Paper qualities, brand

[hammy]

I've been looking at photo papers online and I've noticed some are much cheaper than others. Ilford is much more expensive that Foma, for example. Do all the photographic papers really differ that much in quality? I'm not really picky, but I'll fish out the extra cash if it really does matter. I'm looking at 8x10, VC, RC, 100 pack papers by the way.

Also, why are double weight papers MUCH more expensive than medium weight? Is it really worth the difference?

 

[dancqu]

I've been looking at photo papers ... why are
double weight papers MUCH more expensive
than medium weight? Is it really worth
the difference?

Those medium weights are the plastic coated
both sides RC papers. As for quality, some will
say compare Graded with VC. There are RC
and FB Graded papers.

I enjoy the high level of darkroom lighting
allowed when using Graded paper. Few mention
that because of the one-size-fits-all darkroom
lighting standard which prevails. Dan

 

[Ole]

I haven't the faintest idea about relative lighting levels; my darkroom is dark enough to develop film by inspection.

But at least in FB, double-weight papers just feel better. They are nuch more "solid", and even look better behind glass! I've never understood this, but nevertheless believe it to be true.

 

[dancqu]

[QUOTES=Ole]
"I haven't the faintest idea about relative lighting levels ..."

You do to have the faintest idea. You've seen them in the
movies and on TV. Graded paper is used when ever they have
a scene of work being done in a darkroom. Dan

""But at least in FB, double-weight papers just feel better.
They are much more "solid", and even look better behind glass!
I've never understood this, but nevertheless believe it to be true."

 

[srs5694]

I've been looking at photo papers online and I've noticed some are much cheaper than others. Ilford is much more expensive that Foma, for example. Do all the photographic papers really differ that much in quality? I'm not really picky, but I'll fish out the extra cash if it really does matter. I'm looking at 8x10, VC, RC, 100 pack papers by the way.

I've seen enough comments from people who say they prefer Brand X to Brand Y, and others who prefer Brand Y to Brand X, to believe that your question is unanswerable in a truly objective way. What's "best" is simply too subjective a matter. Thus, what I suggest is that you buy some of several types and experiment. You can probably weed out some that are completely unsuitable with just a 25-pack of paper, but to get a really good idea of what a paper can do, you'll probably need more than that. Try printing a few negatives on each type of paper you're trying to see which you prefer. Note that you'll probably have to adjust exposure and (for VC papers) filtration for each paper.

If you post any criteria you've got (preferences in terms of weight, tone, etc.), I'm sure people can suggest candidate papers to help you narrow the field to a manageable number of papers.

All that said, there are certainly objective measures you can consult (d-max, d-min, achievable grade ranges for VC papers, etc.). There was a recent article in Photo Techniques comparing several papers, but it looked mainly at grade ranges.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi hammy, welcome aboard APUG

Another option is to find out what paper, developer, and (if any) toner combination the photographer whose work you most respect uses. Why not piggy-back on his/her decades of trial and error? After you get your feet on the ground, you can start experimenting with what's best for your work. Just and idea...

Murray

 

[Neal]

Dear Hammy,

I've never used Foma, but the one think I really like about Ilford (and previously, Kodak) is that the paper comes out of the box clean. I have had dust problems with Forte (actually, little paper shards from, I believe, the shearing process). Not so much that I never purchase the product, but I do blow off the paper before exposing if I think I'm near a finished print.

Neal Wydra

 

[hammy]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I guess i'll just experiment.

Also, I'm sure this has been asked before, but what is the life of photo papers?

 

[Donald Miller]

Those medium weights are the plastic coated
both sides RC papers. As for quality, some will
say compare Graded with VC. There are RC
and FB Graded papers.

I enjoy the high level of darkroom lighting
allowed when using Graded paper. Few mention
that because of the one-size-fits-all darkroom
lighting standard which prevails. Dan

Dan,

Irrespective of the responsive comment that preceded, that one can only assume to be disrespectful of you, I will concur with your statement that graded papers are much more forgiving then variable contrast papers insofar as darkroom safelight levels.

Anyone who has a modicum of knowledge of materials knows that. Thanks for posting information that is both often not acknowledged and apparently not recognized by everyone here regardless of their representations.

 

[Dave Miller]

I enjoy the high level of darkroom lighting
allowed when using Graded paper. Few mention
that because of the one-size-fits-all darkroom
lighting standard which prevails. Dan

That's an interesting statement Dan, please share the information on which it's made. It could persuade me to go graded.

 

[dancqu]

That's an interesting statement Dan,
please share the information on which it's made.
It could persuade me to go graded.

More likely you are a better candidate for your own
persuasion than I could ever be. Be that as it may. In
general Graded papers are insensitive to the green and
longer wave lengths. Wave lengths to which the eye is
most sensitive are not seen by Graded paper.

I think that is it, the color of the safe lighting. I use
orange-ish yellow safe lighting. In the late fifties I on
occasion visited a local commercial portrait studio's lab.
They had a most bright yellow safe lighting. Three large
units hung above a large sink. In the sink, IIRC, were
three large constantly rocking trays.

That recollection caused me to shelve my dichroic, my
red-ish ambers, and VC paper. Dan

 

[Ole]

I prefer graded - because I find it more "predictable". This is purely a matter of taste I guess, but it works for me. If I need softer or harder grades than I have, I can usually tweak it by adjusting the developer.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Hammy,

It sounds like you are new to printing, if you send me your address to my APUG e.mail I will send you the MULTIGRADE printing manual, which should save you a few sheets, no matter who's paper you choose.

Simon: ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I prefer graded - because I find it more "predictable". This is purely a matter of taste I guess, but it works for me. If I need softer or harder grades than I have, I can usually tweak it by adjusting the developer.

I use Multigrade for convenience, but it`s great if a negative fits well on graded paper. Ilford should never discontinue their superb Gallerie paper.