier etching paper that contains no OBAs; hence, under strong UV light, it doesn't show up on a visible light capture. All the other papers mentioned above do fluoresce very strongly. I don't have any Ilford RC to compare this against, but I expect it's as loaded with OBAs as any other people because that's what people in general like. As you can see above, these OBAs are generally added also to the paper base. In the case of Fuji color paper, I happen to know that the OBAs are in the paper base, the RC lining as well as in the emulsion layer.

Marco B said:

It is difficult to photograph, but left is Fomaspeed Variant 311, right Ilford Multigrade IV or V RC De Luxe.

Click to expand...

I see what you mean. I wonder if your Fomaspeed is perhaps slightly fogged. The highlights also look conspicuously flat. Note that Fomaspeed fogs quite readily to many flavors of darkroom safelight; it requires a (deep) red safelight and exposure to the safelight needs to be kept to a minimum. This is different from Ilford paper. As said, the Foma paper does contain OBAs as demonstrated above. My measurements compared to Adox MCP show no significant difference in base density. My Fomaspeed prints show very bright white borders with no signs of veiling etc.

koraks said:

I see what you mean. I wonder if your Fomaspeed is perhaps slightly fogged. The highlights also look conspicuously flat. Note that Fomaspeed fogs quite readily to many flavors of darkroom safelight; it requires a (deep) red safelight and exposure to the safelight needs to be kept to a minimum. This is different from Ilford paper. As said, the Foma paper does contain OBAs as demonstrated above. My measurements compared to Adox MCP show no significant difference in base density. My Fomaspeed prints show very bright white borders with no signs of veiling etc.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that info about safe lighting. I have both an Ilford 902 amber/orange safelight and a small deep red one. Admittedly I had both on while printing, never gave me real issues with Ilford paper, but using Foma paper is new to me. That said, I never keep a pack of photo paper open even under safelight, but only pull out the single sheet I am going to print, so fogging should be minimal.

Again its hard to photograph, but this photo shows the back of the papers (left Foma, right Ilford), that also shows a difference in the color of the paper base.

Life is really weird. One day you ask about something you haven’t seen in decades, the next you have almost 250 sheets of it. I’ll have to test tonight, but for a nearly full box of 8.5x11 @ $35 it’s worth the gamble.

AZD said:

for a nearly full box of 8.5x11 @ $35 it’s worth the gamble

Click to expand...

I'd agree. I have my fingers crossed for you. Remember to test the top, bottom, and middle.

AZD said:

Life is really weird. One day you ask about something you haven’t seen in decades, the next you have almost 250 sheets of it. I’ll have to test tonight, but for a nearly full box of 8.5x11 @ $35 it’s worth the gamble.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't hold out too much hope for it. RC papers aren't that stable.
I recently was given some paper from the estate of a colleague pro photographer ......both FB & RC......some of the FB was salvageable with a bit of benzotriazole but the RC was completely fogged. Fingers crossed for you.

GregY said:

I wouldn't hold out too much hope for it. RC papers aren't that stable.

Click to expand...

I agree with Greg that the chances are low.
But I think that the longevity isn't really related to the substrate. It is related to the market that papers are designed for.
The older RC papers were designed for users who wanted low cost and more casual use.
Modern RC papers are used by a lot of people who have higher demands, including with respect to longevity.