Oriental VC

[kintatsu]

Does anyone have any experience with this paper?

I'm using Ilford MG filters, so things should be the same based on what I've read.

But, I'm asking after getting bitten by Foma. The Fomaspeed Variant that I tried came out poorly. The images appeared with 5-15 seconds, as opposed to 30-45 for Ilford, with the same exposure and developer. The Ilford seemd to have "sparkle," the Foma was dull and flat grey, with very little contrast for the grade.

 

[HTF III]

They still make Oriental paper?

 

[kintatsu]

They sure do. I've been wanting to try it, as I've heard good things about it, but I've also heard good things about Foma.

I'm hoping someone can give the information to make a wiser choice than just guessing whether it's ok.

 

[HTF III]

I had no idea they still made it. I used it in the 80's, seem like. Pretty good stuff.

 

[Huub]

I have been using some of Oriental FB VC paper for the past few years. You'll be fine when using the Ilford filters - they work perfect.
Compared to the Ilford paper, it needs a bit more development to get good blacks -give it 50% more time. The paper has a bit more contrast, especially in the lower tones and responds well to selenium toning, giving a more pronounced effect then the Ilford MG FB paper. And the paper has almost the same white base as the the Ilford paper.

 

[Neal]

Dear kintatsu,

I never assume the same exposure and development for two different papers. Further, subtleties in the paper base and emulsion can make one more desirable than another for a given image (although I've found I can vacillate between prints over time). Having said that, I have been happy with several prints that I've made in the last year using Oriental VC paper. I can't blame the paper for any one that I am not happy with. ;>)

Neal Wydra

 

[nworth]

It is very good. It doesn't compare to the old Oriental Seagull G from the 60s and 70s, but it is still a premium paper.

 

[mesantacruz]

From my experience, with or without filters, it is more contrasty, noticeably so. I don't know if i had a strange/old batch, but the contrast was way high.

 

[kintatsu]

I have been using some of Oriental FB VC paper for the past few years. You'll be fine when using the Ilford filters - they work perfect.
Compared to the Ilford paper, it needs a bit more development to get good blacks -give it 50% more time. The paper has a bit more contrast, especially in the lower tones and responds well to selenium toning, giving a more pronounced effect then the Ilford MG FB paper. And the paper has almost the same white base as the the Ilford paper.

I like the sound of it, especially with the clean white base. This should help with the tiny areas of highlights and abrupt changes between levels.

Thank you for the information! I definitely have to try some out!

 

[kintatsu]

I had no idea they still made it. I used it in the 80's, seem like. Pretty good stuff.

Thank you!

 

[kintatsu]

Dear kintatsu,

I never assume the same exposure and development for two different papers. Further, subtleties in the paper base and emulsion can make one more desirable than another for a given image (although I've found I can vacillate between prints over time). Neal Wydra

Thanks for the information. With the Foma paper I found the problem seems to be the addition of developer to the paper. The levels for the most part remain the same, but small highlights, abruptly changing to lower values go dark and blend into the surrounding area. It would seem either surface area of the highlights or the transition to lower values needs to be controlled. Keeping that in mind, I think I can get something good from it with patience and practice.

Having said that, I have been happy with several prints that I've made in the last year using Oriental VC paper. I can't blame the paper for any one that I am not happy with. ;>)
Neal Wydra

I hope I can make some good ones with it.

Thanks for the information

 

[kintatsu]

It is very good. It doesn't compare to the old Oriental Seagull G from the 60s and 70s, but it is still a premium paper.

Thank you for the reply and information.

 

[kintatsu]

From my experience, with or without filters, it is more contrasty, noticeably so. I don't know if i had a strange/old batch, but the contrast was way high.

Thank you for the information. I'll keep that in mind when I order some and make prints.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have been using some of Oriental FB VC paper for the past few years. You'll be fine when using the Ilford filters - they work perfect.
Compared to the Ilford paper, it needs a bit more development to get good blacks -give it 50% more time. The paper has a bit more contrast, especially in the lower tones and responds well to selenium toning, giving a more pronounced effect then the Ilford MG FB paper. And the paper has almost the same white base as the the Ilford paper.

How much development time are we talking about here? I've noticed most FB papers get richer with extended development so it's something of a compromise between the absolute best look and patience. I generally develop Ilford MG (WT and IV) and Adox MCC 110 for 3 minutes. Sometimes I'll go 5 minutes.

 

[kintatsu]

How much development time are we talking about here? I've noticed most FB papers get richer with extended development so it's something of a compromise between the absolute best look and patience. I generally develop Ilford MG (WT and IV) and Adox MCC 110 for 3 minutes. Sometimes I'll go 5 minutes.

With Eukobrom at 1:9, the recommended dilution, for Ilford I get about 60-90 seconds for full development. With the Foma I'm getting 15-30 seconds for fully developed. The MG comes out very nice and seems to be more to my taste, while the Foma comes out almost like looking through a dark grey window. I tried the Foma at 1:18, with half the exposure and times were longer, but the highlights still looked bad.

Given your comment, I'll have to try 1:18, with even less exposure. Thanks for the advice and tip.

 

[MartinP]

If the paper is fresh and well-stored then the Foma should look pretty good. The development time "should" be about 90 seconds for the Foma resin-coated paper - if you have a featureless dark piece of paper after that time then I'd suggest both reducing the exposure and making a very very careful safelight/fogging check.

 

[kintatsu]

...I'd suggest both reducing the exposure and making a very very careful safelight/fogging check.

Thanks for the advice. I've tried reducing the exposure, and will try to further reduce it. I hadn't thought about the safelight. I'll give it a check.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have tried the newer Seagull paper and wasn't particularly impressed with the results. You might as well use ILFORD or Adox MCC which is an excellent variable contrast paper. Foma papers can produce good results but I've sometimes had problems with emulsion softness, but this is perhaps more of an issue with high temperature lith processing.

Tom

 

[Huub]

I normally develop the Oriental paper in a 1:7 Neutal WA developer for 3 minutes, whereas i used 2 minutes for the Ilford and Agfa papers.

 

[Augied]

I just recently tried out the Oriental paper. I've been a loyal Ilford user for a while, but the student price on Oriental from B&H was too good not to at least try it. I'm very impressed so far. The contrast is different, but I split-grade print so after a bit of adjustment, I seem to be able to do everything that I could with the Ilford paper. I think the paper itself may actually be a bit heavier than Ilford.

If the prices were the same, I'd probably stick with Ilford, although more out of loyalty than any significant difference in quality. As it is, I'm switching to Oriental for as long as the price hold up.

 

[Roger Cole]

I would be very suspect of anything shorter than two minutes for FB paper, and in fact as I mentioned I don't like anything shorter than 3. 5 is better but I get impatient. Of course exposure has to be adjusted accordingly, and do mind the safelight. Even with a tested safelight my prints spend the majority of that time face down.

RC papers can usually get by with 90 seconds but I tend to use 2 minutes. For one thing, longer times mean less variability from error. If you have trouble lifting the edge of the print with tongs, for example (I use tongs) and give it an extra 15 seconds messing around with that, this is 25% more on a 1 minute development time, but 1/12 or 8.33% more on a 3 minute time, which will never be noticed. The 25% often will.

I use LPD 1+2 for neutral tone papers and Ilford/Harman WT 1+9 for MGWT FB.

 

[kintatsu]

I have tried the newer Seagull paper and wasn't particularly impressed with the results.

Tom

I hope you won't mind me asking what was wrong with it. I'd like to get some ideas for uses before ordering.

 

[kintatsu]

I normally develop the Oriental paper in a 1:7 Neutal WA developer for 3 minutes, whereas i used 2 minutes for the Ilford and Agfa papers.

Unfortunately, I am, for the most part, limited to Eukobrom and possibly Dokumol. Of course, with most things in my area, it's limited, but inspires the extra learning necessary to get decent results.

 

[kintatsu]

I just recently tried out the Oriental paper. I've been a loyal Ilford user for a while, but the student price on Oriental from B&H was too good not to at least try it. I'm very impressed so far. The contrast is different, but I split-grade print so after a bit of adjustment, I seem to be able to do everything that I could with the Ilford paper. I think the paper itself may actually be a bit heavier than Ilford.

If the prices were the same, I'd probably stick with Ilford, although more out of loyalty than any significant difference in quality. As it is, I'm switching to Oriental for as long as the price hold up.

Ilford has been my first choice for film and paper. I like their dedication, quality, and variety. Their products have, for the most part, done me right! I am trying to branch out a little and experiment with what looks best for a given shot. Having heard about Oriental for years, I thought it might be time to try them out. Thanks for sharing!

 

[kintatsu]

I would be very suspect of anything shorter than two minutes for FB paper, and in fact as I mentioned I don't like anything shorter than 3. 5 is better but I get impatient. Of course exposure has to be adjusted accordingly, and do mind the safelight. Even with a tested safelight my prints spend the majority of that time face down.

RC papers can usually get by with 90 seconds but I tend to use 2 minutes. For one thing, longer times mean less variability from error. If you have trouble lifting the edge of the print with tongs, for example (I use tongs) and give it an extra 15 seconds messing around with that, this is 25% more on a 1 minute development time, but 1/12 or 8.33% more on a 3 minute time, which will never be noticed. The 25% often will.

I use LPD 1+2 for neutral tone papers and Ilford/Harman WT 1+9 for MGWT FB.

Thanks for the tips! It's always great to read the comments and advice, as so much can be learned from them. I'm using RC paper, and with the MGIV, my development times run about 60-90 seconds. I'm thinking baout trying the Oriental in FB Cooltone, as I prefer neutral to cool, especially for much of what I shoot. I noticed that the longer times lead to warmer prints, which is somewhat offset by developing in Eukobrom.

I like your point about time and the percentage of change, it drives home the importance of procedures and attention. That's why shooting, for instance, for 10 minutes development of film seems to improve my negatives. This means with Delta 100, 9 minutes in dilution b and with HP5+ it means 10 in Dilution h.

As I mentioned earlier, I plan to test my "safelight" when I print again to ensure it really is safe. I hope to print tonight and have better results.

Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge and experience!