FB Paper - What Am I Missing?

[MurrayMinchin]

For those of you that use FB and produce fine prints (for archival display purposes), do you use the same paper for testing and working prints as you do for finished fine prints?

Yup, I do.

Murray

 

[Alex Hawley]

For those of you that use FB and produce fine prints (for archival display purposes), do you use the same paper for testing and working prints as you do for finished fine prints?

Add me to the list of those who do. I can't quite make a fully accurate assessment of the results I'm seeing unless I'm using the paper that will be used for the final print. I may, in extreme cases, use RC to "rough it in". But then I start working with the FB I will ultimately use.

 

[Edwardv]

Practice Makes Perfect.

It took me awhile to unfold the many possibilities that fiber paper had to offer. Graded fiber paper was my best teacher; it offered many important lessons: 1. To be aware how you need to expose and process your film to get a constant paper grade. 2. How fiber paper responds to development, different developers, exposure, toning, and explore other alternatives. 3. Be constant in all the procedures. And in the end achiving the satisfaction of a really beautiful print.


I use RC paper as a give away. Fiber is given to some one who can really appreciate its beauty and my work.

As for fiber VC I find it diffucult to get a good tone from selenium that cannot compare to graded paper.

 

[blansky]

I hope that doesn't sound derogatory, because it's not intended to be. It's very difficult to say that some poeple might prefer the look of plastic to paper without sounding condescending, but that's what it boils down to.

Jay

I agree.

Whenever I'm at the camera store checkout, the clerk always asks "plastic or paper" and I always say paper.


Then they ask how I want to pay for it and I always say "plastic".



Michael

 

[Oren Grad]

Some papers are not available in one or the other forms, which makes the choice no choice at all.

I do not know of any RC papers that are close sensitometric matches to the supposedly corresponding FB papers. For example, the now-departed Agfa MCP and MCC had distinctly different curves. Ilford MGIV RC and FB are very different, as are MGFB Warmtone and MGRC Warmtone.

In that sense, although it's convenient to use RC for workprints, it's essentially not possible to use RC to work out a printing plan for a negative and then just replicate it on FB - the results will be different.

 

[dancqu]

I really didn't see much difference. Kent

Are you really saying you saw NO difference?
Or are you saying you saw a LITTLE difference?
A little difference counts. Dan

 

[Max Power]

Are you really saying you saw NO difference?
Or are you saying you saw a LITTLE difference?
A little difference counts. Dan

Hey Dan,
What I mean is that apart from the inherent differences in surface texture, I really didn't see a difference. That said, however, the next thing that I will do is play around with the drydown as per Les McLean's instructions; I see this as a logical next step.

Cheers,
Kent

 

[firecracker]

Hey Dan,
What I mean is that apart from the inherent differences in surface texture, I really didn't see a difference. That said, however, the next thing that I will do is play around with the drydown as per Les McLean's instructions; I see this as a logical next step.

Cheers,
Kent

What is comparable to Ilford FB glossy paper is the RC pearl, not the glossy type. At least to my eye, these two types of the paper seem to bring somewhat similar results when the image sizes are no bigger than 5x7".

For tonality, you also have to play around with other materials such as the paper developer (try different dilution, time, and agitation) and the filter (choose from Ilford, Fuji, etc if you like) for the paper.

In a long run, you might want to try different enlarger lenses. For instance, Nikkor lenses and Fujinon lenses are very different, and knowing their characteristics, helps you select your paper for a specific purpose.

 

[aldevo]

I have been using ilford, kentmere, and agfa rc paper, (all glossy) and I liked ilford the least. There was metermarism and it seemed like the blacks actually physically changed the surface of the paper. This was in dektol.
I hope their fiber paper isn't the same.

I've tried Ilford Multigrade IV RC in Dektol, Ilford Multigrade, and Sprint QuickPrint and your observations are consistent with my own for all three developers.

 

[Max Power]

Thank you

Just a word of thanks to those who pointed out the 'dry-down' factor and Les McLean's article on the subject.

I carried out the experiment as per his instructions this afternoon and was very surprised to see that dry-down actually does exist!!!

Cheers,
Kent

 

[pentaxuser]

I have been using ilford, kentmere, and agfa rc paper, (all glossy) and I liked ilford the least. There was metermarism and it seemed like the blacks actually physically changed the surface of the paper. This was in dektol.
I hope their fiber paper isn't the same.

What's metermarism?Sorry if this is just me being dim but I am also unsure what you mean when you say the blacks changed the surface of the paper.
I presume that you are saying that where the print was black the surface in that section changed to what the rest of the surface was like. Have I got this correct? If so in what way was it changed?

Thanks

Pentaxuser

 

[ann]

i believe that is an inkjet term.

Try something other than dektol for the ilford.

 

[avandesande]

The term meteramism can be applied to any reflective surface. This is where you see a color cast in the reflection depending on the angle you are viewing it. If you hold the ilford paper at a certain angle in the light you will see colors and a puckering effect where dark meets light in the print.