Exposure/contrast consistency between Ilford RC and FB paper?

[pbromaghin]

With the darkroom completed, I'm about to do my first prints. I would like to use Ilford RC paper with its quicker processing and drying for dialing in contrast and exposure, and FB paper for final prints. How consistent are they to each other, for example, RC Cool Tone and FB Cool Tone? Once the exposure and filtering are determined with RC, can I just leave the settings as they are and insert a sheet of FB?

 

[Paul Howell]

While I cant speak to ILford I find that with Foma there are differences between batches, at times Foma grade 2 or 3 papers match ILford VC filers very closely while other batch's seem to me be a 1/2 to full stop off. With my current box of Foma grade 3 matches 3 1/2 ILford VC paper with Foma VC paper. Another box of Ultrafine grade 3 RC paper matches Iford Grade 3 VC filter on Foma VC paper.

 

[GregY]

I've always found differences between boxes of the same paper.....let alone between RC & FB.

 

[Pieter12]

With the darkroom completed, I'm about to do my first prints. I would like to use Ilford RC paper with its quicker processing and drying for dialing in contrast and exposure, and FB paper for final prints. How consistent are they to each other, for example, RC Cool Tone and FB Cool Tone? Once the exposure and filtering are determined with RC, can I just leave the settings as they are and insert a sheet of FB?

Can't speak for Ilford cool tone, but I have made 8x10 RC prints to determine exposure, dodging, burning, and then followed up with an 11x14 FB print (all Ilford MG). The RC doesn't match exactly, plus there will be slight variations batch-to-batch of both the RC and FB papers. I usually get what I want with the second 11x14, though, maybe a 1/4 stop adjustment plus the extra stop going from 8x10 to 11x14 (I use f-stop printing).

 

[pentaxuser]

Based on the big range of findings of as few as two members might it not be simpler to use smaller pieces of the same batch of FB paper instead?

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

Based on the big range of findings of as few as two members might it not be simpler to use smaller pieces of the same batch of FB paper instead?

pentaxuser

Maybe allow some time for others to chime in...

 

[pentaxuser]

Maybe allow some time for others to chime in...

Yes I agree in terms of getting a broader view but in terms of giving the OP a definitive answer which supports what he is hoping to I have doubts when you compare the certainty of using small test strips of the same FB paper

pentaxuser

 

[brian steinberger]

I’ve made prints on Ilfords newest generation RC pearl and then took those settings to MG classic glossy and the results were very very close. Could certainly work this way and I do many times.

 

[GregY]

I’ve made prints on Ilfords newest generation RC pearl and then took those settings to MG classic glossy and the results were very very close. Could certainly work this way and I do many times.

Cool. I suppose i'd give it a try if i were making small prints. But at the current cost of paper, if I'm making a 16x20" or 20x24" print, i'll always use the same paper from the same box for test strips.

 

[Maris]

In my darkroom the processing times for RC and FB papers is the same: same development, same stop, same fix.

In theory RC papers can be force dried faster than FB but waiting for a dry pilot print or test strip to determine exposure and contrast is a huge and unnecessary slow down.
Instead judge a good pilot print or test strip while it is wet and still in the fixer tray and then modify the apparent exposure time by applying a dry-down percentage. This allows for the fact that a print will darken slightly as it dries.

When I print on Ilford Multigrade Classic paper I allow a personal dry-down factor of 7% so that a print exposure that looks good wet at 20 seconds will need an exposure of 18.6 seconds to look good dry.
I test all papers to determine their dry-down factor and this enables me to do reliable test strips using the same paper I will print on. No need for guess work in testing on one paper and printing on another.

 

[pbromaghin]

Thanks for all the replies!

In the darkroom class I took, I always used test strips, but I've been thinking that a little larger look, like a 4x5 might be helpful. Comparing the tech specs for the RC and FB, the FB is about 1/4 stop faster through the whole filtration levels. The real difference in time comes in the wash and dry, but it seems that can be worked around. It appears it isn't worth bothering with different papers for this.

 

[fiddle]

I’ve made prints on Ilfords newest generation RC pearl and then took those settings to MG classic glossy and the results were very very close. Could certainly work this way and I do many times.

Agreed.
RC Pearl and FB Glossy are very close from my use.

 

[GregY]

Thanks for all the replies!

In the darkroom class I took, I always used test strips, but I've been thinking that a little larger look, like a 4x5 might be helpful. Comparing the tech specs for the RC and FB, the FB is about 1/4 stop faster through the whole filtration levels. The real difference in time comes in the wash and dry, but it seems that can be worked around. It appears it isn't worth bothering with different papers for this.

When testing i often use bigger pieces of paper. On a big print i will cut a full sheet in quarters or sometimes in 1/3 strips that way i get to see parts of the image. Does someone have their eyes shut? Is there a mark on the negative that i overlooked? How does the contrast look?

 

[Pieter12]

I generally use a full sheet of 8x10 for a test strip exposure, whether the final will be 8x10 or 11x14 (don't make 16x20, although I could--just haven't found the image yet that would suit the size). I also usually make my initial work prints on RC, because the results are quicker--less wash, less dry, dry flat and the paper is half the cost. But I will take the exposure times and contrast from the RC print (main, dodging, burning) and notes and apply them to a FB 11x14, usually adding a stop, +or- 1/4.

 

[otto.f]

Whether Ilford or not, the drying down effect is necessary to test for with fiber based papers. This is hardly necessary with RC or PE papers. With FB I always dry the test strips before making the final print

 

[RalphLambrecht]

With the darkroom completed, I'm about to do my first prints. I would like to use Ilford RC paper with its quicker processing and drying for dialing in contrast and exposure, and FB paper for final prints. How consistent are they to each other, for example, RC Cool Tone and FB Cool Tone? Once the exposure and filtering are determined with RC, can I just leave the settings as they are and insert a sheet of FB?

There are differences between RC and FB but they are consistent. It is possible to 'work out' a print in RC and then translate the work to FB; done it many times.

 

[DevStopFix]

The MGIV gen of RC and the classic FB always required meaningfully different exposure times and contrast adjustments for me. Take a look at the tech data sheets Ilford publishes for each paper and you’ll note whatever speed and exposure range differences exist.

 

[lightray]

There is a slight difference in sensitivity, i use rc and fb Multigrade, I measure in lux seconds, for rc 1.8 and for fb 1.87, contrast is slightly different too, rc is a lil contrastier, i have a step wedge to determine the contrast, the difference between the papers is consistent.