Is Oriental Seagull paper available in the UK and is anyone anywhere using it?

[RobC]

Is Oriental Seagull paper available in the UK and is anyone anywhere using it?
Is it like the old stuff from years ago or is it a new paper? I'm specifically interested in FB papers which I used to love the look of.

 

[Ian Grant]

Most Japanese B&W papers aren't made in Japan. I think the Oriental coating plant closed when they were in financial difficulties and restructured.

Ian

 

[RobC]

So its a different paper than the old stuff. Do you know who makes it for them and does it look like the old stuff ?

 

[Ian Grant]

Last I heard was Made in the UK but I've not seen that for myself, but we know Harman make their new films. Remember that some Fuji materials were also coated in the UK.

Ian

 

[RobC]

I suppose its not a major jump to believe that Harman are making their paper if they are making their film.

Still like to hear from anyone using this paper and how similar it is to the old stuff. And if its available in UK anywhere as I haven't found a UK supplier yet.

 

[brian steinberger]

Oriental seagull fiber VC Paper is a great paper. Very similar to ilfords MGIV though responds a bit more to toning. I use it regularly and assume it's made by Harmon though I don't know that for sure.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I have recently started using their papers and I really like them very much. I have really taken well to their RC Grade 2 paper. I bought it from B&H recently, and it still says Made in Japan, but I am thinking this may be some older stock...

 

[Roger Cole]

Oriental seagull fiber VC Paper is a great paper. Very similar to ilfords MGIV though responds a bit more to toning. I use it regularly and assume it's made by Harmon though I don't know that for sure.

Hum, that sounds a lot like the newest MG Classic. Do you know how it compares to that?

There's no reason, of course, that Harman can't coat to spec with different emulsions for different customers course, much as Inoviscoat does.

 

[Wayne]

So its a different paper than the old stuff. Do you know who makes it for them and does it look like the old stuff ?

Seagull has been different from the "old stuff" for a long time. It hasn't been the paper Brett Weston used for decades. So it depends on which version you are calling the "old stuff". I don't know if this means there are 2 versions or 3, but there are definitely at least 2.

 

[brian steinberger]

Hum, that sounds a lot like the newest MG Classic. Do you know how it compares to that?

There's no reason, of course, that Harman can't coat to spec with different emulsions for different customers course, much as Inoviscoat does.

Hi Roger, a few weeks ago I actually printed the same image on MG classic and Oriental VC for comparison. I find the new classic paper to be slightly muddy in the shadows especially at higher grades. Oriental has slightly better shadow separation IMO. I could make both papers look the same in selenium toner, oriental for 4 minutes 1:19 and classic for 5 minutes 1:19. Prints were developed for 3 minutes in LPD 1:3 with 40ml per liter of PMT added to cool the tone. Without PMT I find classic goes reddish brown quickly in selenium. Classic is a fine paper especially with lower contrast images (higher contrast negatives), I find when you need to go to grade 3.5 and up classic looks muddy. I'm still trying to figure this out. But it's a bright white base paper and a nice glossy surface. That said I do miss MGIV and prefer oriental to classic as of right now. Oriental reminds me of MGIV, just have to tone less in selenium to get to the same tone as MGIV. For me I used to tone MGIV for 6-8 minutes at 1:9 for a beautiful charcoal color, and oriental I tone 4 minutes 1:19 and when dry the prints look identical.

I really wish there were more discussion on this site about current papers, like oriental and the new Ilford papers. They've been out for a few years now I thought more people would be talking about them. I'd be curious to know others experiences.

 

[brian steinberger]

Michael, thanks for your post. Your knowledge of printing is appreciated here on APUG. I know we've had conversations about the new Ilford papers and in particular MG classic's characteristics. I pretty much agree with all you stated above. I too love MGWT, but mostly toned in heavy selenium, brown toner or pre-sulfided in thio sepia. But I may well have to revisit it with the PMT and see what kind of neutral images I can achieve. However, Oriental VC is such a nice neutral paper you just can't go wrong with it. And I would recommend to anyone who misses MGIV to try it.

 

[Wayne]

I forgot to mention I like Seagull too. I don't think I ever had the pleasure of trying the original version of it. I know I heard that the formula changed along the way but Michael says it behaves the same so maybe not.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I think generally when people refer to the "classic" Oriental papers (the papers used by Adams, Brett Weston etc.) they are thinking of graded Seagull. Never tried it. By the time I started using Oriental Seagull (late 80s-early 90s) they offered VC varieties so I used that for a while. Obviously the graded and VC versions were different papers, but I never compared them to see if they looked the same. The current Oriental VC paper is not the same as those made by the original Oriental company either, but in practice, maybe it is similar in working properties. Obviously we don't know, so we're left to judge with our eyes, which means everyone has to decide for themselves, and we might all come to different conclusions due to our own biases, preferences etc etc. What I remember (or think I remember ) most about the older Oriental VC neutral tone paper was how it would tone in selenium. Apparently the graded Oriental paper Adams used in the 70s responded similarly. To me the current Oriental VC paper is similar to the old Oriental VC paper in that respect.

I'd have to agree with Brian that if you liked MGIV or Kodak Polymax FA and neutral/neutral-cold tones the current Oriental VC FB paper is probably worth a try (with more subtle selenium toning). Don't write off the newer Ilford papers though. You might love them. I'm still kind of undecided on MG Classic. There are some really good things about it (for one thing, at the lowest contrast settings it doesn't have that crossover "dead zone" MGIV and other VC papers have). As I said before, so far for me the paper is best at the lower grades. Another thing I forgot to mention is MG Classic glossy seems to be more shiny than MGIV glossy. Some people might prefer that, some not. My understanding is MCC-110 is similarly a little higher in gloss than MGIV.

Image colour and toning properties aside, I find it difficult to compare VC papers from a practical perspective. Since we have a lot of control over how we expose the paper when printing, we can end up compensating for differences in curve shape. In some cases we can end up with virtually the same tone reproduction on two different papers, using different print plans. For a given image one paper might make getting to the desired endpoint easier, for another image the opposite might be the case. Barring extreme differences, it can be hard to judge.

Old graded Oriental Seagull's reputation over here seemed to have more to do with its 'lith' properties - never used it though, so can't tell you more.

I vastly prefer MGC to MGIV, especially in the 5K Matt finish - it seems to match HP5+ in a very precise way & open the low mids in a way that MGIV made you struggle to get. The difference is not subtle if you are a reasonable printer.

I've used quite a bit of MGCT too - nice crisp paper - does useful things in sulfide etc - glancing at the info sheets, looks like it's aimed as a speed/ contrast match to Kentmere Bromide gr.1-3. It is however pretty glossy surface-wise.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've used quite a bit of MGCT too - nice crisp paper - does useful things in sulfide etc - glancing at the info sheets, looks like it's aimed as a speed/ contrast match to Kentmere Bromide gr.1-3. It is however pretty glossy surface-wise.

Interesting point re the Kentmere papers. MGCT does always seem rather "punchy" compared to other papers. I've found a need to dial the contrast back to get a good print (MG500 head).

Tom