Ilford Art 300

I don't. I tried it months ago on a work and have since tossed the print.

*work print

Bill Scwabb asked Simon Galley of Ilford whether Ilford Art 300 was a resin/fibre hybrid based on his experience of it. An interesting question and as that was almost a month ago I'd have thought that an answer might have been given by now.

It would be interesting to see Ilford's comments on Bill's question

pentaxuser

^ I thought Simon's reply was posted in a different thread

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

zsas said:

^ I thought Simon's reply was posted in a different thread

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

Click to expand...

Thanks Andy. I had simply kept abreast of this thread not realising that a very similar but maybe not identical post had been made by Bill Schwabb on the thread to which you refer. In its reply Ilford doesn't exactly state what the base is in relation to the RC-FB spectrum but my interpretation of the answer is that Art 300 isn't baryta and isn't as archivally sound but is still superior to RC's lifespan which is the only one given a range of life in the Ilford reply.


pentaxuser

I soaked a work print for a week, after which the emulsion and the first bitties of paper under the emulsion could be lifted.The lifted emulsion could be torn any which way easily: it was quite delicate.
I think Bill was just seeing the gelatine. I am not thinking there is any plastic/resin involved.

wonder hoe it will perform in Bromoil, maybe ill should give it a try. Have tons of this peper in my stockroom

I'm ashamed to admit that, although Ilford very kindly sent me a test pack ages ago and I never got around to using it. It got lost under a pile of boxes of paper and I forgot all about it...

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I dug it out a month ago and gave it a go. I found it to be very forgiving for split-grade printing and easy to process - especially with the shortened washing times. I didn't suffer any handling problems; I air dried it, pegged back to back, and it came out almost completely flat, though with peg marks at the corners as was to be expected. Perhaps Ilford's success in creating flat inkjet papers, which rarely suffer from head-strikes, has had knock-on benefits.
I like the general tonality and base colour. It takes both selenium and gold toning well and, although I haven't tried it, I'm persuaded that it'd accept tinting/hand colouring well. Anyone interested in how far the paper can be stretched in these directions must get to see the prints Tim Rudman exhibited on the Ilford stand at 'Focus on Imaging' at the NEC last year - stunning, quite simply, stunning.

I've read the comments regarding the appearance of a 'plastic' coating but I can see no real evidence of this. I think it's purely an impression given by the emulsion/paper interface. All silver based papers are, after all, 'coated' and the substrate to emulsion interface must logically entail some difference in consistency.
As for the 'sheen', I suspect we've become somewhat spoilt by the lack of sheen now available with inkjet papers. Silver based 'art' papers have always had a slight sheen which is emphasised in dark areas of the print. It's one of the reasons I've always preferred gloss baryta papers - if I have to have a sheen, I prefer a visually consistent one. Whether Ilford can adjust their formula or coating, to reduce the shine, I don't know - but if they do, I suspect we'll be complaining that the paper's surface bruises too easily, as it does on inkjet papers...

On the other hand, the paper is fantastic for what used to be called 'high-key images'. It works particularly well on portraits where, with a little effort, the highlights can be made to shimmer at the edge of visibility - the textured surface seems to 'settle' the image onto the paper without it needing to be 'overexposed'.

Jerry Lebens
Ilford Master Printer

pentaxuser said:

Thanks Andy. I had simply kept abreast of this thread not realising that a very similar but maybe not identical post had been made by Bill Schwabb on the thread to which you refer. In its reply Ilford doesn't exactly state what the base is in relation to the RC-FB spectrum but my interpretation of the answer is that Art 300 isn't baryta and isn't as archivally sound but is still superior to RC's lifespan which is the only one given a range of life in the Ilford reply.


pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Humm, that's not the way I read it:

Simon R Galley said:

Dear Bill,

The emulsion element of any ( monochrome ) coating is 'archivally' incredibly stable, the issue of archival permanence usually relates to the stability of the substrate base, or any 'subbing' applied to that base to allow the coating of the emulsion layer(s). BUT fundamentally, the 'real' archival issue element actually relates to the chemical take up of the base whilst processing, so, Baryta base is the most stable base but takes up the highest volume of chemistry, so needs the extended wash times to make it archivally permanent. The base used on ART 300 is an incredibly stable base and is archivally excellent but is less porous than Baryta and therefore takes up less chemical into its structure, hence the shorter wash times.

If you balance this to RC products the modern ILFORD RC coatings on RC are very stable and archival, but the base actually has an expected 50 to 80 year life before it could (or will) break down gradually, hence RC product cannot be deemed as 'archivally permanent in the truest sense of the word.

Regards

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Click to expand...

He says that the Art 300 base, while implying it is not Baryta, is "incredibly stable and is archivally excellent" while specifically saying, of RC paper, that only the coating (emulsion) is "very stable and archival" while saying the base is expected to break down after 50-80 years.

So I agree he's saying it is more stable than RC, but I don't see where he says it is less stable than Baryta (FB) only that it isn't Baryta.

Roger, I think that what Ilford says is open to interpretation. Yours might well be right but I was basing mine(rightly or wrongly) on the Ilford statement that "Baryta is the most stable base" and by my inference, anything else is likely to be less stable,such as ART but is "still incredibly stable" and RC least stable. So my interpretation is that the ranking is FB baryta, ART and then RC. If you are the "richest" man in the world then by definition I cannot be as rich even if I too have a lot of money

Where ART is in relation to Baryta is left unstated. It sounds as if it might be nearly as good but that's my interpretation again and RC comes appreciably further behind.

I doubt if Ilford will be drawn on how close ART is to baryta in terms of years or % longevity. If it is very close and the word "incredibly stable base" says a lot then the difference may not matter.

pentaxuser

You have a point. He did say Baryta is the "most" stable and, essentially, that Art isn't Baryta, therefore it is less stable than Baryta but more stable than RC.

Whether the difference between it and Baryta is significant is another question, strictly speaking.

Earlier posts had asked to see a swatch of the paper from Ilford. Why not join the APUG postcard exchange and get one in the mail. I'm sure with 40 plus printers someone is going to be using the newest paper on the market.

Just a thought.

-Rob Skeoch

Dear All,

Sorry to have been ambiguous....

I would most certainly put Baryta FB as the most stable, followed by ART 300 then RC, to confirm the Hahnemuehle base we use does not have a Baryta coating. As an FYI the Baryta coating itself is not proven to extend archivally the life of the print but is actually there to improve the tone and 'sparkle' of the print.

I cannot say what the difference would be between Baryta FB and ART 300 but I would imagine it would be very little, at a complete guess with no facts to support it 90% + and certainly + 100 years for both, I re-iterate, correctly fixed, washed and stored.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Thanks for making a very good stab at the longevity at the life of ART 300 in comparison with FB, Simon. Given the development of this new paper and its processing benefits compared to FB, I wonder how far we are down the Ilford R&D road towards a future where most if not all the benefits of FB is conbined with the processing convenience of RC?

It is clear that Ilford has no intention of standing still and resting on its laurels in the product range.

pentaxuser

I have just printed Art 300 this evening and I AM IN LOVE. It is the effect I am after. When everything is dry, I'll post the MG IV RC and Art 300 comparisons. I love this paper, it's beautiful.

I have used this paper over the summer , in fact I am launching a show and 1/2 of the show is Art 300 and the other half is MG4.

The only issue I have had is.
The paper floats to a point of being problematic when you get to the wash stage, there sometimes is a see through when wet but not when dry.. I believe this is due to the paper the emulsion is coated on.
This is solvable but surprising when you first use it.

If I were to describe the paper it would be ... a Warm Tone emulsion of incredible depth much like Ilford Warmtone, sitting on a thick watercolour paper much like Arches Platine,,, with a texture much like the old Agfa matt fine art paper.

I have purchased 11x14, 16 x20 and a few rolls of 48inch by 60 ft.
It is very easy to work with and I believe a wonderful addition to the silver printing market. A definate winner in my books.

A beautiful paper indeed, but quite expansive.