Matte Photo Paper and Contrast?

[Lucy_the_magic_panda]

Hello,

I prefer to use fiber paper but I have never purchased matte coating. I have been told by some that it is very hard, if not impossible to get strong contast with matte fiber paper. Is there any truth to that? I prefer to print with more contrast and rich, dark blacks. I am looking at Ilford's Matt Fiber Multigrade right now. Would I be able to get good contrast with this paper and some help from my filters? Any tips for achieving that or other paper recommendations?

I've included the picture as an example of the range I like to work in.

Thank you!

 

[Anon Ymous]

Contrast is one thing, but maximum density is another. Matte papers are capable of achieving high contrast, but they lack maximum density. It is significantly lower than that of the glossy papers. If deep blacks are what you're after, then you will probably be disappointed. That said, you can try a small pack and see for yourself.

 

[tezzasmall]

I use and really like Ilford FB Matt.

YES you will get the full range of tones but because the paper has a Matt surface you will not get the full black that you get with Pearl or Gloss. But when I say that, the paper gives the fullest black that it can but because it has a non reflective surface it will have more like, what I call, a 'charcoal black' look to it. Especially when wet and when dried and not laid out next to anything else it will look as good as any print, but if you compare a black on Pearl or Gloss next to a Matt print, you will see a difference.

But what it is really about is, do YOU like the look of the finished print.

I would highly recommend that you give it a go, maybe trying with a small sized box full or maybe someone closer to you would be willing to give or mail you a sheet or two to try, for the cost of postage and paper? This is something that I have done with others in the UK to try paper that I have and that they were curious about.

It is also said that if prints of different surfaces, including Matt, were framed behind glass, one would not be able to tell the difference.

If only there was a way to show what I meant on screen, but there isn't...

Terry S

 

[locutus]

Indeed, its impossible to reproduce this on a screen.

Ilford Matt definitely has more timid blacks and generally also looks a bit softer (sharpness) to me then glossy paper.

Personally i find that for portraiture subjects this works very well, for things like landscapes were you want small details to pop it doesn't.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Is this picture yours?

 

[bernard_L]

Is this picture yours?

Hint: the OP's initials are not AS.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Hint: the OP's initials are not AS.

Sorry, not familiar with. If it is not OP picture, don't we have rules here?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I have been told by some that it is very hard, if not impossible to get strong contast with matte fiber paper. Is there any truth to that? I prefer to print with more contrast and rich, dark blacks. I am looking at Ilford's Matt Fiber Multigrade right now. Would I be able to get good contrast with this paper...

No, you would not. The degree of contrast you seek requires high dmax ("rich, dark blacks") and neither Ilford matte nor Adox semi-matt paper paper is capable of that. I have recently tested both, including selenium toning, and found them incapable of what you're after.

...Any tips for achieving that or other paper recommendations?...

Head down the list of forums and check out what I posted here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/trying-matte-paper.153922/#post-1993826​

 

[Bob Carnie]

It should have been credited as August Sanders in the original post .

 

[Old_Dick]

You could try semi matte if your not happy with matte or gloss.

 

[Anon Ymous]

And where did the op claim that the photo is hers?

 

[MattKing]

That August Sander photo would probably be very satisfying if printed on a matte surface paper.
Another image, with more metallic or specular components to the image wouldn't be as likely to be suited to a matte surface paper.
And if you are expecting to illustrate what you prefer in a reflected light viewing medium like photographic paper using the transmitted light medium of a computer screen you are going to encounter some frustration.
Welcome to PHOTRIO. As you have probably noticed, if you are going to use someone else's photo to illustrate a point, its more clear if you indicate that it isn't your own. For what it's worth, I didn't read your post as a claim that it was your photo, but I can certainly see how some might have done so.
It is a lot of fun to experiment with different paper surfaces. I would recommend you try it.
If you can get your hands on a 1970s era Kodak Darkroom Dataguide, many of them contain a bunch of paper samples, which will give you a sense of the wide variety we once enjoyed, as well as a better sense of how different surfaces work with different photographic subjects.
Hope this helps.

 

[Bob Carnie]

And where did the op claim that the photo is hers?

When using someone else's photographic image a credit is always a sign of respect .

 

[MattKing]

Let's get the name right, then . Sander, not Sanders.

Merci

 

[Ian Grant]

When the matt print is wet it can have the same D-max as a glossy Fibre vsed paper. The differences become noticeable when dry, actually a fibre based glossy print has a lower D-max than a Glossy RC paper unless glazed (ferrotyped in US terms).

Papers vary quite a bit, I used some Ilfospeed RC Matt paper many years ago and it was a very flat matt in terms of D-max and had a unique look. More recently I've used some Adox MCC RC Matt and that is very different. Ideally you want to see some paper samples, the last sample set I has was from Agfa in the late 1980's but a dealer should have some for customers to look at, or at lest some example prints.

Can we cut the OP some slack, it's her first post and she's not claimed the image she posted as her own and those more visually literate know full well who the photographer was.

Ian

 

[tezzasmall]

Ideally you want to see some paper samples, the last sample set I has was from Agfa in the late 1980's but a dealer should have some for customers to look at, or at lest some example prints.

Can we cut the OP some slack, it's her first post and she's not claimed the image she posted as her own and those more visually literate know full well who the photographer was.

Ian

Ian's post reminds me of a 'Paper swatch sample' that I bought from Ilford on line a while back now, that shows prints on the various postcard size papers that they do. Not cheap cheap, but well worth the cost in my opinion. Especially, as so many of us now buy on line and when I last went to buy some paper in a shop, they didn't have the said 'Paper swatches' to show me.

And as Ian says, the OP has only made this one comment, so will not be up to speed on rules and regs on a site such as this. Try not to jump on someone too quickly guys - we were all newbies once!

Terry S

 

[ic-racer]

I find this a little mind boggling. Rather than measure mat and glossy prints with the 'standard' ASA PH2.17 technique, Carnahan measured prints oriented under lighitng by human subjects so that the print 'looked best.' Then he measured the reflected densities in that print position and plotted the frequency of the density recorded.

The mat prints only reflected a limited range of grays under these 'real-life' viewing conditions.

For the original poster, how about just buy a small package of matt paper and see for yourself.

Carnahan, W.H., Phot. Eng., 6, 237 (1955).

 

[btaylor]

Just to add a couple of thoughts: Yes, if Ilford or some other paper manufacturer has a sample set for sale you should get it. It will be the cheapest, clearest example of how each surface affects the appearance of an identical photo. That said, trying different materials is a way for you to find out what you like, the rejects can be as important as the keepers as you learn your own preferences. Air dried glossy FB paper is the surface I personally prefer for most of my photos. Nice deep blacks.

Second, did anyone mistake the illustrating photograph as something the OP produced? I agree photo credits are good, but that photo is over 100 years old and it was pretty obvious to me it wasn't the OP's work.

 

[tedr1]

For evaluating paper types there is a sample swatch for Ilford papers, has about twenty different types in it, I bought mine from KHB Photografix in Canada.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In the past matte prints were often varnished. That is given a very slight coating of varnish. Ansel Adams in The Print First Edition gives a recipe for the varnish. A very small amount is applied and then all but a trace of it removed with a clean cloth. The matte surface is unaffected however It significantly raises the contrast and Dmax of a FB matte print.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

In the past matte prints were often varnished...The matte surface is unaffected...

Not affected until the varnish yellows.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Not affected until the varnish yellows.

We're not doing a piece of furniture here. The amount of varnish is vanishlingly small that there is no chance of yellowing. Once the diluted varnish has been applied and then mostly removed you will not see it. The surface still appears matte. Only the tonal depth of the print is changed. I have prints that are > 50 years old and you would never know that the varnish had been used. As I said he process was recommended by Anset Adams. I would guess that there are some AA prints that are varnished and the owners never knew it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Contrast is one thing, but maximum density is another. Matte papers are capable of achieving high contrast, but they lack maximum density. It is significantly lower than that of the glossy papers. If deep blacks are what you're after, then you will probably be disappointed. That said, you can try a small pack and see for yourself.

Yep, what he said.

 

[Old_Dick]

You can also "wax" matte prints. Want to see a print uncurl, try Pledge.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Not affected until the varnish yellows...

...The amount of varnish is vanishlingly small that there is no chance of yellowing...

On the contrary, yellowing is common. See these for example:

https://books.google.com/books?id=5...varnish photographic prints yellowing&f=false​

https://books.google.com/books?id=p...varnish photographic prints yellowing&f=false​

https://www.summitprintingpro.com/resources/paper-coatings.html​

An excerpt from the last one:

"...varnishes have other drawbacks too. One problem is that over time, they tend to yellow..."​

...I said he process was recommended by Anset Adams...

In "The Print," Adams cautions that, while there are advantages to varnishing prints, adverse effects on archival qualities are of concern.