FB paper getting older - comparison with RC

[tkamiya]

Here's a two-fold question....

Some of my paper stocks are getting older and I am noticing some of them are getting "slow." By that, I mean if I expose enough so that black looks right, highlight builds enough density that the contrast is lower. On worse paper, contrast stops building at filter #3 or so. Going higher won't change anything. Even at that, comparing with good paper, it seems older paper fails to build contrast greater than #2 or perhaps #1 1/2 grade.

I have Ilford brand and Adorama brand of papers. Some of them are about 5 years old in "human comfortable" dry and air conditioned darkroom. RC seemed to have be doing well when FB seems to have degraded.

Is this FB vs. RC a common trait or is this something just happening in this particular case?

As I go through paper stock, I am labeling what I see. I may dispose few boxes. Are these old paper (that are not fogged at all but fails to produce contrast) any use to anyone? Should I toss them or should I put them up for "sale" at low LOW price here? I will label them and advertise what I see of course.

Thanks.

 

[MartinP]

The answer would be "it depends" (on lots of things) but if you are seeing a printing behaviour that has changed in to something you don't want, then disposing of it in some way is clearly perfectly legitimate. However, there are lots of things you can do with paper apart from printing on it directly, or even trying it for lith.

Did you ever tried paper negs in a pinhole camera, or even in place of sheet film? It could also make direct contact prints from plants or household objects; photograms can be very interesting and will get you thinking of ways to expose ordinary things in different ways, for example.

If these not-printing ideas are not something you'd like to do, then selling it locally/here in an honest way is a perfectly respectable thing to do. No one will send round the printing-police to knock the door down at three in the morning.

 

[NedL]

Everything Martin said, plus solargraphy and retina prints too.

 

[MattKing]

Contact sheets are a great use for old paper that isn't fogged, but is losing "contrast" capability.

Or...

You could always start treating it as fixed Grade 2 paper.

 

[mike c]

Here's a two-fold question....

Some of my paper stocks are getting older and I am noticing some of them are getting "slow." By that, I mean if I expose enough so that black looks right, highlight builds enough density that the contrast is lower. On worse paper, contrast stops building at filter #3 or so. Going higher won't change anything. Even at that, comparing with good paper, it seems older paper fails to build contrast greater than #2 or perhaps #1 1/2 grade.

I have Ilford brand and Adorama brand of papers. Some of them are about 5 years old in "human comfortable" dry and air conditioned darkroom. RC seemed to have be doing well when FB seems to have degraded.

Is this FB vs. RC a common trait or is this something just happening in this particular case?

As I go through paper stock, I am labeling what I see. I may dispose few boxes. Are these old paper (that are not fogged at all but fails to produce contrast) any use to anyone? Should I toss them or should I put them up for "sale" at low LOW price here? I will label them and advertise what I see of course.

Thanks.

I all ways thought that the emulsions were the same for both RC and Fiber just the plastic coating on the RC made the only deference. I have some really old fiber paper that has a lower contrast range than when it was new about 10 years, was going to make some prints and run it them through some dilute bleach to see if it would clean up the highlights.

Mike

 

[tkamiya]

Mike C,

I thought the same, too, concerning emulsions being same or similar. But my small sample unscientific test shows my particular stock of RC did better than Fiber. Weird isn't it?

 

[mike c]

Wonder if Kodak or Ilford have done comparative tests on aging RC and Fiber papers?

 

[MattKing]

There is no particular reason to expect RC and FB papers to respond the same way to aging and environmental factors - even if the emulsions are identical.

I would expect the two different bases to cause the emulsions to respond differently to humid conditions.

And the response to aging and environmental factors is a response of the entire package - the base, the material that separates the base from the emulsion and the emulsion itself.

 

[NB23]

I'm on Polymax FB papers presently and they behave like new. Quite Outstanding. My Polymax RC is completely fogged.

My personal experience is that RC goes bad faster then FB. Not only with Kodak papers but Ilford as well...

I'm in Canada and you're in Florida... Maybe the humidity plays a role? FB being spongy while RC isn't might play a difference?

I'm really of no help and I know it

 

[winger]

There's always lumen printing, too. http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/lumen/lumen-prints

I'm guessing I'll be in this boat soon, too. I'll be finally getting back to my darkroom when we move (tentatively scheduled for late March) and I know there are some open boxes of paper there. I may try them to see, but since Ilford has new versions of their FB paper, I may just designate the old ones for alt stuff and start over.

Sorry I can't help with why either goes bad faster. I would think humidity is a big part of it.

 

[freecitizen]

There is always Lith Printing if the paper responds to that process. I just got a couple of good lith prints this evening from some old ( expired 2002 ) and fogged Forte Polygrade V RC paper. True, not all papers respond well to Lith but it could be an option.

Also, you could experiment with hot developer. I have used up to 45 degrees Celsius .... works a treat with some papers and also very good with infrared or lith.

And you could use these old papers to practice toning or dying your photos .... selenium, sepia, other colours ..... or try dyeing your prints with tea or coffee.

Nothing to lose if the paper is not giving you what you want in a straight print.

 

[tkamiya]

And you could use these old papers to practice toning or dying your photos .... selenium, sepia, other colours ..... or try dyeing your prints with tea or coffee.

This is a great suggestion! Thank you. I especially like dyeing part. I had another thread going for creating "deliberately badly processed prints." I can go for "ooops.... coffee spilled!" look.

 

[mnemosyne]

I am no expert, but I think that some RC paper emulsions contain agents that speed up development for machine processing purposes. This could have an impact on keeping properties. Also the banning of certain substances for environmental reasons has necessitated reformulations of emulsions and probably had some impact on longevity of papers too. This affects both RC and FB paper of course. So modern FB paper keeps not as well as the FB paper of former times. From time to time I buy some old Agfa Brovira FB papers (ca. 1960s) off Ebay and my experience is that they almost always still print very well, with solid blacks and good contrast. In fact they are so good that I have to ask myself how gorgeous they must have been when they where still brand new ...

 

[flavio81]

We had a thread not so long ago where PE and other forumers explained that the emulsions are not exactly the same in FB versus RC papers.

We also had another thread discussing papers where "development accelerators" (or something similar) were included.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Here's a two-fold question....

Some of my paper stocks are getting older and I am noticing some of them are getting "slow." By that, I mean if I expose enough so that black looks right, highlight builds enough density that the contrast is lower. On worse paper, contrast stops building at filter #3 or so. Going higher won't change anything. Even at that, comparing with good paper, it seems older paper fails to build contrast greater than #2 or perhaps #1 1/2 grade.

I have Ilford brand and Adorama brand of papers. Some of them are about 5 years old in "human comfortable" dry and air conditioned darkroom. RC seemed to have be doing well when FB seems to have degraded.

Is this FB vs. RC a common trait or is this something just happening in this particular case?

As I go through paper stock, I am labeling what I see. I may dispose few boxes. Are these old paper (that are not fogged at all but fails to produce contrast) any use to anyone? Should I toss them or should I put them up for "sale" at low LOW price here? I will label them and advertise what I see of course.

Thanks.

that's quite normal;with age, papers lose speed and contrast(both RC and FB)but, it can be compensated for with more exposure ,and in the case of VC papers, with a higher contrast filtration.if you get to the point that even max magenta filtration is not giving you enough contrast, the paper is shot and it's time to buy fresh paper.From my experience, Ilford papers can be used for up to ten years before this happens if kept refrigerated.
best of luck

 

[tkamiya]

I have a pack of vacuum packed Ilford paper that slept in my refrigerator this whole time. They were purchased at the same time. I'll be interesting to compare them.... I'll be doing that shortly.

I'll report back when I have the results.

 

[tkamiya]

That is a very good point about contact printing. I am not able to do that as I am a 35mm and medium format shooter. But, I have always been concerned about stray light from my enlarger. One of the things about Omega D2 and DII (I have both) is that there are LOTS of stray lights. By design, condenser housing does not sit flat against the negative carrier. So light leaks there. I've been thinking about putting some baffle around it. That may help increase contrast a bit. Worth trying....

As to internal flare, there may not be much I can do. I might try anther enlarger (Vivitar IV) to see if any difference.

Thank you for the idea.

 

[piu58]

There exist some methods which may rescue your paper
- use a contrasty paper developer
- use the developer in the lowes dilution the producer recommends, or even lower
- increase the developing time, which works fine at baryta paper.
You may gain one grade or even more.

 

[tkamiya]

Just reporting back.

I've gone through most of my boxes. It seems an old box of Adorama branded FB Glossy was the only one that was severely degraded. I usually put a date on boxes to indicate when a particular box was purchased but this one didn't have such date. So it must be one of the boxes I bought early on. I also found Ilford WT FB that wasn't so great. I know this is old.

So it seems in human comfortable condition, an open box lasts about 4 years with no detectable degradation. I have yet to open sealed ones in fridge.