Has anyone tried Ilford Multigrade Art 300 Textured Matte FB paper?

[gone]

I'd like to try this paper after my current paper stash has been exhausted. Might be just the thing for printing some flower shots & hand coloring them. I'm having trouble visualizing what "textured matte" and "eggshell" look like though. One review said this paper had a more compressed tonal range than traditional FB paper, but also had a wide range of tones within that range. This is the sort of thing that can't be displayed properly on a monitor, so I was wondering if anyone had seen these in the wild.

 

[Pieter12]

Di have used it. It is aslightly warm tone paper. The texture is like watercolor paper and does not show great detail. It is also about a stop slower than the classic glossy paper. The emulsion is a bit delicate and needs to be handled with care when wet.

 

[Oren Grad]

FWIW, here's a review that David Vestal wrote very early on:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171110022328/http://phototechmag.com/ilford-mg-art-300-paper

 

[NB23]

I’ve used 500 sheets in the month of april alone.

The best Paper; smooth to the eyes, smooth to the touch. This paper alone takes your image and makes it a trophy. It encapsulates the whole meaning of “the importace of a print”.

It floats therefore it will be very hard to wash, prepare yourself to have a good technical approach. I’m used to print and wash in groups of at least 30 prints, this paper was a challenge in that regard.

No drydown. What you see in your fixing bath is indeed the final look (unless you tone).

Is very responsive to toning.

Watch your stop bath, it needs to be very fresh. A contaminated stop bath which would be otherwise acceptable for FB paper will ruin this paper.

Art300 is very responsive to chemicals due to its high spongious property, and a contaminated stop bath will create stains all over the four edges where it makes its way between the paper base and the emulsion. Make it a point to use a fresh stop bath, this is no place to save 0.43$ but lose 90$ on the other hand. This discovery cost me a lot of money and time, for the record.

Dries flat. No need to press unless you really want to.

It always turns a a properly printed photogaph into a piece of art. A thing that FB paper can do, but which RC paper can never achieve.

It is expensive and it is worth every penny.

Good luck.

 

[Nige]

I'd like to try this paper after my current paper stash has been exhausted.

I don't think it will/would/should replace your 'normal' paper. Buy a box and see if you like it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's wonderful stuff - but be prepared to have to do cross-polarised repro work if you want to reproduce the print in a meaningful way.

 

[R.Gould]

For the right subject it is wonderful, about as warmtone as FBWT paper, texture is like water colour paper, and it is very heavy, much heavier the FB classic, If you remember the (Very) old triple weight paper then it about that weight, It tones in sepia beautifully, for Still life's and flower's Ect wonderful, for some, but not all, landscapes, it gives a nice look and feel, A few years ago we had a Victorian Christmas market here, it a perfect settineg and I printed to give a Victorian look to the prints, and worked to give a look like many victorian prints I have seen in the Heritage Trust' collection, so a generally a perfect for a lot of subjects and well worth keeping a box or 2 in stock

 

[pentaxuser]

It's wonderful stuff - but be prepared to have to do cross-polarised repro work if you want to reproduce the print in a meaningful way.

Can you explain what cross-polarised repro work consists of, Lachlan. Thanks

pentaxuser ,

 

[gone]

A fiber paper that dries flat! That would be a novel experience for me. Very helpful info. Thanks. I'd read about the paper soaking up developer, making the stop bath more critical than usual. Washing sounds like a challenge, as I'd read that the paper floats and needs to be kept down in the wash water.

Many years ago I used to make inkjet prints on beautiful water color type papers, but the paper's texture just disappeared when you framed it and put it under glass, so my plan is to display these w/o frame and glass. Sounds like the perfect paper for Renaissance Fairs or Southern Debutante balls. Unfortunately, none of that appears to be happening here in Tucson, so it will have to be hand colored flower pics. I have a lot of those....and cats.

 

[eddie]

I've used it for hand-coloring, but found the surface a bit fragile for my way of coloring. I tend to apply a good bit of pressure when using oils and pencils. For pencils, I use eraserstiks to blend the color, which is more difficult on a textured surface. This image is done entirely with pencil on Art 300:

 

[Lachlan Young]

Can you explain what cross-polarised repro work consists of, Lachlan. Thanks

pentaxuser ,

Polariser gels on lights (hard reflectors only), polariser on lens, set them up so they cross their polarisation. You can look up the rest of the technique of you want - it's all standard art repro stuff. Main point is it negates paper texture/ reflections.

but the paper's texture just disappeared when you framed it and put it under glass,

Only under cheap float glass - the interference coated glass & acrylics don't do this at all - to the point that you see sticky, questing fingers reaching irresistibly towards the image until at the last moment they spot the hint of reflection from the glass... These glazing materials aren't cheap however.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Lachlan. Eddie,you may have said this before and my apologies if you have, but what have you found to be the best surface for hand-colouring with oils and pencils?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[eddie]

...what have you found to be the best surface for hand-colouring with oils and pencils?

Any matte, or semi-matte, fiber paper works. I generally stick to Ilford MG and WT.

 

[winger]

I've used it and really like it for some subjects and not as much for others. If the subject depends on tiny details, then I'd likely use something else because the texture of the paper kinda obscures them. I've used Prismacolor pencils and Marshall's oils on them a little and the paper takes the color very well. I intend to try actual watercolor paint but haven't had time, yet. It doesn't scan very well in my experience either (somewhere in my images here, I think I posted one, though).

 

[MattKing]

I've seen a couple of really nice prints on it - including a couple of postcards!
But just as in the days when we had available a wide variety of paper surfaces, you need to match the paper to the image.
I'd like to try toning it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Any matte, or semi-matte, fiber paper works. I generally stick to Ilford MG and WT.

Thanks,eddie. Is it the FB part that is important rather than the surface. By that I mean that I have only used Ilford Satin a few times and this is RC paper but it appears to be very matte and has the appearance of a surface that might "take" hand colouring. I say appearance because while it appears to have the kind of surface that pencils or oils might be OK on, this may be illusory and in fact only FB paper has the right surface

pentaxuser

 

[Pieter12]

I don't do hand-coloring, but would suspect that RC paper does not have enough "tooth" nor is it absorbent enough to properly take coloring.

 

[ProfessorC1983]

I've not been printing very long at all and have only tried a few papers, but personally I was quite surprised by how much sheen the Art 300 has for a "matte" paper. To my eye it's even shinier than MGRC Satin. I can see where that would be effective with some subjects, but not really my taste. Also it's by far the slowest paper I've worked with and I found contrast control more difficult due to the sheen, so I wasted more of it.

Now, if Ilford made a textured version of FB Classic Matte, that's something I'd be very interested in trying.

 

[Pieter12]

I've not been printing very long at all and have only tried a few papers, but personally I was quite surprised by how much sheen the Art 300 has for a "matte" paper. To my eye it's even shinier than MGRC Satin. I can see where that would be effective with some subjects, but not really my taste. Also it's by far the slowest paper I've worked with and I found contrast control more difficult due to the sheen, so I wasted more of it.

Now, if Ilford made a textured version of FB Classic Matte, that's something I'd be very interested in trying.

Are you sure you're talking about Ilford MG Art 300 paper? It has hardly any sheen at all to my eye.

 

[eddie]

Thanks,eddie. Is it the FB part that is important rather than the surface. By that I mean that I have only used Ilford Satin a few times and this is RC paper but it appears to be very matte and has the appearance of a surface that might "take" hand colouring. I say appearance because while it appears to have the kind of surface that pencils or oils might be OK on, this may be illusory and in fact only FB paper has the right surface

pentaxuser

I once had to hand-color an RC print for a portrait client. It was about 25 years ago, but I remember it was an Ilford paper. It may have been Satin. It did work, but I've always found fiber to be preferred for my style of coloring. Most RC (and glossy) papers the paint "slides off".

 

[eddie]

I don't do hand-coloring, but would suspect that RC paper does not have enough "tooth" nor is it absorbent enough to properly take coloring.

Exactly. Those are the problems with RC.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I've been trying Art 300 for a portrait project. In this case, I'm looking to see how the lack of fine detail might work well for portraits of teenagers with less-than-perfect skin.

 

[calphotography]

I've been trying Art 300 for a portrait project. In this case, I'm looking to see how the lack of fine detail might work well for portraits of teenagers with less-than-perfect skin.

Very nice portraits!

 

[calphotography]

I will be using this paper for a project I have with shooting portraits. Animals and people and I think it works great for this. It is warm tone and doesn’t seem to change too much after it is dry.

 

[bdial]

I made a print of this negative on it, the paper texture makes the saw marks in the wood look 3 dimensional.
Unfortunately, with a framed print under glass, you can't discern the texture.