RC for early trial Prints

[Martin Aislabie]

I like to print my better photographs on FB and so have used FB throughout the process from early to final prints.

However, recently while doing some stocktaking of what paper I have I came across some half used boxes of RC.

In the next darkroom session I used up the RC for some early trial prints.

Wow! - what a time saver

This got me thinking - How far can I reasonably take the print trials with RC ?

I still want to print my better pictures on FB - I like the look and feel - but when is the best time to switch from RC to FB?

Matin

 

[fschifano]

Pretty far, I'd say. All the dodging and burning moves can be worked out. If the RC and FB papers are the same emulsion coated on different bases, the response will be similar - not identical of course, but similar. Who knows, you may like using RC paper more than FB paper for some images. I do, and I'm not alone. The voices you hear around may suggest otherwise, but I know a few printers who just don't think it's enough of an issue to talk about.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Martin,

At times all the way I would say. I've taken my RC prints to the exhibition wall, just loved the look of them which I couldn't quite match on FB at the time. Although saying that 99% of my 'end game' is FB. But I use RC a lot in preliminary work and for print scans.

One of my all time favourite RC papers was Paterson's WT VC Acugrade, pearl surface. One of the warmest papers I've ever come across. Sadly no longer in production and I've only a few sheets of 8"x10".

I also like Ilford's RC MGIV WT, pearl surface, a very high quality paper. Although IMO not quite up to the quality of their FB equivalent.

Trevor.

 

[Don Wallace]

I tried this in the past, but just couldn't get the variables to translate from RC to FB. However, I recently discovered f stop printing and I wonder if that might be a better approach to the idea of testing on RC. Sure, the base times and the contrast might be different, but at least one could experiment with the negative on less expensive RC to work out the overall relationships.

Or is this just not going to work?

 

[fschifano]

Of course it will work. You just need to know how the different papers respond and adjust accordingly. If you are observant and employ a logical approach to problem solving, it's easy.

 

[Dave Miller]

Martin,
This is the method I’ve used for many years and yes, it is a great time saver. It also saves money on paper and chemicals too. My test / work prints are always made on R/C paper, Kentmere VC Select usually. When I’ve worked out what I want to do with the image and how, I transfer to FB paper. I calculate adjustments to exposure and contrast by reference to notes regarding differences in speed and contrast for the papers that I have. I’m also happy to do test prints on, say 10x8 and transfer the setting straight to 7x5 or 16x12 or whatever other size is required. As a member of several postal exchange groups I get to see some very good work on both medium, and believe that the major attraction with FB paper is tactile rather than simply visual.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

The speed of the processing was the thing that realy impressed me

I could have a finished print in the time it would take me to just develop a FB

Dry down isn't such a big problem but it is still there (aghhh!!!!)

I never have liked the look of MGRC Gloss but I have tried some Pearl and it looks and feels (to me) completely different

Having seen the results it struck me - why am I wasting so much time on early test prints using Fibre when I can find out what I need to know (do I like the photograph and has it got potential?) on a RC

Martin

 

[AlanC]

Martin,

I find that the quickest way to see if a negative has potential is to scan it at low res. and view it on a monitor. Gone are the days when I spent many hours making RC work prints from 35mm negatives just to see what I'd got.
In the darkroom now I only print my "best" negatives, and I start straight in with fibre paper - usually Ilford Warmtone. As Trevor says the RC pearl version of this is very nice and as you say RC is quicker to process, but it takes selenium differently. I also find that different boxes of even the same paper can have different contrast, so at the end of the day swapping from one box to another can actually take more time.
For this reason I even like to do all prints up to 16 x 12 out of the same box, cutting the paper to 12 x 8 or 8 x 10 or 8 x 8 according to my needs.

Alan Clark

 

[fschifano]

Scanning negatives takes too long, and I find the activity quite tedious. Contact sheets are just as good for me, and much quicker. In an hour, I can turn at least 6 x 135/36 rolls into contact sheets. Scanning 1 roll of film, even at low res, can take that long.

 

[AlanC]

Frank,
If you can see what you have got from a 35mm contact print, you have got better eyes than me!
My flatbed scanner does 24 frames at a time. Very quick, but lousy quality. I wouldn't dream of making prints from even the best scans I can make with it.
Alan Clark

 

[nworth]

For complicated prints, it makes sense to work out the exposure scheme using a cheap RC paper, then doing the fine tuning on your target (FB) paper. It also makes sense to do preliminary work on 8X10 and then to scale up to a final, big print size. But quality RC and FB papers are not that different in price, although the results look a bit different. You can usually work out exposure schemes pretty well without going to a fully dry print, and you will need to do the final tuning on the target paper anyway. For simple work, there is probably not much savings or point in making RC trial prints. For complex work there may be. Even for simple work, it may be a convenience and a minor cost savings. Moreover, you don't use up that valuable good paper as fast. By the way, the better RC papers available now are capable of excellent prints, different but just as good as their FB rivals.

 

[Dave Miller]

I'm not sure how prices compare in the USA, but here in England R/C is about half the price or less of the equivelent FB paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

Dave. Just a thought in terms of comparison. While "ordinary" RC is about half the price of equivalent FB, I wonder what a fair equivalent is. FB paper is considerably heavier and compares weight-wise with say RC Portfolio which is, I think, much the same price.

I have no idea about the econs of producing photographic paper. Is the bulk of the cost in the weight rather than the coating? If so then FB price v RC price is probably about right.

On the other hand coating much have some influence on price - presumably. Ilford WT and I assume most other WTs are considerably more expensive than "ordinary" multigrade paper producing neutral tones.

pentaxuser

 

[fschifano]

Nah, I use a loupe to view the contact sheet.

 

[hywel]

Lots of enthusiasm for the idea so far so I feel like a curmudgeon when I say that there is no time saving, just do it all on FB.

Perhaps there are RC/FB pairs which are identical but Ilford MGIV are significantly different in the two forms. Too different for there to be a simple adjustment from one to the other, and when I tried I found I was working it out twice, a significant waste of time.

And there's not really a difference in time to process, not the full cycle--paper out, make the exposure, write it down, develop, swoosh in the stop, dab in the fix (I don't care the image disappears in an hour's time) into a tray of water and then into an empty tray so that I can have a look at it under the light. One minute difference in the developing time just isn't significant. The real time is in staring at the results, imagining how much better it could be and how I could make it happen. The real time saver is in getting it right in four tests rather than six tests, and I think that is better done sticking to the final paper all the way through.

Hywel

 

[hywel]

Oh, what I do love RC for is what I call my first look prints. Where I print 6x9 on 8x10 all those negatives that looked possibly good on the contact sheet. I rattle them off, guessing exposures and grades, on a set, with the contact sheets and your eye it's pretty good. And the time saving is all in the washing, or lack of it.

It'll be these that I go through to decide which really are the good prints that I'm going to spend time doing properly on FB and I'm happy to use these to guess starting points for what work I'll have to do on the final print but I'll do all that work on the FB.

Hywel

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Hywels' description is very closer to the work stream I had imaginged

I need to fix and wash to a reasonable level (30sec fix & 5 min wash) - but it would give me an idea of whether the print has any merit.

I then like to leave them around to consider :-

Are they any good
Do they merit further work (on FB)
Does the final print want to be lighter/darker, softer/harder or framed slightly differently

Puzzled about the time save though - I take about 2 mins to dev/stop/fix a RC print and 6 mins a FB print

Its the time saving in my precious darkroom time I am interested in not the secondary (smallish) benifit of cost saving

Thanks

Martin

 

[hywel]

Martin,

I use Ilford MGIV, FB and RC and Ilford Multigrade Dev, Stop and Rapid/Hypam Fixer. For RC 1min/15sec/30sec total about 2 minutes. For FB, 2min/15sec/1min, total about 3 1/2 minutes.

To be honest I'm likely to extend the FB development time a little, just to make sure it has gone to completion but never 6 minutes total.

And when I'm testing, I cut the fix short, very short, and start the evaluation in the fix with the lights on, so I'm really down to about 3 minutes total.

To me the big difference between RC and FB is the washing. 5 minutes vs forever (or nearly forever with a bunch more trays and HCA). But I still do it, I love the feel of Fibre.

Hywel

 

[AlanC]

Martin,
I can understand when you say your darkroom time is precious. But to do good work I find I have to be relaxed, not worried about saving a minute or two here and there, or if brand X RC paper has the same contrast as brand Y fibre paper.
I often spend ten minutes or more staring at a wet print stuck on a piece of glass, listening to Sibelius, searching for inspiration...
You can't put a time, or apply a set of rules or "best practice" on the creative process.
Hywel has already expressed my own views on this more eloquently than I did in my first post. Others no doubt have a different approach. we all have to find our own way.

Alan Clark

 

[Dave Miller]

5 minutes wash, you cannot be on a water meter. Since I don't plan on keeping them my test prints get a 10 second squirt from a hose on a tap. Having said that those I have kept for future reference are all good condition, some after 5 or 6 years.