My first darkroom printings - advice needed

[Truzi]

RC will be fine and a plus if your just starting out. A bigger question might be: Should you use Glossy or Matt paper?

That's a good question. My suggestion would be matte for a beginner (I'm thinking fewer finger prints, water spots, etc.). However, if the person wants that glossy look, then it may be better to use that just to keep the interest piqued; there is something to be said of producing prints that look like they came from your local minilab in some ways. Then move to matte later.
Personally, I think I prefer matte for B&W anyway (and perhaps for color as well).

 

[Oscar Carlsson]

That's a good question. My suggestion would be matte for a beginner (I'm thinking fewer finger prints, water spots, etc.). However, if the person wants that glossy look, then it may be better to use that just to keep the interest piqued; there is something to be said of producing prints that look like they came from your local minilab in some ways. Then move to matte later.
Personally, I think I prefer matte for B&W anyway (and perhaps for color as well).

Matt or glossy is a question of contrast. I prefer glossy as it can reflect more light even in the darker areas, leading to a higher contrast. If anyone doesn't believe me, I have a few recommended reads, beginning with The Print by Ansel Adams.

As for the rc vs fb debate...the emulsion is the same, and they are identical in tonality, behaves the same way in toning etc. Recommended reading, Larry Bartlett's Black and White Photographic Printing Workshop.

No reason to start with fb, it would be as starting with graded papers when variable contrast is available.

 

[pentaxuser]

Matt or glossy is a question of contrast. I prefer glossy as it can reflect more light even in the darker areas, leading to a higher contrast. If anyone doesn't believe me, I have a few recommended reads, beginning with The Print by Ansel Adams.

I'd endorse this. When I was on a nightschool B&W course as an absolute beginner, I noticed that nearly all the other students' prints seemed much more contrasty and somehow "jumped out at me than mine did. Generally they looked better and yet on discussing this with the other students there seemed to be nothing anyone was doing that I wasn't. It then became clear that on starting the course they had all bought Glossy and I had bought Pearl. It was as simple as that.

When I had my own darkroom I tried Ilford Satin which is in fact very matt and the apparent loss of contrast became even greater.

I am not saying never use other than Glossy. There are circumstances where Satin is the best surface but when starting and seeking the kind of depth and contrast that appeals initially and certainly seems to appeal to the man-in -the-street I'd go for Glossy

pentaxuser

 

[timor]

That's an excellent example of a piece of darkroom technology that might be extremely useful to someone producing dozens (or hundreds) of prints a week, perhaps from other peoples' negatives, but entirely unnecessary for someone making the odd few prints a month in their home darkroom for personal pleasure. Unless of course they have money to spend on it and also like to acquire interesting technology for the sake of doing so (it costs ~£350/$570, and is thus the equivalent of ~600 sheets of the paper I currently use)

If however someone wants to send me one for nothing, of course, do please PM me for a delivery address

I acquired my for $125 used. Fact, it's hard to find them used. Nevertheless believe me, I am printing few sheets a week. It saves a lot of guessing and test strips. Sure, I wouldn't pay for it $600 to, but now it is fun to get it right with the first print. Or very close to it.

 

[pstake]

Life will be a lot easier for you as a beginner to stick with RC paper for a while. It requires less time in chemistry, less time in the wash and it dries flat, quickly.

Fiber will curl when it dries and you'll have to get a dry-mount press or leave it under a stack of books for a week. Fiber also takes ~12-24 hours to dry instead of 30 minutes or so for RC.

What's more, if you use Ilford MGIV RC, you will have possibly the best tonal range available, consistently, even when your darkroom habits are not yet consistent (ie. developer temp, strength, type, etc.)

 

[mr rusty]

I acquired my for $125 used. Fact, it's hard to find them used. Nevertheless believe me, I am printing few sheets a week. It saves a lot of guessing and test strips. Sure, I wouldn't pay for it $600 to, but now it is fun to get it right with the first print. Or very close to it.

I endorse this 100%. Yes, this kit is expensive (significant other never noticed it appearing ), and I would never suggest that there is not tremendous merit in becoming skilled with test strips (which I know I am not), but what I have become is a) quite skilled in interpreting the output of the analyser (yes, you do have to learn how to use it) and b) quite good at calibrating the beast. I now have 7 different papers programmed. The analyser teaches you through use about the relationship between exposure and contrast. It also allows quick comparison between papers. Like you, I can get very close most of the time straight off with the first print. I agree the cost equals a hell of a lot of paper, but for me the precious commodity is time. I only get a few hours every other weekend or so, and have little time to both develop some films and run some prints; I appreciate the time-saving benefits. The one thing that worries me is if it broke, I might have to start learning the craft of test strips!

 

[pdeeh]

for me the precious commodity is time

unfortunately for me, as for many people, money is a significant issue and i couldn't possibly justify the cost even if i were able to find one "cheap" ($125 isn;t cheap to me).

I haven't said that this, or the myriad other bits of pricey darkroom gadgets, doesn't produce good results or is useful or saves time, simply that it remains entirely unnecessary to the process of producing prints. Plus as you rightly point out, it can break.

 

[mr rusty]

remains entirely unnecessary to the process of producing prints

Absolutely. It's a gadget. But a very clever one.

 

[pcsaba1981]

Hi All,

my first darkroom print is done. It's not too bad, anyway, but it seems to be a long journey.
Soon I'll post it.

The only advice I didn't listen to was to use postcard size paper. I was not able to get it in glossy, so I went for bigger paper.

So, thank you guys for the many advice!

 

[Molli]

Congratulations! I hope you had fun.

Addicted yet?