Not one of the glossy Ilford FB papers has a decently low level of shine when air dried. They're all excessively reflective. Between that and our ongoing drought, I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio. It's a fine product.
As with everything else in photography (and life generally), finding the optimum balance is key. Until darkroom paper manufacturers succumbed to the marketplace's apparent fascination with shiny objects, there were multiple products that afforded higher print dMax than anyone might possibly use, but could be viewed easily in normal room light. Look for older prints made on Kodak Elite, Polymax Fine Art, Ilford Multigtrade (before IV) and Galerie for examples. Today's "mirrors" don't make deeper blacks but demand a dark room and carefully aimed spot illumination to avoid veiling glare. Papers' top coats were changed nearly a decade ago to cause this, as confirmed by Mirko of ADOX. If anyone wants to see what the ideal surface looks like, seek out an inkjet print made on Hahnemuhle FineArt Barta Satin using a dye (not pigment) based ink. Any blacker blacks I've never found, particularly from the really shiny stuff like Cibachrome/Ilfochrome and Fujiflex.Isn’t it the case that deep blacks and specular reflections/surface shine go hand-in-hand? You can’t have one without the other...
...Ilford Classic FB seems a fair compromise in that respect. Dry mounting to really flatten the print helps a lot, but you still need well-placed lighting to show it at its best.
I don't think the fascination with shiny things is recent. When I was a kid in the 60s/70s, hot-glazed glossy single-weight sheets were what newspaper darkrooms turned out routinely and what many amateurs aspired to. A right pain it was too - so many ways to spoil the print. However, I never saw glazed prints in any serious exhibition, so not everyone subscribed to that fashion even then.Until darkroom paper manufacturers succumbed to the marketplace's apparent fascination with shiny objects
Isn't glossy supposed to shine? If anything, Ilford glossy isn't really very glossy. Maybe if you ferrotyped it. Otherwise it's not as shiny as RC glossy.Not one of the glossy Ilford FB papers has a decently low level of shine when air dried. They're all excessively reflective. Between that and our ongoing drought, I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio. It's a fine product.
I don't think the fascination with shiny things is recent. When I was a kid in the 60s/70s, hot-glazed glossy single-weight sheets were what newspaper darkrooms turned out routinely and what many amateurs aspired to. A right pain it was too - so many ways to spoil the print. However, I never saw glazed prints in any serious exhibition, so not everyone subscribed to that fashion even then.
Isn't glossy supposed to shine? If anything, Ilford glossy isn't really very glossy. Maybe if you ferrotyped it. Otherwise it's not as shiny as RC glossy.
Let's underscore what we're talking about here: air-dried, fiber-base "glossy" paper. Which is what exhibition printers have used since the 1980s. I haven't ferrotyped a print since the 1960s, and then only to see what it would look like. I hated it then, and still hate it now.
"Supposed to?" Not if we're talking about a print to be viewed under any other than the most controlled lighting conditions. Ilford glossy fiber base papers are much shinier when air dried than the fiber base papers I listed above, whose elegant surfaces were just glossy enough to support solid blacks. I'd never consider an RC glossy paper. To clarify, the Multigrade RC Portfolio I've standardizd on is Pearl surface.
I did a test just after MG5 came onto the market and it is streets ahead of the old MG4. It is at least a stop faster and grade for grade especially between Gd 2 and 3.5 are more evenly spaced. Where I would have to use Gd3 for a print with decent blacks plus a bit of dodging/burning I now can use Gd1.5 with less messing about.
It takes a little longer for the full blacks and highlight details to become evident but the prints are richer and more full bodied than before. I usually give a print 1 min 15 seconds. The tone if used with MG Developer is also verging on slightly warm which I prefer.
The fibre equivalent I understand has been slightly 'tweeked' by Ilford, but is still not as fast as Mg5 and the tones are different. They are not going to designate it as MG5 Fibre.
The price of MG5 RC in UK is cheaper than most others that are on sale, especially the Fibre based and for me that is one big bonus
My experience is once under glass, Ilford FB Glossy doesn't present any more of a glare issue than the glass itself.
Not if one uses the correct glass. It must be low-iron, AR-coated and not "museum" glass (which has a plastic UV absorbing layer that adds a color cast). Here's an example:
Done right, except when viewing from extremely oblique angles, that type of glass seems to disappear, leaving the print -- with all its reflective flaws -- unchanged.
Even if one uses inferior glass and has to suffer with the issue you describe, you've ignored the part of my comment that pointed out not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand, making veiling glare from room light on excessively shiny surfaces annoying. Manufacturers would do well to revert their papers' top coats to the much more reasonable ones they previously applied.
Not if one uses the correct glass. It must be low-iron, AR-coated and not "museum" glass (which has a plastic UV absorbing layer that adds a color cast). Here's an example:
Done right, except when viewing from extremely oblique angles, that type of glass seems to disappear, leaving the print -- with all its reflective flaws -- unchanged.
Even if one uses inferior glass and has to suffer with the issue you describe, you've ignored the part of my comment that pointed out not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand, making veiling glare from room light on excessively shiny surfaces annoying. Manufacturers would do well to revert their papers' top coats to the much more reasonable ones they previously applied.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?