Forte RC vs Kentmere FB

[digiconvert]

I have just tried iut these two papers and was amazed at the differences betwen the results. I have published some info at

Dead Link Removed

If anyone cares to take a look and comment on my ramblings (criticism is acceptable, I am still fairly new to this game) I would welcome it.
The look of scanned prints is always a problem so no manipulation to match the original has been done on any print.
I do like both of the papers in different ways but they seem to need completely different handling for best results.

Cheers CJB

 

[BBarlow690]

Good for you to do the comparison! There's no substitute for seeing differences for yourself.

Feel free to download the pdfs of articles on this subject from three or so years ago at www.circleofthesunproductions.com. Parts I, II, and III were in View Camera magazine. Part IV of three parts never got published until I put it on the site.

Good friend Ted Harris recently suggested that I similarly do film and developers. He's lucky to still be alive...

 

[Neal]

Dear CJB,

Having used both papers, I think it might be possible to get them a little closer. It appears that the Forte was printed at a slightly higher contrast then the Kentmere. In an effort to get all the tones on the paper with a straight print, dialing in a little yellow when exposing the Forte might help. Of course, if you've already made efforts to match the contrasts please disregard the above suggestion.

Neal Wydra

 

[uraniumnitrate]

The testing might run a little short you made on those papers and very un-scientific.

I have fund that many on the market existing papers that they give you a total different tonal quality in different developing agent mostly the best result are the manufacturers own developer but it’s not sure at all. I also find out that some of the papers need to have a special treatment and that recommended dev time and so on never works out right if you are a fine printmaker.

For example Agfa works best and gives you prints you never have seen in your entire life when just slightly underexposed and developed a little bit longer time BUT! I have made prints on Forte that you might drop your eye! You should consider that the papers as well as films made differently and what is in baked in the emulsion mostly secret! You might consider that if you had exposed the forte a little bit longer than the testing results would have been totally different. Tonally speaking. Printmaking and the materials you work with you must learn how they work best! Now if you want to make advertisement for Kentmere you should get paid for it! Further I think that test only shows that you shouldn’t continue do things which you don’t know how because the end of the day what you are really show is that your knowledge very far from a fine printmaker. Prints you can made many different ways.

 

[digiconvert]

The testing might run a little short you made on those papers and very un-scientific.

Actually I was extremely scientific in methodology. The only variables were the paper (obviously) and the exposure to ensure all are exposed to the same extent , the shadow being the reference.

To talk of using different developers introduces another variable - unscientific.

I actually like the Forte paper but as I said it needs different handling to the Kentmere, which is different again to the characteristics of MG IV. However I now have some idea as to how to get the best from each paper.

Further I think that test only shows that you shouldn’t continue do things which you don’t know how because the end of the day what you are really show is that your knowledge very far from a fine printmaker. Prints you can made many different ways.

As I said I accept criticism but I don't accept that if I am not a fine printmaker (I'm not) I should give up and not try anything new, I teach and expect my students to have the confidence to fail in my lesson - otherwise they will always play safe.

I do take exception to your statement regarding my plugging of Kentmere, I have used the product once and I think I will like it, the same applies to the Forte paper and to Ilford Warmtone.

Yours C J Benton B.Sc (Hons) Applied Chemistry M.A (Education) !!

 

[uraniumnitrate]

To talk of using different developers introduces another variable - unscientific.

Yours C J Benton B.Sc (Hons) Applied Chemistry M.A (Education) !!

It's not, if you testing both of the products at the same time and even better if you have used at least five in different type but, you haven't.

In fact this would eliminating any error which related to the content of the developer doesn’t have or have what is required for the products characteristics or full function with testing. Now, one of the product might be working better with the developer you used with testing and visa versa if the developer had been applied for the other paper which is made for.

But that statement is on you and as I consider there is no more to say about this subject.




Tests like yours is not working as you think it should and it’s wrong! Recommended is just a lead where to start, it’s not about what it gives! Also I think you should have used the grey scale as reference. And you should know that more than anybody!
But it doesn’t matter in this case at all

All peppers have their own character and it need a lot more to bring it out than just to do some tests as you did! The final print is the art of the photography and you got to go deep into and learn how and what! You got to learn what is the highest possible limit so you can finally apply on your art. The print!

Mind you that Weston, Adams and others spent most of their life in the darkroom just to figure it out a single solution of finding a way to the finest prints ever can be produced.

Thanks that you informed me about the those letters behind your name but sorry I’m not going to do the same

And last you should click on this address below and just tell me what is your comments are! And it’s entirely made on that product which you don’t seem to know how to use!

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

 

[digiconvert]

End of topic.
I do not want a flame war !

I am sure you are an educated person, so am I. This was a fairly unsophisticated comparison of two papers which I decided to share with others. Sorry if you thought it was something more.
I have read your other thread and I like any company that still supports traditional film. I have used Ilford in the past because it's the UK company.

I suggest that the best course of action is to let the topic die a natural death since we obviously have differing views on scientific method.

CJB

 

[Bob F.]

UN - it wasn't a "test" - he was just trying them to see what they looked like.

DC: The differences you found are partly related to the different bases (RC and FB) which lead to considerable differences in the print's surface appearance - even more so to their handling.

Basing exposure on shadow detail is not the usual way to do it. When printing you base your exposure on the highlight detail and then alter contrast to get the shadows where you want them - this is analogous to the well known "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" mantra for film - in this case it is "expose for the highlights, grade for the shadows". As with all such things, this is a generalisation, but it is a good one. Why this works better than "expose for shadows and grade for highlights" I do not know, but it seems to work - possibly because blocked shadows do not look as bad as blown highlights...

Your notes say both were developed for 2 mins. This should be OK as Kentmere Fineprint paper is quite fast in the developer, but some other fibre papers will need longer - typically 3 mins for MGIV FB for example (longer in Warmtone developers). I use 5x the first appearance time as a general rule: i.e. note the time when the image first starts to appear in the developer and multiply by 5 to get the full development time.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[uraniumnitrate]

End of topic.


Sorry if you thought it was something more.
CJB

No, no, no I never had and have any of that kind of thought at all! Discussion is development that is no reason to get angry on each other! It’s only good that we have different angle of view of the same thing. To tell you the through the only paper I ever like it was Agfa and I feel like a looser as it disappeared.

But will let it die this is no flame war!
Sorry if you felt that way! Sorry again!
U.

 

[digiconvert]

Thanks for the considered and informative comments. I am beginning to realise just how BORING photoshop work is compared to the darkroom.

I also feel an ignore user coming on

 

[Dave Miller]

It’s good to see someone experimenting with different papers, and discovering the variables that are available to us. It’s certainly not a case of “one size fits all” in this game, and as you say Chris, the risk of failure has to be accepted; and I think, enjoyed if we are to progress.
I feel Neal’s comment with regard to contrast in this case is pertinent too, as ably amplified, and clarified by Bob.
As an aside, one problem that occurs with depressing regularity on forums such as this is the fall-out from the fact that it is a very blunt weapon for communicating, especially when a contributor is employing a second language. Thoughts, or suggestions may be implied that possibly didn’t exist in the mind of the poster. I know, for I frequently have trouble coping in what is supposed to be my own language, and that after 60 years of practice.

 

[Ole]

When I got my darkroom set up here, I ran a "test" of all the different papers I had on hand. Keeping things as simple as possible I first printed a step wedge, next a negative with an exceptionally long range on each and every paper (except the ones that the step wedge test showed to be completely dead from too long storage). I developed everything in the same developer, to eliminate another variable. Ansco 130 gives good results with most papers, and lasts a very long time, so there was no difference in developer activity over the test period.

The result of this "test" was a table of highlight, midtone and shadow values in terms of EM-10 readings at a fixed exposure time, a big stack of small prints showing the tonality of each paper, a table of EM-10 ranges for three different VC papers at six different filter settings, and a full wastepaper basket.

So now I can make a quick "check print" on one paper, see if I want a different tonality and/or contrast grade, and pick the paper (and filter settings if VC) and exposure in on go. There were a few surprises, and I have some clear favorites among papers! Yet there are uses for the other ones too...

 

[digiconvert]

As an aside, one problem that occurs with depressing regularity on forums such as this is the fall-out from the fact that it is a very blunt weapon for communicating, especially when a contributor is employing a second language. Thoughts, or suggestions may be implied that possibly didn’t exist in the mind of the poster. I know, for I frequently have trouble coping in what is supposed to be my own language, and that after 60 years of practice.

I was thinking exactly the same last night, a daughter with relationship problems on the end of the 'phone doesn't help either . UN's English is certainly far better than my grasp of any other language so I was harsh. Still the great thing about places like APUG is the ability to disagreee without resorting to 'flaming'. As to the topic itself it's good to know people have an interest in this, far better than discussing the merits of the latest PS version.

Thank you for your moderation.

Chris

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Chris,

I am a great believer in experimentation, and testing and comparing in the way that YOU work in YOUR darkroom, then you find what is the correct product mix ( film / dev / paper ) for you. Nobody can ever say what is the perfect mix, because everybody is different and has a totally different interpretation of the finished result, its one of the reasons why I love photography...all photography...why, we all strive for creative satisfaction...we all have to start somewhere, and some of the most fantastic photographers and printers I have had the pleasure to meet say they are still learning and striving to improve...

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

 

[uraniumnitrate]

Hi Guys!


I love good discussions as I believe its results are progress and development I can only withhold with Simon that is necessarily to go in and deeply try all materials on the way to find your own to work with and of course to increase your knowledge!

I do go in flames sometimes too as it’s in my nature! I try to be strait as possible when it comes to photographic material as I/we don't have the “home” material in photography as there is isn't anything being produced or manufactured here! Therefore I was a little angry because of that test as it clearly where an unsophisticated one and its shows that a Kentmere is some kind of better material than Forte! Which is really not until you don’t make a really serious tests, analysis on the base or on silver content and developing experiments with gray scales included and so on.
In my case the archival quality prized very high. However mostly of my work is based on Gum Printing nowadays. but, I do silver gelatin prints too.
Publishing tests like this could damage one manufacturer’s reputation with out any reason and it shouldn’t be that way,

Now, I tell you I haven’t worked with Kentmere yet as this were a little unknown for me (I even thought it was a US paper) but I did with many tests on others both privately and otherwise.

As long as its enough silver on that paper and the manufacturing process techniques are good I mean baking and coating using a good quality paper than you just got to get really into your material and learn it how to bring out the most of it.

And of course the end of the day it’s your personal esthetical feeling decides where and what you going to use and why.

Further. I never use any on the market existing developer! Except two one for paper and one for small films and they are all Kodak and Agfa which is my all around stuff for general purpose!
In my lab there are many brown bottles of parts and a big bottle of distillated water. I just use those after what I want to bring out on the image beside my knowledge it took me lots of years nothing but experimenting and writing things down in my note book. That was one of the reasons why I told you that I fell like a looser because of the Agfa disappeared! With that the knowledge too I invested on that paper. Never the less the choosing Agfa were also based on the technical superiority of the paper

I have chosen 3 different papers which mostly based on my own research made for a major museum on cracks on the surface (on the latent silver image). We have investigated the material those we started with than we made the image after the papers dried and flattened with dry with air some of it with tissue some of it flattened with mounting seal (heat) during different time duration and heat measured in Celsius! Cross investigated to eliminate error. Now this wasn’t an unsophisticated test it was a serious methodic resource.
Those papers were best on the test were Agfa, and Oriental (the original made in Japan) high above others fallowed by Kodak and Forte. We have used some 15 exhibition style papers those of well known some of it from than the eastern market all of those where double weight. Glossy..

How I do when one exhibition comes around? I always do a working copy on one paper I use as reference than just study this for weeks sometimes longer before I decide what and how to do with the image what is that I want to achieve with it and why. I do a kind of 3 groups of those and than begin to blend my developer. Images in these 3 groups are, the 1st group are images those need a little work on the shadows aria there I use a developer works most on the shadow aria, the 2nd of that group is the normal a kind of standard type and the 3rd group which need a little more on the highlights and of course I help those a little bit by giving a little or taken away some lights when exposing the paper!

Mind you that I do the same with my negatives too but only with my sheets! Smaller format I only use on the streets and there I like that grainy ruff look! I also do some correction with bleaching and I do that both on my negatives and on my prints.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Basing exposure on shadow detail is not the usual way to do it. When printing you base your exposure on the highlight detail and then alter contrast to get the shadows where you want them - this is analogous to the well known "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" mantra for film - in this case it is "expose for the highlights, grade for the shadows". As with all such things, this is a generalisation, but it is a good one. Why this works better than "expose for shadows and grade for highlights" I do not know, but it seems to work - possibly because blocked shadows do not look as bad as blown highlights...

It's not a question of highlights/shadow but just a question of densities. Exposure controls the minimal densities (shadows on a neg; highlights on a print) and development controls the thicker densities (highlights on a neg; shadows on a print).

If you don't expose a light-sensitive material sufficiently, no amount of development will reduce enough halide to metal. On the other hand, development has a nonlinear impact on a piece of exposed material: the more light an area received, the more it will react with developer. Why, oh why? I dunno, ask PE, but empirically that's what you see. That's why we control highlights on neg film with reduced development.

 

[Bob F.]

It's not a question of highlights/shadow but just a question of densities. Exposure controls the minimal densities (shadows on a neg; highlights on a print) and development controls the thicker densities (highlights on a neg; shadows on a print).

Not sure...
I can see I think that getting the exposure time right for the highlights relates to getting shadow detail in film, but paper is usually developed to completion (or close to it). I'm not sure how contrast relates to development time in film.


Cheers, Bob.

 

[uraniumnitrate]

the development in shorthand....

Easiest to explain this phenomenon is that the developing process is a reduction of the un-exposed Aghal from the base!

When you for example expose a film to light the following happens.

The more light hit the film the more Aghal exposed an therefore less of those AgHal can be reduced when developing the film! This appears as darker arias on the negative film. If less light hit the same film on some arias than more of that AgHal can be reduced with developing because there is a larger amount unused AgHal there.

Now, when you copy this negative into a paper the shadow aria on the negative filtrate out more light so less light hit the paper so it is more Aghal can be reduced there and it appears as white because the base is white. When more light hit the paper than a more Aghal are used and less can be reduced: that’s why it is black.

 

[Ole]

You've got the reduction exactly the wrong way round, but otherwise it's not too far off the mark.

The job of the developer is to reduce the silver halides to metallic silver. To do this you need a developing agent, which is in the right range of reduction potential. Too much, and everything goes black (try polysulfide toner on undeveloped paper). Too little, and nothing happens. Just right, and we get a picture.

Silver halide crystals are pretty stable little things, but when light hits them they become "destabilised". The precise mechanism of this has been researched for a long time, and I don't know if there's a consensus yet...

Anyway those destabilised crystals react much more easily with the developer, so they form silver a lot faster. So the more light falls on the film, the more crystals will be reduced by the developer. If we let the developer work on the film long enough, eventually all the exposed crystals will be reduced. Some of the unexposed ones will also be reduced, and we get fog.

If the exposure level is too low, the weakest areas of the image will be inseparable from the fog. So we aim to have enough exposure that we can control the contrast by adjusting the length of development, and still get a good difference between low values and fog.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Not sure...
I can see I think that getting the exposure time right for the highlights relates to getting shadow detail in film, but paper is usually developed to completion (or close to it). I'm not sure how contrast relates to development time in film.


Cheers, Bob.

Supposing that the exposure for highlight is the correct way of properly exposing paper (i.e. ensuring minimal density), as the exposure for shadows is for negative, the only way you have left to control your shadows is by changing contrast. If paper wasn't developed to completion, the analogy film/paper would be exact, but if you expose for highlights, and develop to completion, my understanding is that the only degree of liberty you have left is the contrast (i.e. using a short or long paper curve).

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You've got the reduction exactly the wrong way round, but otherwise it's not too far off the mark.

Oh no, did my argument reduced ab absurdum? I hope not!

 

[uraniumnitrate]

You've got the reduction exactly the wrong way round, but otherwise it's not too far off the mark.

.

Are you sure? I mean I could have turned all around.

Listen to this if more light coming in that is the dark aria on the negativ (overexposed) which going to be the highlights on the print because it's filtrate light from the condensor.
The unexposed (underexposed) aria on the negativ letting throught more light from thr condensor and its gonna be dark on the print. I go crazy on this!

 

[Ole]

That's correct - it was just the "reduction thingy" you turned around. The exposed silver halides are reduced to metallic silver by the developer, and it is that silver which blocks light. The word "reduction" has a very specific meaning in chemistry, so it's best to use it correctly.

 

[uraniumnitrate]

That's correct - it was just the "reduction thingy" you turned around. The exposed silver halides are reduced to metallic silver by the developer, and it is that silver which blocks light. The word "reduction" has a very specific meaning in chemistry, so it's best to use it correctly.

I've got a little time over so I made you a present. This is the chemical form on what happens when you develope. Now if it's isn't a reductions process then I eat you hat but you got to mail it to me.

I'm not sure about those things any longer but I think they call this for that because in the process you remove the un exposed Ag from the negative, as I sad before I'm not that sure any longer.

 

[Ole]

That's quite correct - a typical "RedOx" reaction.

But if you look at what you wrote again, you'll see that you wrote "The more light hit the film the more Aghal exposed an therefore less of those AgHal can be reduced when developing the film!"

And that's the wrong way around. The more light, the more silver halide will be reduced to silver. And the more silver you get in the developed emulsion, the darker it is (within limits).

You are not removing unexposed silver until the fixing, which dissolves the undeveloped silver halides.