FB Fiber x Art 300 paper

[marciofs]

In which of thise two papers prints looks more artistic and impressive. Which one is more suitable for exhibition?

I just can't decide which one I should get. Help?

 

[payral]

Paper by itself is not artistic or impressive, print on it can be (or not…).
print on both and choose.

 

[Ghostman]

I have printed both and they are very different. It all depends on what you want really. I love the Art300 and find MGFB more challenging. I find the Art300 wonderful for toning (but then so is FBMG WT). Art 300 is very punchy and contrasty, heavy blacks and tricky mid-tones. This works for me as I expose heavily, bleach and tone and it ends up looking very lith-like. The Art 300 has a very particular texture, which definitely adds to the overall effect.

Here is an example of one of my prints on Art300.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Art 300 and Ilford Warmtone are the same / similar emulsions... and behave like each other in all respects.

The difference is the weight and texture of the papers with Ilford Warmtone being slightly thinner and gloss which drys down nicely to a no glossy surface.
Art 300 is heavily textured and works well with some of my subject matter.
Philippe is quite correct , both are significant choices but yours alone.

 

[marciofs]

Thank you for the feedback. I will try art300 first then.

 

[adelorenzo]

It's all a matter of taste, of course, but I haven't been able to print anything I like on Art 300. I feel like heavy texture makes my pictures look unsharp. It must lend itself to a certain kind of look but I haven't figured out what that is yet. I prefer the matt and occasionally glossy MG FB.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I tried some Art 300 to reprint a gold over sepia toned print that I had previously printed on Foma Chamois. It does have some texture, but not nearly what the Chamois had, which suited the image much better. For more "straight" printing, I am not sure I would prefer Art 300 over MGWT in semi matte finish.

 

[rorye]

One thing I'd say is that when I print the same image on both papers the 300 makes me more aware of the paper, whereas MGFB makes it less about the paper and more about the image. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's just a thing.

 

[Ghostman]

Marcio, art 300 is tricky to work with. When developing, stopping, fixing and washing, it floats. I use an archive washer and need to peg the corners with tongs to keep it submerged. Also, the emulsion is very sensitive and after some time in water can peel off at the slightest touch. You have to handle it with extreme care.

I love using warm tone developer, sepia and selenium on it. I would not use it as an everyday paper, I prefer MG RC WT or Fiber for that. When I get an image and I think now that would look great on Art 300...

Enjoy.