Proof on RC, Final Print on FB?

[2F/2F]

I usually proof on RC (sometimes on fiber), but I always do test strips and work prints on the paper I will be using for the print. That is common sense. When using big paper, I cheat and use strips cut from the same type of smaller paper, if the papers are of similar age. I find it hard to spend a bunch of money on a 10-sheet pack of big paper and then cut up 10 or 20 percent of it for test strips. I usually buy only 10 sheets when I print big, since I don't do it that often, and cold storage of big paper is not possible in my fridge.

 

[brian steinberger]

Ok, so let's say you're planning a large print, say 11x14 or 16x20, do you print a final on 8x10 first before going up to the large size? or just start with the large size?

 

[tkamiya]

I did this not too long ago.

My target size was 11x14. I've set the height of the enlarger head to make 11x14 size at correct cropping. Then used some 4x5ish test strip at important areas to narrow down the exposure. Then printed full size 11x14 and did one more tweak.

I then needed 8x10 size (unexpectedly). Using formula and scaling down the exposure time got me close but the print somehow didn't look right to me. In fact, 8x10 size looked "right" when it was exposed more than proportionally shorter time based on size.

This proved to me that any method other than the final size will get me close but it always require final adjustments - if not get it right technically but visually right. After all, having right density at all locations mean nothing if it doesn't "look" right.

The same applied to me when I went from RC to FB. It looked "OK" but it still needed further adjustment.

 

[hpulley]

I do the same, set enlarger to the right size then use 5x7" test sheets to test contrast, exposure and burn/dodge in critical places. Then I do straight, work and finally the final print in full size.

 

[jp498]

I suggest sticking with what the final print will be. Otherwise you'll waste a lot of time for no gain.

Perhaps it's heretical, but I don't see a major difference between top quality RC paper and FB paper in terms of their ability to display a nice photographic image. I don't use FB because RC is lacking in image quality or because I don't think RC can show the tones. I think they both obviously appear superior to anything my big inkjet printer can put out.

Yes the surface texture is a little different, viewers rarely care whether it's glossy (rc) or almost glossy (fb). The tones look good on either. I consider Ilford MG WT RC paper to be a top quality RC paper. I use mostly RC paper, but will use FB once in a while if I want some image to look authentically old as FB paper would be more period correct. I also use FB once in a while for the choice of paper base that isn't like RC like Fomatone Classic VC FB Cream.

 

[hpulley]

I like Ilford MGWT in both RC and FB but they are quite different in speed, tonality, surface and response to toning. I just wish there was a Portfolio weight warmtone available as the standard weight is quite floppy especially in large sizes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ok, so let's say you're planning a large print, say 11x14 or 16x20, do you print a final on 8x10 first before going up to the large size? or just start with the large size?

This methods works if scaling and reciprocity failure are considered. I would get the printing map ready (dodge & burn in f/stops) from the work on the 8x10, and just make a final test strip for the 16x20 to get the highlight exposure and contrast right. In fact, that is one of the benefits of the f/stop printing method. Printing maps can be used from any print size for any print size.

This definitely works, but a straight scaling calculation alone will fail.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Michael

Agreed. Starting out with the intended paper size makes most sense.

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys.