Speed matched RC & FB

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I checked the forums and didn't quite find the answer I was seeking, so here goes:

Does anyone make a FB paper that is the same speed/grade as their RC? I'm interested in being able to make work prints on RC with all the dodging and the burning and the hoyven mavin! and then being able to switch to FB for a set of final prints.

Of course, I could work this all out with a meter and the f stop timer. Just asking. Thanks!

 

[L Gebhardt]

I've never found a paper pair that's perfectly matched. But there are other options. The RH Designs Analyzer will let you profile papers and match the grade. Figuring out the speed difference should be easy, especially with fstop timing.

When I built my VC head I made it so paper grades are matched. I can also match speed, but I haven't reprofiled the papers for that. I'm not sure it's worth it.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

Here's another issue that may make your intended work flow more difficult. It appears that most RC papers are developer incorporated, at least everything at Freestyle--and with the exception of Ilford. The pdf's are not always clear on this point but if the recommended developing time is 60-90 seconds you can count on the paper having a developer-incorporated emulsion.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I checked the forums and didn't quite find the answer I was seeking, so here goes:

Does anyone make a FB paper that is the same speed/grade as their RC? I'm interested in being able to make work prints on RC with all the dodging and the burning and the hoyven mavin! and then being able to switch to FB for a set of final prints.

Of course, I could work this all out with a meter and the f stop timer. Just asking. Thanks!

You can get very close to that if not exactly there with any paper combination if you start to use f/stop timingUsing f/stop timing all print manipulations stay consistentand any paper speed difference is compensated for

 

[bdial]

The Ilford papers are pretty close, though the new FB classic and cooltone papers are slightly faster than the standard MG RC.
I proof with MG RC routinely.
Note that surface differences and dry down will always give you different results between FB and RC, and even if the emulsion speeds were perfectly matched, the other factors make it difficult to switch without additional testing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Here's another issue that may make your intended work flow more difficult. It appears that most RC papers are developer incorporated, at least everything at Freestyle--and with the exception of Ilford. The pdf's are not always clear on this point but if the recommended developing time is 60-90 seconds you can count on the paper having a developer-incorporated emulsion.

It's not vey difficult to compensate for paper-speed differences whatever their origin may be

 

[Rick A]

The closest I've ever used is Fotokemika Varikon. Good luck finding another combo.

 

[Oren Grad]

The problem isn't speed matching, it's curve matching. It's easy to compensate for simple speed differences. But having the same ISO paper speed pegged to a particular gray value doesn't do you any good if the rest of the scale is rendered differently. And in my experience, products that have similar names between RC and FB versions, so that one would assume that they provide a matched pair, with the same emulsion just coated on different bases, in fact tend to deliver noticeably different curve shapes.

 

[Animalcito]

To match RC and FB exactly I think is quite difficult having "fine art" requirements in mind. For standard enlargements which will be used just to be shown in the round of friends or family I use the same metering for Fomaspeed Variant (=RC) and Fomabrom Variant (=FB) as they are very close, I would estimate they are within a 10% corridor (the percentage is on the visual comparison, so quite subjective ).

For special enlargements which I will use for a present, framing..., I do always an additional fine tuning in order to "underline" the expression of the photo. This fine tuning for me is the real fun...

So have fun!
Marcus

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Great info, everyone, thanks for the replies.

 

[ic-racer]

Maybe PE or the Harman folks will chime in here, but I don't think the printing papers are 'trimmed' to a specific speed, as is done with film manufacture. So I can vary from box-to-box of the same paper type.

 

[arnie k]

I checked the forums and didn't quite find the answer I was seeking, so here goes:

Does anyone make a FB paper that is the same speed/grade as their RC? I'm interested in being able to make work prints on RC with all the dodging and the burning and the hoyven mavin! and then being able to switch to FB for a set of final prints.

Of course, I could work this all out with a meter and the f stop timer. Just asking. Thanks!

The tech sheet that comes with the new Ilford papers shows an ISO of 500 for RC Cooltone and 590 for the FB Cooltone. This drives me nuts because I also like to do work prints on RC then go to FB. The FB Classic is 530. Ilford is not making this easy.

 

[Roger Cole]

Maybe PE or the Harman folks will chime in here, but I don't think the printing papers are 'trimmed' to a specific speed, as is done with film manufacture. So I can vary from box-to-box of the same paper type.

They may not claim to be, but my experience has been that the Ilford papers at least are extremely consistent from batch to batch.

 

[RobC]

I would have said Ilford papers but I don't actually know with the newish Classic paper. Besides the different surface finish between RC and FB makes the prints look different anyway so I don't see how you could expect them to look identical. And considering that means you would need to learn how your RC print looks to get a FB print to look the way you want, so whether the times are identical or not should not make a lot of difference if you factored that into making your RC print. Maybe I'm just too much of a pefectionist and you're not that bothered, but if you want them the same then why bother with FB anyway.

 

[mnemosyne]

For standard enlargements which will be used just to be shown in the round of friends or family I use the same metering for Fomaspeed Variant (=RC) and Fomabrom Variant (=FB) as they are very close, I would estimate they are within a 10% corridor (the percentage is on the visual comparison, so quite subjective ).

I agree, Fomaspeed Variant and Fomabrom Variant appear to be close in speed for all practical purposes. This is just my impression from practical use of these papers, printing them with identical exposure and filtration from the same negative. I have not done any systematic testing for speed or gradation.

 

[RobC]

just looked at the ilford datasheets for mg FB Classic and all the RC papers and the spectral sensitivity is different and the paper is different so getting exact times is unlikely. But you never know they might look similar(ish).

 

[KidA]

I use Kentmere VC (RC) papers and Ilford Classic Multigrade VC (FB) and they're very close... But I always do a test strip on the FB, let it dry well either in the microwave or with a blowdryer and make little tweaks accordingly. Also keep in mind (since it sounds like you're doing something similar to what I do) that the developer slows slightly after every developed paper, essentially changing density; so after all of those work prints, keep this in mind unless you make some fresh developer for the final print(s).