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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?