Is FB paper harder to print?

[Andrew O'Neill]

I only print on FB and have for years. Test strips. Expose for the highlights. Develop FB papers for a minimum of 2 minutes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer FB over RC. I use RC mainly for contact prints.

 

[Ian Grant]

Like Ian, when I first started printing RC papers were not available, shortly thereafter gov't. surplus rapid access papers were available, I suspect the paper was cut down from long rolls of rapid access papers used to quickly print and view aerial reconnaissance photos taken so "we" could keep tabs on the cold war opponents.

I'd forgotten about the rapid access papers, first I used were Agfa in about 1972 while at University, they were just left in one of the student darkrooms we were given when a department move to a new building.

Most people didn't realise that early Ilfospeed was developer incorporated I processed a lot of it with a Rapid Access processor and home made Activator, and strong Hypam instead of Stabiliser.

The PE paper I first used wasn't developer incorporated and was unbranded.

Ian

 

[tedr1]

Those skeptical may obtain the technical information from ilfordphoto.com like I do

here is the extract for MGRC paper


ISO paper speed


MULTIGRADE IV RC paper and

MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 200 –––––––––-––––– 200 100 100

The above values are representative of those obtained when dish/tray or machine processing the paper to ILFORD recommendations.

Here is the extract for MGFB paper


MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE Technical Information

ISO Range & ISO Speed MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE paper and MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 100 100 100 100 100 50 50


For grades 00 - 3 RC is P200 and FB P100
for grades 4,5 RC is P100 and FB is P50

That is a difference of one stop between RC and FBWT and my use of both papers confirms this difference in practice.

Why would I make this stuff up?

 

[Arthurwg]

I think it's easier to make a pretty good print on RC paper. But great prints are made on fiber.

 

[ic-racer]

Is FB paper harder to print?

If "to print" is a verb synonymous with "process," then FB is harder "to print." In my experience the main advantage of RC is that it is easier to process.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

According to the Heiland split grade controller that I use, the difference between Ilford Multigrade FB and RC is 0,5 grade lower and just over 10% less exposure (FB).
That's the factory set up (which gives usually good results) and may be different dependent on taste.
Regards,
Frank

These are not very big differencees.

 

[Oren Grad]

That is a difference of one stop between RC and FBWT and my use of both papers confirms this difference in practice.

Why would I make this stuff up?

You're not making anything up, but you are comparing apples to oranges. In general, the Ilford RC papers are not one stop faster than their FB counterparts. Both of the Ilford Warmtone papers, RC and FB, are distinctly slower compared to the neutral and Cooltone papers RC and FB. But within type, the RC and FB papers are close in speed. Drawing on the Ilford data sheets, for grade 2, ISO paper speeds are as follows:

MG IV RC: 200
MG FB Classic: 230
MG RC Cooltone: 200
MG FB Cooltone: 250
MG RC Warmtone: 125
MG FB Warmtone: 100

Also, the characteristic curves differ substantially between the the RC and FB versions in each pair, so even if one adjusts exposure to match a selected gray tone exactly, the tonal scales will still look different between the RC and FB counterparts.

 

[darkroommike]

Those skeptical may obtain the technical information from ilfordphoto.com like I do

here is the extract for MGRC paper


ISO paper speed


MULTIGRADE IV RC paper and

MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 200 –––––––––-––––– 200 100 100

The above values are representative of those obtained when dish/tray or machine processing the paper to ILFORD recommendations.

Here is the extract for MGFB paper


MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE Technical Information

ISO Range & ISO Speed MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE paper and MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 100 100 100 100 100 50 50


For grades 00 - 3 RC is P200 and FB P100
for grades 4,5 RC is P100 and FB is P50

That is a difference of one stop between RC and FBWT and my use of both papers confirms this difference in practice.

Why would I make this stuff up?

I may have missed it but did anyone say you made this up? It would be more useful to compare the RC and FB versions of Warmtone or the RC and FB speeds of "Regular" Multigrade.

Speeds of all papers today are wonderful compared to the old days but speed alone is not the issue (at least not the issue the OP was asking about).

FB papers require gentler handling, more care in processing, and a much longer processing cycle.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If "to print" is a verb synonymous with "process," then FB is harder "to print." In my experience the main advantage of RC is that it is easier to process.

Not harder. Just longer.

 

[tedr1]

Thank you Oren
I based my statement on the papers I use, regular MGRC and warmtone MGFB. Going by the numbers you give it appears FB warmtone may be the odd-man-out here, perhaps I should have been more specific in my original statement which generalized MGFB when my experience is based on the warmtone.

In the quest to eliminate unexpected variables in general my advice to printers is "RTFM", it is included free with all Ilford products.

 

[Oren Grad]

I've printed all six of the papers, and have extensive experience especially with the two Warmtone papers. Both of the Warmtone papers are just distinctly slow compared to the others. It's not an RC/FB thing.

 

[M Carter]

Sheesh, as a lith guy, I have piles of modern and classic papers. I'd never expect the same exposure times and contrast ranges - everything is different. Moving from one paper to another with the same neg - pretty much starting over, in my experience.

As for processing fiber vs. RC - I was pretty mind-blown how long it takes to fix Ektalure - even Polywarmtone takes a lot of fixer (I test every print for fixing). Those old papers must have buttloads of silver in them.

 

[KenR]

For me, I love the look of FB paper. RC is ok for general contact prints and quick prints, but there is nothing like the look of a well done FB print. As said above, the development time is longer - I use 2-2.5 minutes in Dektol 1:2 and the toning/washing process is more involved. But if you want a print that people will ooh and aah over, go with FB. Of course, FB prints will curl if left on their own, so they then have to be mounted on a board to be seen flat and at their best.

 

[BobMarvin11225]

I learned to print on FB paper (which was all that was made then) started using RC paper when I rwturned to the darkroom after q 30 year hiatus, and went back to FB a few years later. I had two reasons: what I thought was slightly better print quality and, most important, that it fits my working methods better. When I print I tend to work until late at night. I like to keep my prints in a water bath overnight and wash, tone, and dry them the next day. That will ruin prints on RC paper, but not harm those onFB.

 

[faberryman]

Is FB paper harder to print?

No, it just takes longer to process, wash, and dry. However, your patience is rewarded by a better looking finish, unless you just happen to like the look of plastic.

 

[removed account4]

Those skeptical may obtain the technical information from ilfordphoto.com like I do

here is the extract for MGRC paper


ISO paper speed


MULTIGRADE IV RC paper and

MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 200 –––––––––-––––– 200 100 100

The above values are representative of those obtained when dish/tray or machine processing the paper to ILFORD recommendations.

Here is the extract for MGFB paper


MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE Technical Information

ISO Range & ISO Speed MULTIGRADE FB WARMTONE paper and MULTIGRADE filters

Filter 00 0 1 2 3 4 5

Speed (P) 100 100 100 100 100 50 50


For grades 00 - 3 RC is P200 and FB P100
for grades 4,5 RC is P100 and FB is P50

That is a difference of one stop between RC and FBWT and my use of both papers confirms this difference in practice.

Why would I make this stuff up?

You're not making anything up, but you are comparing apples to oranges. In general, the Ilford RC papers are not one stop faster than their FB counterparts. Both of the Ilford Warmtone papers, RC and FB, are distinctly slower compared to the neutral and Cooltone papers RC and FB. But within type, the RC and FB papers are close in speed. Drawing on the Ilford data sheets, for grade 2, ISO paper speeds are as follows:

MG IV RC: 200
MG FB Classic: 230
MG RC Cooltone: 200
MG FB Cooltone: 250
MG RC Warmtone: 125
MG FB Warmtone: 100

Also, the characteristic curves differ substantially between the the RC and FB versions in each pair, so even if one adjusts exposure to match a selected gray tone exactly, the tonal scales will still look different between the RC and FB counterparts.

they say iso but its deceiving because they do not relate at all to film iso

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Each paper is different, although some of the differences are small.
A good approach is to adjust exposure to obtain the highlights and mid-tones you like, and then adjust the contrast to obtain the shadow rendering you like.

That is the best approach to me. 60 years experience tells me.

My advice is stick to one paper and film. Or two papers , one RC and one FB, Both should be multigrade. FB is not harder to print, but is a pain to process. 2 minutes in developer, ss, two hypo baths, short wash, hypo clear, more wash full archival wash,tone, rinse, hypo clear, final archival wash. I used to be able to tone with selenium right after short rinse following second hypo. Then final archival wash. This abbreviated cycle may or may not work with todays papers. Kodak never recommended it.

I have well washed RC prints that are 40 years old and they look fine. Key being WEKK WASHED. People skip this . Fix must be removed. Do not frame for 30 days. Leave in open air.

If whites are blown, did not give 2 minutes in developer, exposure too short for print, If the last, and you can not get detail in blacks by going longer, you need to cut cut film development time. The cardinal rule is expose fllm for shadow detail, develop fto get proper whites with detail in the print.
Skipping around will never get quality results.

 

[GRHazelton]

If you’re pulling your FB prints out of the developer after 1 minute like you would for RC, that’s going to be a problem. I find 2.5 to 3 minutes inR

If you’re pulling your FB prints out of the developer after 1 minute like you would for RC, that’s going to be a problem. I find 2.5 to 3 minutes in Dektol 1:2 works best for me. Fix and wash times are different, that’s about it.

IIRC back in the day the rule of thumb was 2 minutes in Dekton 2 to 1. Watch out for exhausted fixer. Wash time is MUCH longer, we used a hypo eliminator. Drying: Curling can be a problem! There were some products for "curing" it; I remember using ethylene glycol, it acted to keep a little humidity in the print. Some of those prints using it I made about 40 years ago and are just fine. I imagine that polyethylene glycol, used in woodworking would be good, and its non-poisonous. Used in keeping salad bowls, etc, from cracking. Rockler carries it as does Amazon.