Recommendation for paper with bright whites

[gone]

I came across an old Federal 312 enlarger for a great price, and would like to print a few of my 6x9 negs. My first choice for paper is Adox MCC 110 Glossy FB, but that's pricey for 11x14. I've used Ilford and Arista VC RC glossy papers, but had trouble getting deep blacks and bright whites. Is there possibly a paper that might give better results than those, but not be as pricey as the Adox? This enlarger is diffuser, so I won't have the contrast advantage of my old Durst (which could only handle 6x6 negs). My preference is for contrasty prints.

 

[markbau]

If you are having trouble getting bright whites on Ilford RC paper I would first test your safelight to see if it's fogging the paper, fresh developer and fixer are also a must and lastly, is your enlarger spilling light? Ilford RC paper has super bright whites when I print it.

 

[piu58]

I don't believe that you have a problem with the paper itself. Either problems with the safelight (what can be easy tested) or problems with controlling the contrast. If you exclude safelight problems and still have neither deep blacks nor glowing highlights: Use a harder grade: Blacks get deeper and highlights brighter. You may some problems with the general contrast then and may use some burning and dodging.

 

[John Bragg]

Are.you using contrast filters ? If your negatives were developed originally for printing with a condenser system then they will print a whole grade softer on a diffuser light source enlarger.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Zone System teaches how to place the various zones to insure both true blacks (zone I) and features whites (zone IX). Some might choose zones 0 and X, featureless black and featureless white.. Whether one practices the system or not it is important to understand it and how it influences film contrast. To reiterate what others have said clean whites are not a property of a specific paper but on how the film and paper exposed and developed.

The following brief article may be helpful.

http://www.zonesystem.co/ZoneSystem_References.cfm

In addition may I recommend to the OP that he get both Ansel Adams The Negative and The Print. They should be on the bookshelf of any photographer who claims the title.

 

[RobC]

paper can only ever be as bright as it naturally is (unless it has added fluorescent which some papers do). Most papers are plenty bright enough. It will be something about your printing which is wrong. Either your filtration is wrong and/or you are over printing and/or your development is not right.

What is the paper speed of your old and your new paper types? If the new paper is faster speed you will need shorter print times and if you are using similar print times to old paper then that could be part of the problem. But you said you have problems with weak blacks. That could be not leaving paper in developer long enough or using a developer which isn't suited to your paper or an enlarger filter setting problem. How long are you leaving paper in dev for and what is recommendation for paper dev combo. Also you will need a higher contrast filter setting for the same neg if you have moved from a condensor to a diffusion enlarger.
So I'm inclined to think you are just not dialed into what the combination of your new paper and enlarger require and exactly how to get the best out of them.

Oh, and papers which have fluorescent may lose it by washing for too long but I doubt that's the source of your current problem.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Optical brighteners require exposure to some UV light from a window or special light source. They do not work under incandescent light. One such brightener is quinine. Anyone who has ever had a gin and tonic outdoors knows that it fluoresces blue in sunlight.

 

[RobC]

Usually it doesn't stay in the glass long enough to notice and I thought I was just seeing things becasue I'd had too much to drink.

 

[gone]

Yep, gin and tonic is the, well....tonic. Thanks for the tips. Ansel's books have been read and are in the home. I can't imagine what is wrong w/ the workflow. The safe light test shows no issues, and I use the same developer, lens, enlarger and trays when I print, trading off from one type of paper to another in one print session (usually only two hours) and often w/ the same negative. The darkroom is dark w/o stray light. I always do test strips before printing, and dry them down w/ a hair dryer to eliminate dry down issues.

I'm simply comparing the margins around the finished prints, and the Adox is really, really white. The Arista is not gray, but it's not as white as the Adox, and naturally enough the prints look quite different. The Adox prints have a lot of snap w/ brilliant whites and deep blacks. I tried this w/ and w/o contrast filters and had the same results, so I figured it was the paper base. Maybe the real issue is I'm comparing one of the best FB papers on the market w/ a budget RC paper. Perhaps that's just how it plays out.

I need to do more research and find papers w/ the least optical brighteners. Maybe the Adox is just flat worth the extra money. Nearly all RC papers use not only optical brighteners, which are fugitive, but titanium dioxide to achieve good whites on the cheap. This is not a good mix. Then they add other stuff to try to prevent issues, but it's a bad way to go if you want archival prints with consistent tonal values over time.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Perhaps the Arista paper has a bit of fog. You might add a bit of benzotriazole or potassium bromide to the developer.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Test for fogging. In total darkness take out a piece of paper, cut it in half (you can't tear RC easily...) and develop, stop and fix one piece but just fix the second. If the whites in the developed piece are darker than the fixed-only piece, the paper is fogged, either from age, improper storage or exposure to light.

Doremus

 

[kreeger]

Better yet, cut a half sheet and immediately put it into the fix. Wash it as you normally do and it to unexposed borders on your print. That should help you determine if you have a fogging issue related to the full processing.

 

[David Allen]

I came across an old Federal 312 enlarger for a great price, and would like to print a few of my 6x9 negs. My first choice for paper is Adox MCC 110 Glossy FB, but that's pricey for 11x14. I've used Ilford and Arista VC RC glossy papers, but had trouble getting deep blacks and bright whites. Is there possibly a paper that might give better results than those, but not be as pricey as the Adox? This enlarger is diffuser, so I won't have the contrast advantage of my old Durst (which could only handle 6x6 negs). My preference is for contrasty prints.

If safelight, stray light, etc have all been eliminated then what you are seeing is the differing whitenesses of the various papers available.

I tried the Adox MCC110 Fibre glossy and it was a very lovely paper with a particularly white base. However, it was too expensive for my limited income.

What I use is Foma's Fomabrom Variant 111 and it is a great paper also with a bright white base. Whether the Foma is an alternative for you depends on where you live (both availability and cost). Here in Germany the comparative costs of 50 sheets of 16 x 12 (30cm x 40cm) are:

• Fomabrom Variant 111 = 79,15€
• Adox MCC110 = 138,04€ (price for two boxes of 25 sheets)
• ILFORD Multigrade FB Classic = 151,09€

I am aware that, in the UK for instance, the price difference is not so great. However, if you order 4 boxes from Fotoimpex to be sent to the UK you will only pay 11.00€ postage so that would make a saving of £54.00 against the UK price for 200 sheets.

Best of luck finding a paper that does the job at a price you can afford.

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[gone]

That's exactly the conclusion that I finally came to David. After looking at this from all angles, and thanks very much for the advice, I am going to put my money on the paper being the problem. I mean, that's the only variable.

Every paper has a different base white, and the more expensive fiber papers can make prints that cheap RC papers just cannot match, so I am just going to buy more Adox and be done w/ it. The Ilford paper that you mentioned is very nice but I prefer the MCC110. Here in the US, Freestyle has:

25 sheets of 11x14 Adox MCC110--$77
25 sheets of 11x14 Fomabrom--$64
12x16 would see a price spread of $95 vs $79 for 25 sheets for a $16 difference.

The Adox paper will give me a good excuse to stay home and make prints rather than going out and spending money. So it actually won't cost more! I'm just rehearsing this line of thought for the wife.

On my very first print w/ the Adox, using just a test strip and no filters, I got an absolutely perfect print w/ lustrous blacks and bright whites. Tried four different negatives after that to see if it was a fluke and got the same results. By comparison the Arista RC stuff reminded me of photo lab prints w/ their grayish plastic appearance. There's a reason people pony up more money and invest more time in making fiber prints. Not sure why it took me so long to get this.

Maybe in the end it's not that much more expensive if you don't have to make multiple prints to dial it in (see wife reasoning scheme number 1 above). Here's what others say about it below. The Fomabrom does intrigue me though. The blacks are supposed to be very velvety.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/adox-mcc-110