Tetenal fb paper, any reviews/comparisons

[Old BarChamonix]

After a long absence from the dark, I am back into the swing of things. I have had some people order some prints and when i checked the print records, some negs hadn't been printed since before Agfa Classic fb disappeared. So I will use Ilford FB MC, but I have seen a supplier advertising Tetenal papers. Does anyone have any reviews of the Tetenal papers and how they might compare with Ilford or Kentmere?

 

[fotch]

Hello and welcome to APUG. Have no advice on paper comparison, good luck.

 

[Pat Erson]

I can't really speak for the FB version but I've used the RC paper extensively and imho it's VERY close to the now discontinued Kodak stuff : it's pretty neutral "dry" looking stuff which suits reportage/street photography uses quite well (= if you look for a fine-art rendering with a 1000 nuances of gray, buy Ilford paper instead).

What I like less is (unlike Ilford) Tetenal papers look not so good (read : "sometimes dreadful") with difficult negs. For ex. if you have overexposed negs well you'll get a white-ish contact sheet with NO details as Tetenal blocks VERY easily. Ilford is far more flexible in that dpt.

So imho again if you got perfect negs Tetenal will do (provided you like the 70's Kodak-like look the stuff gives) if your negs require lots of burning I'd try Ilford 1st.

 

[ath]

When the current Tetenal Mutigrade papers were introduced these were housebrands of the Kentmere Range.
I don't know if this has changed after Kentmere was taken over by Harman but I think the datasheets have not changed.
The older Tetenal Papers were Agfa MCP and Ilford MG.