RC versus FB paper

[Marco B]

Hi all,

*** First a warning: ***

As the differences between RC and FB have been discussed in great length in many other threads here on APUG, and I don't want to start these discussions all over again, nor start some kind of flame-war, please stick to my specific question / issue when responding in this thread!

Thank you!

*****************

So, why "RC versus FB" again? Well, although I have been happily printing on both media for a few years now, and have gotten great results on both, I recently bumped into an issue I had not encountered before.

Although I have printed RC and FB before, I usually sticked to one media for a specific series of prints, and never actually tried to print a specific negative on both RC and FB...

Now recently, I decided to make some quick prints of a number of negatives on RC to see what I got, and try FB later on. The RC paper was Ilford MGIV Multigrade RC, the FB paper Ilford MGIV Multigrade FB, both in the "glossy" variant and both developed in the same Ilford Multigrade developer.

That turned out to be less straight forward than expected... :rolleyes:

The negatives that I used were accidentally overdeveloped and showed very high densities in the highlights. Still, with RC paper, and filtration in the range of 0-1, I was able to create a number of beautiful prints with ease, and minimal dodging / burning. The negatives would probably print nicely on Pt/Pd as well (except being 35mm )

I than decided to try FB based paper...

What a nightmare... I just couldn't get the nice tonal values and transitions in tones that I was seeing on my RC paper. Whatever trick I threw on it (changing filtration, pre-flashing paper, split-grade printing (only using 0 and 5 filters), dodging / burning, I just couldn't get anywhere near the RC results.

Either:

- I was losing shadow detail in the FB prints
- or I was losing highlight detail
- or I was getting mid tone compression

Although some of the FB prints were acceptable, none of the prints came close to the RC results. I finally gave up after 3 hours and a stack of wasted paper.

So here's my actual question:

Is it true that RC paper is somehow more "forgiving" for non-standard negatives? So negatives either over- or underdeveloped showing very high or low contrast. Does FB paper have more issues with soft filtration (e.g. in the range of 0-1) than RC?

Again: please stick to this specific question.

Thanks for responses!

Marco


Example image (based on RC):

 

[Ian Grant]

When I started printing RC papers weren't available, the first I used was ex military stck from a Photographic surplus store. So I learnt using FB.

Some RC papers were developer incorporated that made a huge difference to processing variables, gave better blacks etc, so in some ways easier to print with. But overall I've not found much difference in quality between FB or RC, although I much prefer using FB papers.

Ian

 

[Vaughn]

Probably only a partial answer (and perhaps an incorrect one)...

Two different surfaces...RC glossy tends to to much glossier than FB glossy. The glossier the paper, the deeper the blacks appear to be (less scattering of light on the surface of the paper). So that may account for some of the differences.

Vaughn

PS...a question we need to answer is rather or not the emulsions of the two papers you used are identical...just on different support material, or is there a substantial difference in the emulsions. Which begs another question...is there an emulsion on a fiber base that prints similar to the RC paper you used.

 

[Marco B]

Ian:

I have extensive, and good, experience with FB based papers, so I don't think inexperience handling FB paper played any significant role in the issue I observed. My website and my APUG gallery are a testimony of that...

I don't want to discuss preferences, because again, that can only start a flame war, I just want an answer to my specific issue with these high density over-developed negatives. I also do not consider this a "quality" issue of the FB paper, at it's very best a "characteristic" I may have not been so aware of before.... Any paper can give good results if you've learned to use it (and know which things to avoid and match (like matching the negative density with the paper)).

Vaughn:

You raise an interesting question: how much difference is there in these emulsions an can that have contributed to the issue. I did manage to get deep and satisfactory blacks on both papers, just the total tonal range looked better on RC.

 

[Ian Grant]

A few years ago when I used Ilford papers I used a lot of Multigrade Fibre based and I have some prints (in the UK) made on the Ilford MG RC paper and the FB, both Glossy.

There is a big visual difference between the images, as Vaughn says due to the glossy finish of the RC paper, both have good strong blacks but tonally the FB paper looks so much nicer.

It's possible Marco that some problems you're having with FB papers is due to the dry down effect.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

It's possible Marco that some problems you're having with FB papers is due to the dry down effect. Ian

I did take into account dry down when printing. I generally know how to handle FB paper. Even when still wet, the prints did not display the nice tonal range of the RC.

If someone has a more specific comment regarding the combination of a high density over-developed negative printed on FB versus RC, that would be highly welcome...

 

[Vaughn]

Vaughn:

You raise an interesting question: how much difference is there in these emulsions an can that have contributed to the issue. I did manage to get deep and satisfactory blacks on both papers, just the total tonal range looked better on RC.

But that was my point -- to get as deep of a black on the FB paper, you might have to either give the paper more exposure, more development and/or more contrast than the RC. This would shift the rest of the tones in the FB relative to those on the RC paper. Granted, this may only account for a small amount of the difference you are seeing in the two papers.

But I always "over-develop" my negs...by 50% to 100%...but then I do not print of silver gelatin papers... . So I'll keep my mouth shut (I have been up all night making platinum prints (it is 4:45am here on the Left Coast).

Vaughn

 

[John Bond]

Did you use the same batch of developer throughout your experiment? If you had printed a large number of prints on RC before moving on to FB, some of what you observe may be from exhausted developer on the later prints.

Another confounding element are the ages of the papers and how they had been stored. I have found that different packages of even the same kind of paper may behave differently, I have assumed because of aging, being stored or shipped in heat, passed through xrays for security etc.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Quite often RC papers have optical brighteners incorporated in them which can give RC prints a bit more of a 'sparkle'. This effect can vary depending on the viewing light.

I don't know if OB's are incorporated in Ilford's RC MGIV.

 

[rwyoung]

Some RC papers were developer incorporated that made a huge difference to processing variables, gave better blacks etc, so in some ways easier to print with. But overall I've not found much difference in quality between FB or RC, although I much prefer using FB papers.

Ian

I will go further to say that MOST RC papers are D.I. (developer incorporated). And I will qualify that statement to say that the amount of D.I. is probaby rather low unless the paper says it is made specifically for machine processing.

I think the simple test is to expose some paper to just room light and then drop it in a tray of distilled water with sodium hydroxide (maybe 5 or 10%). If it turns gray quickly the paper is D.I.

Also, RC glossy is MUCH, MUCH glossier than Fiber glossy. In general (and very generaly), once put under glass I find that RC matte/pearl is close to fiber glossy. I say "matte/pearl" because its different from manufacturer to manufacturer. Pick the least matte-like, most glossy-like, least textured version. Wishy-washy I know but then RC isn't FB and FB isn't RC. That is the beaten horse after all.

 

[Ian Grant]

I will go further to say that MOST RC papers are D.I. (developer incorporated). And I will qualify that statement to say that the amount of D.I. is probably rather low unless the paper says it is made specifically for machine processing.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) Year Simon Galley stated that no Ilford papers are Developer Incorporated.

There may be other adjuncts added to the emulsion to aid processing but they aren't developing agents.

Developer Incorporated emulsions behave very differently in the way they develop, but they are not as friendly for development controls.

Ian

 

[rwyoung]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) Year Simon Galley stated that no Ilford papers are Developer Incorporated.

There may be other adjuncts added to the emulsion to aid processing but they aren't developing agents.

Developer Incorporated emulsions behave very differently in the way they develop, but they are not as friendly for development controls.

Ian

Yes, you are right, that thread escaped me.

Sorry about the sweeping generalization.

In my defense I will state that I don't have any RC Ilford (but LOTS of FB) in the basement closet. Most of my RC is either Foma (ala Arista), Kentmere, Agfa or Kodak and combined maybe 70/30 VC to graded. The Kodak and Agfa are obviously old stock. And most of that is non-glossy. Especially the Foma graded as that is getting used for pinhole cameras. Of these I'm quite sure that the Foma, Kodak and Kentmere are D.I. I have so little of the Agfa left I couldn't say and probably doesn't matter anyway.

The FB does seem to respond better (in a non-scientific, feels-good sort of way) to developer dilutions and recipies than the RC. Most of the RC is used for pinhole camera negatives and proof prints and lately some "drugstore" printing I've done for a people who thought it would be fun to go "retro". So I loaned out my spare 35mm Pentax ME with 50mm lens and #8 filter. ME does a decent job and easier than explain its operation than my viewcameras.

 

[Dave Miller]

My preferred work method is to proof print onto Kentmere VC Select, which is a variable contrast RC paper. I usually use gloss finish for this. When (if) I’m happy with the result by way of contrast and composition I shift to FB paper, of which I have accumulated quite a variety. If I’m changing to a Kentmere FB paper then generally a simple exposure change calculation is sufficient. I would not expect there to be anything other than subtle differences in picture detail. I don’t find that I need to vary my printing methods between the two mediums except when it comes to toning.

 

[Marco B]

OK guys, I see a couple of suggestions needing response:

Quite often RC papers have optical brighteners incorporated in them which can give RC prints a bit more of a 'sparkle'. This effect can vary depending on the viewing light.

I don't know if OB's are incorporated in Ilford's RC MGIV.

Yes, I do think the simple difference in paper base and things like OB's may be part of the question, however, I don't think they answer all of it. It's not just "sparkle", but an overall better tonal range I see on these RC prints compared to the FB. Do keep in mind though, the prints were based on non-standard, over developed, high contrast negatives... I am perfectly aware FB is capable of exceptionally beautiful prints with good negatives, I have made many myself, but that was not part of my original question.

Did you use the same batch of developer throughout your experiment? If you had printed a large number of prints on RC before moving on to FB, some of what you observe may be from exhausted developer on the later prints.

Yes, it may have been the same batch, but I am pretty sure it wasn't near exhaustion. I had no real issue getting deep black on the FB prints, it was just the tonal range that I couldn't get to match the RC's.

Again: if anyone can comment specifically on my base question, that would be highly welcome, so I'll repeat it here:

Is it true that RC paper is somehow more "forgiving" for non-standard negatives? So negatives either over- or underdeveloped showing very high or low contrast. Does FB paper have more issues with soft filtration (e.g. in the range of 0-1) than RC?

 

[Dave Miller]

If I am to simplify my answer to your basic question, then it must be no!

 

[Marco B]

If I am to simplify my answer to your basic question, then it must be no!

OK, fine, if more people can confirm your statement, my own experience with these specific negatives showed otherwise, but it may be due to a summation of the suggestions done so far.

David, just one small question: does your experience of RC versus FB and answer also extent to high contrast negatives that need to be printed on grade 0 to 1 max? Or do you base your statement on primarily ordinary negatives printing between grade 2-3?

Please note that I have had no similar issues with "normal", properly developed negatives... it's just the high contrast ones of this batch that made me post this question.

 

[Ian Grant]

When I first made FB prints it was very common to glaze them, in fact the older glossy papers were generally designed to be hot glazed.

Sometimes glazing would be patchy, the differences between the glazed & unglazed patches were very noticeable. Glazing gave the images quite a sparkle almost like a boost in contrast, it also made the highlights clearer. I guess this is very similar to what your seeing when you compare FB to RC papers with certain negatives.

Ian

 

[Dave Miller]

OK, fine, if more people can confirm your statement, my own experience with these specific negatives showed otherwise, but it may be due to a summation of the suggestions done so far.

David, just one small question: does your experience of RC versus FB and answer also extent to high contrast negatives that need to be printed on grade 0 to 1 max? Or do you base your statement on primarily ordinary negatives printing between grade 2-3?

Please note that I have had no similar issues with "normal", properly developed negatives... it's just the high contrast ones of this batch that made me post this question.

My answer to that is that I have very few negatives that have required printing at grade one or less. However I still cannot recollect any problems printing them between the two media. I must add that I have never got on with Ilford MGIV papers, so havn't used them much. It could be something specific to that type of paper.

 

[Marco B]

Ok, thanks Dave (and others) for the responses. Maybe that someone with combined Pt/Pd and RC / FB based printing experience, could give a more definite answer, since Pt/Pd actually requires such negs.

 

[John Bond]

I think that part of the difficulty that people are having in answering the basic question is how does one know if the differences between the two papers are exclusively a function of whether one paper is RC and he other FB, or if other factors not directly related to RC or FB are involved. Just because they both contain the name Multigrade IV, does not mean that they are in fact the same. My experience with both is that they are very similar, at least with normal contrast filters, but I do not know that is true at the extremes. Sounds like a test is in order.

 

[MattKing]

I should qualify this answer by saying that although I have printed extensively on FB, in the last few years I've been using RC.

I think your question does need to be qualified - I think that RC glossy may very well be more forgiving than un-ferrotyped, FB glossy, when printing from high contrast, over-exposed negatives.

I think the reason for this lies in the surface characteristics.

The deeper blacks arising from the gloss, mean that the range of tones available is larger, and the contrast filter used can be slightly higher, resulting in more punch in the mid-tones.

I expect that the effect may only be apparent with only certain over-exposed and contrasty negatives - it may turn on how the mid-tones "fall".

It would be interesting to see if someone who still uses ferrotyping (if anyone still uses ferrotyping) gets similar results.

Just my thoughts - I cannot show any examples.

Matt

 

[msage]

Hi all,

So here's my actual question:

Is it true that RC paper is somehow more "forgiving" for non-standard negatives? So negatives either over- or underdeveloped showing very high or low contrast. Does FB paper have more issues with soft filtration (e.g. in the range of 0-1) than RC?

Again: please stick to this specific question.

Thanks for responses!

Marco


Hi Marco
Simply answered, no.
I have found that FB is easier to print, is more "forgiving" and look "better". FB is easier too spot also.
Although FB takes more effort to process, it doesn't take that much more effort, time or water to process.
Some proof on RC, print the "keepers" on FB. I use to do that, but I have found that RC and FB usually don't print the same so I proof and print on FB.

Michael

 

[dancqu]

I think the simple test is to expose some paper to just
room light and then drop it in a tray of distilled water
with sodium hydroxide (maybe 5 or 10%). If it turns
gray quickly the paper is D.I.

Also, RC glossy is MUCH, MUCH glossier
than Fiber glossy.

IMO, over kill and I'd not be surprised if it led to a false
reading. Compared to most any print developer the ph of
such a NaOH solution is off the charts. I suggest a 2 - 3%
straight carbonated solution. That ph itself is higher than
most any working strength print developer. A carbonate,
IIRC, is used in print activator processors.

As for gloss I do not agree. I've worked, and recently,
with both and if any thing believe Emaks and Kentmere
Bromide, and I'm sure other FB papers, gloss as high if
not higher than any RC paper. For a FB with a not
so noticeable sheen I suggest Slavich GL. Dan

 

[Paul Verizzo]

IMO, over kill and I'd not be surprised if it led to a false reading. Compared to most any print developer the ph of
such a NaOH solution is off the charts. I suggest a 2 - 3%
straight carbonated solution. That ph itself is higher than
most any working strength print developer. A carbonate,
IIRC, is used in print activator processors.

Yeah, I noticed that, too. A mere 5 grams of sodium carbonate/washing soda will give a pH of 10.5, about what a print developer often is.

 

[Trevor Crone]

Marco,
Have you contacted Ilford's technical division? There may be a difference in the way the two emulsions (RC v. FB) respond to a particular printing light in the region of grades 0-1. One would have to print "standard" negatives that one would normally print on grade 2 to confirm if there is indeed a difference.

The differences may turn out to be quite small but combined with different paper stock, glossy RC's glazed look and possible optical brighteners all add to quite a visible difference as you have obviously experienced.