From RC test print to FB final print

[DREW WILEY]

If you want to know how a chicken sandwich will taste, do you start with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Instead, use test strips of exactly the same kind of paper you want for your endpoint, or you'll be going around in circles with just too many variables to realistically juggle.

 

[Fraunhofer]

I am with Drew here, I am using mostly Ilford WT FB and I can not ever get a "match" with any of their RC products, even if I try hard. I am a slow printer and so time is more valuable for me than savings on paper. RC paper is not exactly free either and the extra variance and then dialing in the FB print seems like a marginal savings in money and a real loss of time.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Since we're all just piling on anecdotal reports here, I'll add mine: my experience with Ilford paper is that consistency in speed between boxes of same type and comparable vintage is excellent. I run test prints anyway, but I can't recall ever having exposures shift when I finished one box of a given Ilford paper and opened the next in the middle of a darkroom session.

Oren,

That's been my experience for the most part as well. I may have had one older box and one newer box. Certainly, when I've had boxes from the same batch number, the consistency was good. Still, anything from age to differing storage conditions can make slight changes from one box to the next. My example was more to point out that going from RC to fiber-base is not going to save and time or money.

@OP,
As far as keeping notes goes: I keep meticulous printing notes and find they help me tremendously when making a reprint or a different-size print of the same negative at a later date. Still, finding the initial exposure and contrast is something that needs to be done every time since "paper speed" changes around with different developers, papers, paper batches, etc. and contrast is often quite different for different-size prints. What looks good at one size looks bad in another and needs to be modified. To help scale up, I note all my dodging and burning in percentages of the base exposure. Then, when I've found the new base exposure time, I can figure the length of my manipulations for the first try and go from there. That's a real time saver as far as I'm concerned.

Best,

Doremus

 

[138S]

: )

Personally, I find that for those prints that are really complex to elaborate with a lot of work in the manipulation it's worth to make the prototype prints in RC: it develops fast and it dries fast to see the effects on dried paper, but for such prints at least (say) 20% of the adjustment the job has to be made with the final paper, as each paper has its own nuances.

Lately, for complex prints, I'm making first some prototypes in Photoshop to evaluate diferent choices, just to notice how the scene can be balanced for the aesthetics, usually it would be difficut to bring what done in Ps to the darkroom print, but at least it allows to visually explore many choices in a fast way, and saving a lot of effort and waste in the darkroom.

IMO the most difficult thing in the darkroom printing is visualizing the final print one wants, proficient photographers may do that before shutter release.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If one wants to be a skilled potter, there is simply no substitute for more time handling wet clay itself. Confidence in the actual medium has to be built rather than deferred.

 

[138S]

If one wants to be a skilled potter, there is simply no substitute for more time handling wet clay itself. Confidence in the actual medium has to be built rather than deferred.

Yes... but a proficient sculptor first may make a prototype with clay, to know what he wants, and later he may start hitting the boulder with the hammer, so YMMV.

 

[mmerig]

Hi Guys,

If I do test strip printers and decide the base time of the print (Dodging and Burning) using a RC paper, the result will be the same for a final print by FB paper? Maintaining same brand and, of course, same kind of paper (classic, cooltone or warmtone).

I didn't experimented that, have you tried it?

Thank you.

I use Ilford MGIV RC deluxe glossy for most prints, but often (hundreds) make a fiber-based print using Ilford MGFB Classic glossy of the same negative. I have correction curves for each, and can use the exposure time and filter for the RC paper as a basis for the FB paper. Sometimes, depending on the contrast, a lower contrast filter is needed (about 1/2 step), and the FB paper has a slightly different look than the RC, but other than that, they have very consistent exposure and contrast relations, and look the same.

I have the curves plotted, including Ilford's published standards and can post them if anyone is interested. They account for dry-down. I use an Omega D2 with a condenser, Ilford filters, and Dektol 1:2 -- 2 minutes for RC, 3 minutes for FB. I also have curves for Ilford warm tone RC pearl, but don't use it as much, and don't switch papers. I use an RH Designs Analyzer Pro that has the calibrated curves built-in, and that saves a lot of time. I used to use tabled values to make the corrections -- slower, but still works well.

 

[pentaxuser]

I use Ilford MGIV RC deluxe glossy for most prints, but often (hundreds) make a fiber-based print using Ilford MGFB Classic glossy of the same negative. I have correction curves for each, and can use the exposure time and filter for the RC paper as a basis for the FB paper. Sometimes, depending on the contrast, a lower contrast filter is needed (about 1/2 step), and the FB paper has a slightly different look than the RC, but other than that, they have very consistent exposure and contrast relations, and look the same.

I have the curves plotted, including Ilford's published standards and can post them if anyone is interested. . I use an RH Designs Analyzer Pro that has the calibrated curves built-in, and that saves a lot of time. I used to use tabled values to make the corrections -- slower, but still works well.

Interesting point about the RH Designs Analyser Pro. When you say the calibrated curves are built in, are you saying that there are curves for both RC glossy and MGFB Classic Glossy that you have built into separate paper channels from your calibrations such that when you switch to the FB paper for the final print the right input is there to give you the right output

What might be useful and certainly will be for my education is an explanation of how you did.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you want to know how a chicken sandwich will taste, do you start with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Instead, use test strips of exactly the same kind of paper you want for your endpoint, or you'll be going around in circles with just too many variables to realistically juggle.

a fair point but, f/stop timing can be used to test RC and apply to FB paper without question; done it numerous times; it's the essence of f/stop-timing benefits.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

If you want to know how a chicken sandwich will taste, do you start with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Instead, use test strips of exactly the same kind of paper you want for your endpoint, or you'll be going around in circles with just too many variables to realistically juggle.

a fair point but, f/stop timing can be used to test RC and apply to FB paper without question; done it numerous times; it's the essence of f/stop-timing benefits.

 

[winger]

FWIW, since you've gotten great answers already, no the RC and FB prints will be different enough that times from one cannot be used for the other. Even if the times were good, the look of the two are different enough that it would be tough to compare them. I do usually make full frame work prints on RC to see how the image will look straight, just so I can see an image larger. Sometimes I just know I'm going to want to make a good print and I'll skip that step and go straight to FB. And when reading an article from 2007, keep in mind that Ilford has changed their RC and their FB in the time since that was written.

 

[mmerig]

Interesting point about the RH Designs Analyser Pro. When you say the calibrated curves are built in, are you saying that there are curves for both RC glossy and MGFB Classic Glossy that you have built into separate paper channels from your calibrations such that when you switch to the FB paper for the final print the right input is there to give you the right output

What might be useful and certainly will be for my education is an explanation of how you did.

Thanks

pentaxuser

In a word, yes. I went through the calibration procedure for three different papers, and the exposure and contrast values are stored in the instrument's memory. The usual process is to meter the negative (highlights, shadow, mid-tones), and use the time and filter indicated (or tweek it based on judgement). Make the print, let it dry, and if it looks good, switch to the other paper setting (channel) and print that paper. The instrument makes the adjustment in exposure time and filter.

The meter reading needs to be held in machine memory for a proper conversion. That is, you cannot clear the exposure/filter setting, manually re-set it later, and switch to a different paper, as it won't make the conversion -- the same time and filter settings will remain. But if the reading is cleared (like printing the next day, after turning off the meter), you just have to meter the negative again, then switch paper channels. One reading is enough, even a sloppy one, and then re-set the time and filter from last time, if written down. I usually write down all of my readings for the RC paper and on the margin of the dried RC print that I keep as a reference.

Maybe it sounds complicated, but it becomes second-nature after a day or so. It also helps to have traditional test-strip experience before using the RH AP.

The RH Analyzer Pro comes with printed data on various papers that a user can input into the instrument's memory. These could be good starting values, and could even work fine on their own. Out of the box, it comes with one set of inputs for Ilford MGIV RC with a diffusion-halogen light source. My enlarger has a condensor and frosted tungsten lamp, and my calibrated values were significantly different than the ones RH Designs provided (e.g., about a 1/2 stop off at grade 2, higher or lower at other grades, and contrast values were offset too, for Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe glossy).

 

[Frank53]

In a word, yes. I went through the calibration procedure for three different papers, and the exposure and contrast values are stored in the instrument's memory. The usual process is to meter the negative (highlights, shadow, mid-tones), and use the time and filter indicated (or tweek it based on judgement). Make the print, let it dry, and if it looks good, switch to the other paper setting (channel) and print that paper. The instrument makes the adjustment in exposure time and filter.

The meter reading needs to be held in machine memory for a proper conversion. That is, you cannot clear the exposure/filter setting, manually re-set it later, and switch to a different paper, as it won't make the conversion -- the same time and filter settings will remain. But if the reading is cleared (like printing the next day, after turning off the meter), you just have to meter the negative again, then switch paper channels. One reading is enough, even a sloppy one, and then re-set the time and filter from last time, if written down. I usually write down all of my readings for the RC paper and on the margin of the dried RC print that I keep as a reference.

Maybe it sounds complicated, but it becomes second-nature after a day or so. It also helps to have traditional test-strip experience before using the RH AP.

The RH Analyzer Pro comes with printed data on various papers that a user can input into the instrument's memory. These could be good starting values, and could even work fine on their own. Out of the box, it comes with one set of inputs for Ilford MGIV RC with a diffusion-halogen light source. My enlarger has a condensor and frosted tungsten lamp, and my calibrated values were significantly different than the ones RH Designs provided (e.g., about a 1/2 stop off at grade 2, higher or lower at other grades, and contrast values were offset too, for Ilford MGIV RC Deluxe glossy).

That’s exactly what the Heiland Controller does. Recognizes the enlarger when switched on, the papers are pre installed and at least it gives a good working print which you can adapt to your taste. When you change papers, just change the paper in the controller and grade and time are adapted to that paper.
Regards,
Frank

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks mmerig for the explanation.

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

And when reading an article from 2007, keep in mind that Ilford has changed their RC and their FB in the time since that was written.

True.In 2007 it was MGIV and is now MGV but in answer to the question: Was it this possible in 2007 when the article was written Oren Grad did say that it was not and nothing has changed in terms of there being differences but you are right and you make a good point. Namely that for a period from the launch of MGV until we can be sure that all MGIV has either been used or is so old it shouldn't be used then each time we see a post about a problem with Ilford paper we need to ask which version is being used IV or V

pentaxuser