Paper neg developers and dilutions

[Jersey Vic]

I'm looking for some starting points for developing hi and low contrast negs-
I've been using Agfa Neutol WA on Agfa RC 312 and taking what it gives me (not too bad) but know that there's alot of knowledge out there regarding other developers and dilutions and was hoping for some guidance. Also-any process adjustments(water baths, stop baths, etc) would be welcome.
Any input would be very appreciated.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
Cheers

 

[Ole]

To put it bluntly, you won't see any difference on RC paper whatever hoops you jump through.

Agfa's RC is a little more responsive than Ilford's, but it still won't make any appreciable difference whatever you do.

If you want to play with different developers and varying dilutions go for a FB paper, preferably warmtone.

 

[Dave Miller]

To put it bluntly, you won't see any difference on RC paper whatever hoops you jump through.

Agfa's RC is a little more responsive than Ilford's, but it still won't make any appreciable difference whatever you do.

If you want to play with different developers and varying dilutions go for a FB paper, preferably warmtone.

As the APUG guardian of R/C paper I feel obliged to race to it’s defence.
Given that most manufacturers use the same emulsion to coat both fibre and R/C why should one carrier paper type react differently to another to hard or soft developers? My experience, albeit limited to Kentmere and Ilford multigrade papers suggests that their R/C and fibre equivalents both print identically. Since R/C feels thinner, and certainly lays flatter, I would suggest that it would be the better carrier for the purpose required here. I will be interested to hear the result of any experimentation. It may be that if one wanted to oil the carrier paper to increase transparency then fibre paper may be better.

 

[Ole]

I have played extensively with both developers and toners, and found (among other things) Ilford MG IV FB to be much more responsive than MG IV RC to toning and developer changes. I eventually managed to get RC to take on a slightly wrm tinge in the highlights by using an extremely dilute and almost totally oxidised warm-tone developer - no other paper (including MG IV FB) could develop to completion in that soup. So at least for Ilford, the RC paper is marvellous in its stability and repeatability - but it's a wast of time and effort trying to get it to respond to different developers.

 

[Jersey Vic]

Thanks to you both for your replies.Ole-So then I take it that youre using MG IV FB for paper negatives? I have no problem using this paper for that purpose if it allows for good final prints. That being said, what developer(s) and dilution(s)has/have yielded you good printable paper negatives? And Of course I'd like to hear from anyone else who would like to weigh in on this matter. Also-I've been able to purchase some kentmere fiber paper lately and have noticed that it seems thinner than the others I've been using. Has anyone used this paper for this purpose.
Again- Thanks

 

[Ole]

I have used MG IV, but discovered that my leftover boxes of old Varycon PE RC were far better for the purpose. Not only does it have a much longer range of "blacks", but it also responds well to changes in developer and dilution. Since I also have only a few negatives which print better on this paper than others it makes sense to use it in-camera.

BTW, it's sold as "ADOX" now.

 

[Dave Miller]

R/C you say!!!!!! Should I add anything here; no much better to keep quiet

 

[Don M]

imo,

if you want to lower contrast in paper negs,develop in dilute film developer- Rodinal- 1:50-1:100 ..D-76 1:2. and use a paper with out inc.developers.Pre-flashing also helps to keep the contrast in acceptable range.I have started experimenting with 2 bath development but I'm not sure yet if there is any real advantage to this.

 

[removed account4]

i only use ansco 130 that is black as coca cola to process my paper negatives and a water bath. i can't speak for other developers ...
dilute ( 1:5 or more ) submerge the paper in the developer until the image begins to appear then in the water --- go back and forth until you like what you see. thin paper negatives work best to get prints from. too "developed out" you will get a washed out positive.

good luck!

-john

 

[Don M]

If your negs are too *thin*(underdeveloped) you will have little to no shadow detail.

Pre-flashing works kind of like a mask,allowing more shadow detail(fuller development),without blowing out the highs(which I guess are slightly fogged)