How suited is Ilford MGRC Deluxe for test prints prior to a final (or nearly) print w/Ilford MGFB?

[avizzini]

When the new Ilford MGRC Deluxe paper was released, I noticed some people mentioning that it appeared to behave similarly to Ilford’s MG classic fibre paper.

I was wondering, now that it’s been out for a little while, if anyone has been using both papers regularly and if the above has held true? Do you find that your exposure/filter settings translate fairly closely between the two papers? Or, at the very least, is there a predictable/consistent difference when going from one paper to the other, that you can easily adjust for?

My hope was to be able to use the RC paper to get me most of the way (if not nearly all the way) to a final print on fibre paper. If RC paper could get me most of the way to where I want, it’d be nice to save the cost of extra test prints on fibre.

 

[Pieter12]

Are you really going to save that much?

 

[nadav]

I’ve noticed a difference in contrast between the two at the same exposure time. You could probably figure out how to compensate, but I haven’t experimented with it much.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Very close: totally usable. Then the last part of the job, including the real previous tests before the final print, FB.

 

[Urs Gantner]

I'll second that. I often print on RC deluxe 'til everything is fine and finally do it on FB classic. Now with MGWT, it's a completely different story.

 

[Anon Ymous]

When considering something like this, you can have a look at the datasheets. What you are looking for are the ISO Range (R) and ISO Speed (P). The first is a number that characterises the contrast at the respective filter grade. The lower the number, the higher the contrast is. This nunber tells you what density range will give a transition from base white to maximum density. The ISO Speed is as you'd have guessed the speed of the paper, which can also depend on filter used. So, if these two numbers match, then you can expect these papers to behave more or less the same. With these in mind, you may notice that different grades may match, not necessarily the same grades. Hope this helps.

 

[jimjm]

I save about 40 cents per 8x10 sheet using MGRC over MG Classic FB. The results I'm getting with MGRC and a Dichroic enlarger are closer to FB than what I used to get with MGIV.
Prints from MGRC are about a grade harder than the older paper, so I have to use lower filtration settings than I previously did, but I like punchier prints, so it works out well for me.
I am using the RC paper for first prints and to work out any dodging/burning I may need to do. Exposure times have not been drastically different if I switch over to FB paper, which I still do for prints I am planning to matt and frame. I haven't yet tried toning or spotting any MGRC prints, but Ilford states it will respond to toners.

 

[otto.f]

I use Fomaspeed 311 for contactsheets, which is 3 times cheaper than Ilford RC in 24x30cm. I use it for testprinting too and I can easily transpose the whereabouts of the grade to Bergger fiber based paper.

 

[craigclu]

A Wallner system I'm using has a procedure of creating an exposure index number for each batch of paper. I've been surprised at how much variance there can be within the same papers. I find that the difference in FB and RC in the MG's of Ilford can easily be in the same general range as the batch variance.

 

[Pieter12]

I have found slight speed variations from box to box of Ilford MG FB glossy paper. I don't use many others, so I can't speak for the rest.

 

[jvo]

I'll second that. I often print on RC deluxe 'til everything is fine and finally do it on FB classic. Now with MGWT, it's a completely different story.

+1