RC versus FB paper

[Marco B]

Again, thanks all for the responses and trying to stick to the original question. These RC versus FB discussions have a tendency to go wild if not restricted...

I think the general issues and suggestions of the reasons of the differences are quite clear by now, but I have decided to put some reference material here. I have now managed to dig up two prints and scanned them. See below.

******
PLEASE NOTE: It is always difficult to properly scan these images. The images do not do fully justice to the original prints and the differences are more difficult to see than on the original prints. Also, the RC print may seem to be a bit over-contrasty in the scan, but it isn't in reality
******

The top one is the FB print. Notice how the image somehow seems to be divided into three distinct regions: a black shadow region, a midtone region and a highlight region. Within each of these regions though, the contrast is somehow slightly compressed, and the transition from one region to the other looks unnatural and abrupt.

Now compare that to the RC print. Notice how the different shadow, midtone and highlight region are less pronounced and not separated as abruptly. Also notice that for example the shadow region on the left of the prickly structure has a much more pronounced and beautiful tonal range, not looking as flat as in the FB print. The same holds for the midtone and highlight regions.

Overall, the RC seems to have less tonal compression in each region. The RC print just looks more "voluminous" too. The prickly fruit structure just looks more 3 dimensional.

Please note that I have done my utter best to get as best an FB print as I could. None of the options I tried was sufficient (see original post). Ironically, the RC prints printed with great ease, after selecting the proper (soft) grade.

FB print:

RC print:

 

[Ian Grant]

The easy answer is the contrast of the two papers is different. Even a slight difference is going to be far more apparent on an image like this.

As to why there should be a difference could be down to a number of factors. Manufacturing tolerances, ageing, storage. The top image shows far better tonality, and subtle detail, if you don't want that you'd just need to print half a grade harder to match the RC print.

From what you wrote before in the thread I expected the differences to be the complete opposite.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

Ian, the scans do not do proper justice to the prints...

This is also the reason why I was hesitant to post them here, because it was likely to obscure the discussion, as I am pretty sure they are doing now. Really, I know how the FB print COULD look if it had been based on a standard grade 2 negative, and the FB print quality is just not there.

Yes, the FB prints shows a softer image with less contrast in these scans, that may look more appealing on screen, but if looking at the real prints, you would notice that the shadow regions look flat, and the highlights also look flat and somewhat blown out compared to the RC print.

It's not just a matter of printing the FB print a half grade harder or darker to get to the RC look. That's my point: If I do that, either the shadow regions go almost completely black or I loose significant detail in the highlights or midtone region. I just couldn't get the overall contrast to match the RC print whatever I did.

 

[Marco B]

Another point: I am pretty sure I would have no issue matching the RC print to the FB print by lowering contrast a bit and printing it slightly less dark, but the other way around, NOPE.

By the way, of all the FB prints I made that day, this was after much struggle the one I liked best. And yes, it's not really bad print or so, but if looking at the real prints side-by-side, I still think the RC print wins out, especially in midtone / highlight detail and contrast, and overall 3 dimensionality.

 

[Ian Grant]

There are other options, print at a higher contrast cutting the exposure slightly and pre or post flashing the print. That often works well in situations like you're describing, the other option is split grade printing.

It maybe that you'd get better results with a completely different FB paper. Ilford Galerie is superb for highlight details whereas Agfa papers like MCC were very much better for shadow details and images like yours. Forte Polywarmtone would be an even better choice for that particular image.

Ian

 

[Marco B]

Ian, you may be right there are better papers than standard MGIV for this particular type of high contrast negative...

Agfa MCC was the paper I started with when first printing FB. I loved it... deep blacks and beautiful tones overal... shame Agfa died.

Most of my recent work has actually been on the unfortunately much more expensive Ilford MGIV FB Warmtone. The Warmtone variant is a completely different paper than the normal MGIV FB, and has much deeper blacks, similar to Agfa MCC. I love this paper as well.

Unfortunately, other papers like Forte and Kentmere are really difficult to get in the Netherlands, I was lucky to discover a shop last year in Amsterdam selling Kentmere and have made some first attempts printing it. I love the VC Select RC paper that also tones really well, and intend to explore the Fineprint FB of Kentmere as well.

 

[Ian Grant]

Remember Mirko at Fotoimpex should be selling Adox branded MCC sometime soon, there's a thread on APUG about it somewhere. Meanwhile I have large stocks of Polywarmtone

I haven't used the latest Ilford FB Multigrade, I used the original from its release until 1986 or 7 and have only used Record Rapid then MCC and Polywarmtone since then. I guess I'll try the Ilford FB Warmtone in a few months.

Ian