Opinions on test printing using different paper stock

Hi, I’ve just bought some of the new Ilford MG RC Portfolio paper and really enjoying the results. I really didn’t like the feel of the single weight RC but this is so much closer to a FB print that it’ll probably end up being my main paper.

However, it’s quite a bit more expensive than either the FB or the single weight RC paper - more than double the cost of SW RC.

I just did a side by side comparison between the standard RC and Portfolio, and I can’t see a difference at the same exposure etc. I could save some cost by test printing on the SW and using the Portfolio for final print only. Is this a good idea? My immediate thoughts are that the two might age at different rates and might not be so close to each other later. As I’d likely go through the standard paper quicker, I would have to some point pair a new box of SW with an older box of Portfolio. How big of an issue do you think that would be?

Any other problems with the approach?

thanks
Paul

ITD, only time will tell of course but I imagine that in the time scale likely to apply to be both papers it will not matter. As you have found, it is essentially the same emulsion so for a long time at least a test strip for one will translate into accurate exposures for the other.

Given the price difference I'd certainly do what you have been doing and use "ordinary" MG RC Deluxe for test strips and keep the Portfolio for prints

pentaxuser

My thinking is that does not matter much, I look at prints don't feel them. But double wt paper gained popularity as FB double wt paper was sifter and easier to handle in the trays, old single wt FB paper could crease. Newspapers used single wt paper as it was easier to load on the old drums used to send photos by wire and was cheaper. As I mount presentation prints, FB with a mounting press and sheets RC with board and spray on adhesive, well once mounted it's all about the look.

Paul Howell said:

My thinking is that does not matter much, I look at prints don't feel them. But double wt paper gained popularity as FB double wt paper was sifter and easier to handle in the trays, old single wt FB paper could crease. Newspapers used single wt paper as it was easier to load on the old drums used to send photos by wire and was cheaper. As I mount presentation prints, FB with a mounting press and sheets RC with board and spray on adhesive, well once mounted it's all about the look.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don’t mount prints or have very much space for hanging them, so most of the time they are viewed in the hand. I agree that visually there’s nothing between them but I do value the whole experience over just the visual. Maybe just me

The emulsion is identical between the normal RC and the Portfolio RC, so the base will not make any difference with respect to your image. If you look at the numbers for the ISO range and speed (https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1956/product/2019/) you'll see they're identical, and the characteristic curves are the same too.

So yeah, no problem at all doing tests on SW until you're ready to pull the final print.

This approach also works with different emulsions, as long as you know what you're doing. I use the Kentmere RC to do all my test prints, and when I'm ready to print, I use Ilford FB with minimal adjustements. Both have very similar ISO R and P over the range I am working, and I need maybe a 1/4 stop adjustment in exposure to match prints.

Michel Hardy-Vallée said:

The emulsion is identical between the normal RC and the Portfolio RC, so the base will not make any difference with respect to your image. If you look at the numbers for the ISO range and speed (https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1956/product/2019/) you'll see they're identical, and the characteristic curves are the same too.

So yeah, no problem at all doing tests on SW until you're ready to pull the final print.

This approach also works with different emulsions, as long as you know what you're doing. I use the Kentmere RC to do all my test prints, and when I'm ready to print, I use Ilford FB with minimal adjustements. Both have very similar ISO R and P over the range I am working, and I need maybe a 1/4 stop adjustment in exposure to match prints.

Click to expand...

Thanks Michel - do you just do a small test on the ‘target’ paper to match against the ‘final’ test on the RC stock then?

It does make a difference if you are passing them around, when in the U.S Air Force in the early 70s we printed accident investigation, bomb damage, and like photos that were going be used a number of people on double wt. But when we shifted to RC it did not matter as much as RC was stiffer and could take the handling. In your case it makes sense to print presentation on the more expensive double wt.

ITD said:

Thanks Michel - do you just do a small test on the ‘target’ paper to match against the ‘final’ test on the RC stock then?

Click to expand...

In my case yes, because the emulsions are not identical. In your case, that can always be a good thing because of theoretical batch variation, etc. But once you have your process nailed in, you have better chance to have a seamless transition.