FB Paper - What Am I Missing?

[Max Power]

Hey all,
About a week ago I decided to take the plunge and do some prints on FB instead of RC, after having read a number of posts on FB vs RC which qualified the superiority of FB paper.

Apart from the questions of the superior archival properties of FB, most users are unanimous that FB has superior tonality.

So I printed a couple of my favourites on Ilford MG IV FB paper and I have to admit at being a bit underwhelmed; what am I missing here? Apart from the differences in the surface texture between RC Glossy and FB Glossy (RC is decidedly glossier), I really didn't see much difference.

What else should I be looking for?

I feel like I've been chasing a silver bullet without even knowing it!

Kent

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Kent,

I also use MG IV FB, and I can understand your reaction. For a long time, MG RC paper has been the paper I use most. When I compare prints of the same negative on the two papers, I often have difficulty deciding which is "better." The RC version has, in my opinion, a definitely superior bright white and also does well with the darker tones. The FB version is, nevertheless, a very attractive paper and, even with a slightly duller white, still looks terrific when flattened and dry-mounted. Aside from FB's possibly superior archival qualities, I think that it may just come down to one's subjective preference.

Konical

 

[graymatterimages]

Kent,

Its just the opposite for me. When I switched to Ilford MGIV FB from Ilford MGIV RC the tonal range really opened up especially in the shadows.

Jeff

 

[fschifano]

That's about it in a nutshell. I use both, though most of my output goes to RC paper because it is more economical to use and easier to wash and dry. For work prints, that's good enough. Not every photograph that I print is something I think would look good as a framed piece of wall art. Work that I think will look better on FB papers gets that treatment.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Usually the first problem people have with FB paper is drydown. Because the paper base shrinks, unlike RC paper, the final image is a little darker than the wet print, so the highlights that looked great in wash tray lose their sparkle when dry and the shadows don't separate as nicely.

Les McLean has a great article on drydown here--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Other ways to test would be dry your test strips (some people use a microwave oven for this), or to make a series of prints--one that looks good in the wash, and then a series decreasing exposure by 2% each, say, to about 16%. You need to test each paper, and if you use graded paper, then each grade. Realistically, for MGFB IV, your drydown factor should be in the 4-10% range. Yet another approach is to evaluate wet prints under a low wattage bulb.

If you do a lot of printing on the same paper in the same darkroom, you can also develop an eye for it. You'll be able to read the highlights of a wet print and know how "overexposed" they should look to come out right on the dry print.

 

[graymatterimages]

Kent,

You may need to adjust your exposure times slightly. I use rc (cheaper and faster to proof) for all of my test prints on a given negative. Once I am happy with the final exposure I switch to fb, this usally requires a fine tuning of the exposure times. After you work with the two papers together for a while you will be able to pick up on the adjustment times eliminating one or two steps in the test print to final print process.

Jeff

 

[Alex Hawley]

In addition to the drydown which causes a slight change in exposure time, you also have to consider the developer dilution and develoment time for the paper itself. FB gives much more lattitiude in controlling contrast during development.

Ansel Adams does a very good job of explaining all this in several chapters of "The Print". Les McLean is another good resource. He gets more into using the VC papers and techniques than Adams did.

 

[dphphoto]

You might also think about trying a couple other brands of paper. I printed on Ilford FB for a long time, but I now like Kentmere Fineprint VC much better. It has better blacks, though it's harder to flatten after drying. I also like Adox, a German paper available from JandC Photo.
Dean

 

[avandesande]

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.

 

[Dave Miller]

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.

Try another developer.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Kent,

Like many here, I made the transition from RC to FB paper out of the curiousity of why FB was considered superior. I started with RC because of the expense factor and because of the easier processing. My first package of FB was Kodak Polymax Fine Art then I tried a package of Ilford MG IV.

Immediately I saw a difference in the overall appearance. FB was capable of rendering a finer level of detail, subtle details, that I had not see with RC. The great epiphany came when I broke away from developing with Dektol. I had always used it, partly because of the "good enough for Ansel-good enough for me" syndrome, and it has always been considered one of the "standard" developers in the industry. I'll not belabor this anymore because everyone has their favorites and there is nothing "wrong" with Dektol.

To make it short and sweet, FB paper opens up an entire new range of variables that can be used to your advantage. Yes, it costs more to purchase, takes considerably longer to process, but IMO, the outcome is worth the additional time and money. Learn what new controls and variables you have available with your present choice of developer and paper and explore them some more before making a final judgement.

 

[firecracker]

It depends on what you want to do with your photos. RC prints are for the quick results and not much more, meanwhile FB prints are for archiving the images in a much longer life span.

If you want to do a show in a gallery, it's better to have FB prints for sale. But if you want to show your work on magazines, etc, RC is better for handling.

 

[Max Power]

It depends on what you want to do with your photos. RC prints are for the quick results and not much more, meanwhile FB prints are for archiving the images in a much longer life span.

If you want to do a show in a gallery, it's better to have FB prints for sale. But if you want to show your work on magazines, etc, RC is better for handling.

I understand the archival question, no problem; what I'm a bit disappointed with, however, is that I was expecting better tonality, especially in the blacks and whites.

Maybe I just need to work with the stuff a bit more.

Kent

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Have you tried selenium toning yet?

Murray

 

[Peter Schrager]

RC vs. Fibre

If you want to learn something sometime you have to preservere to do it. One session in a darkroom with a paper you never used before. Have you ever gone to a gallery or museum to actually look at fine photographs? Honestly I haven't seen any RC hanging there so you got to ask why is that?
Peter

 

[Dave Miller]

If you want to learn something sometime you have to preservere to do it. One session in a darkroom with a paper you never used before. Have you ever gone to a gallery or museum to actually look at fine photographs? Honestly I haven't seen any RC hanging there so you got to ask why is that?
Peter

Snobbery?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

When I began using VC paper I rummaged around the Web for information, to find out what kind of paper to buy. I figured if the guy printing the Special Edition Prints at the Ansel Adams Gallery in Yosemite was using Multigrade IV, he probably knew more than I did!

Murray

 

[Max Power]

If you want to learn something sometime you have to preservere to do it. One session in a darkroom with a paper you never used before. Have you ever gone to a gallery or museum to actually look at fine photographs? Honestly I haven't seen any RC hanging there so you got to ask why is that?
Peter

Peter,
Just to be clear, I'm neither trying to start a religious war, nor am I denigrating FB Paper; I'm just asking for advice.

My understanding was that FB paper is used in galleries and museums for its archival qualities; nothing more, nothing less.

As to the statement about perserverence, I find it a mite unkind, if not downright condescending. I never, anywhere, said that I was going to give up FB after a few prints. Again, I am looking for advice as to where I ought to direct my efforts in my initial steps into the use of FB paper.

The advice that Alex et al. have given on Les McLean's article is excellent, thank you, I was not aware of the 'drydown' effect.

Cheers,
Kent

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I learn to like every box of paper I buy, just out of the simple fact that I can't afford to dislike it and purchase another box. Like the time I bought a 100sht box of grade 5 Kodabrome for $20..

I've found that fb paper takes a longer exposure. Also development is usually a little longer as well. I really like the finish of FB paper and if you like a true matte surface, FB is probably the only way to go.

I really like Oriental FB and the Forte Elegance FB papers, those are the only two that i've tried but I thought that they were beautiful papers. To my eye, they have a tiny bit more of depth and texture. Who knows, it could just be my eyes.. I'd say stick with it and if it doesn't ever really float your boat then atleast you know that you don't like fb paper..

 

[Oren Grad]

> My understanding was that FB paper is used in galleries and museums for its archival qualities; nothing more, nothing less. <

Kent, my view is that this is correct. IMO, based on more than 15 years of printing experience, FB is not automatically or necessarily superior in its ability to render detail or subtle tonal gradation.

As for the specific comparison you reported, and speaking in light of my own subjective preferences only, I don't think either MGIV FB or MG IV RC is a terribly good paper, although their respective weak points are different.

Within the Ilford line, I'm much happier with the Warmtone papers, both RC and FB. NB: they're not the same, despite both being called "Warmtone" - the RC behaves as though it has a distinctly longer toe. In any case, either of the Ilford Warmtone papers - RC or FB - is capable of producing a superb print.

 

[L Gebhardt]

For me the big advantage of fiber over RC is the prints don't look like plastic.

In RC prints there is usually a haze/reflectance issue in the blacks when viewed at an angle. It is claimed that this goes away if you heat dry them, but I haven't really tried.

I also tend to like the not as bright white base of FB prints.

But, I don't think I have ever seen anything magical about FB prints that others seem to rave about. It is just a whole lot of minor improvements that add up to a nicer print in my opinion. This makes it worth the extra work, and the hassles of dry down. The fact that my prints will last longer may not be a positive

 

[Oren Grad]

One final point, Kent. Don't be afraid to trust your own judgment. If one doesn't look better than the other to you, then for your purposes it isn't. It's possible that you'll change your mind with experience. That's OK too - probably happens to most of us.

There are certainly physical differences in the appearance of FB and RC - for example, the plastic surfaces of glossy and "pearl" or other non-glossy RC do look different from the surfaces of air-dried glossy FB, semi-matte or matte FB. You may prefer one or the other; your preference may depend on the particular circumstances or intended use for a given print. But given reasonable viewing conditions for both, I don't see an inherent advantage in image quality for one or the other as a class - it depends entirely on the specific product and its sensitometric match to your negatives.

 

[blansky]

Having driven both a Corvette and a Ferrari, I always preferred the Ferrari. The Corvette is a nice car but being plastic, is certainly not archival and does not perform as well. The Ferrari on the other hand .......well it's just better.

However if you prefer the Corvette, then by all means.........




Michael

 

[Travis Nunn]

As most people do, when I first started printing, I used RC. I then took a class where the teacher refused to let any of us use RC because she hated it. After the class, most of us despised Fiber because it was more difficult for us to get our assignments done on time. After that class I ditched my fiber and went back to RC because it was faster. One morning I was going to the darkroom and I realized that I had run out of paper (except for the year and a half old, half used box of Agfa MC111). I decided to try the fiber paper again to see if I really didn't like it. After that darkrook session, I went home and ordered a couple of boxes of fiber paper and I haven't looked back since.

OK, so what is the moral of this long-winded post? That your tastes can change after your darkroom skills improve. I don't know how experienced Max Power is in the darkroom, but that year and a half between times I printed fiber, my darkroom skills improved considerably. Take from this post what you will.

 

[Diaga67]

I do both RC and FB printing, and I find myself leaning towards FB as I continue to learn for the reasons explained by others in this post. To put it simply, I find the prints look more "natural" to me.

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?