• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What fiber based B/W paper are you using?

Been doing some more printing/testing with MC110 ... while I like the surface and general tone of the paper, I'm finding it to be very fast indeed. I like longer exposure times, and even stopped down sometimes its hard to get > 20 secs with some negs. So I'm still on the fence, and I'm agreed with a previous poster that the number of sheets per package needs to expand.
 
Mainly using Ilford Warmtone in Agfa Neutol NA and selenium toned, but recently bought a whole batch of raw chemicals to try some Ansco 130 and two bath print dev. Used to really like warmtone in the Ilford Cooltone Dev until it was discontinued really gave a lovely hue with selenium. Recently purchased some Foma Variant 123 but not used it as yet.
 
I am using MCC110 and Kodak Polycontrast Fine Art. God I wish Kodak would not have taken that paper away! Oh and some very old but not fogged Kodabromide.
 
There always seems to be a burst of enthusiasm for the latest paper or film that is available. When more objective and careful testing is done, and experienced is accumulated, the "latest and greatest" might not evidence all of the advantages that have been imputed. I agree with string above that MCC is faster. However, the paper curves are virtually identical to those found with Ilford MG FB using standard Ilford Multigrade developer. That's not to say that some don't see subtle improvement in the tones obtained with a given negative and a given developer using MCC. However, in my admittedly small experience, MCC is not the magic door that leads to fabulous prints. Others obviously feel differently, and I am happy that Nirvana approaches. :} One of the interesting and enjoyable activities is that of trying new materials, and seeing if such materials convey benefits. So, have fun and keep printing.
 

So you're saying MCC curves are identical to MGIV?

On the flip-side, it would be impossible to say that there haven't been *great* products that have been taken away/discontinued. Not everything is the same.
 
Rolleiflexible said:
They might have identical curves but they
do not look alike.
Click to expand...

Indeed, they do not. I just tried my first sheets, 5x7. Still drying, but looks much different than MGIV (or MGIII, for that matter ).
 
With formal BTZS testing, contact printing, Zone vi developer, same f stop timing exposure, etc., etc....very little difference. Indeed, I made an error in my previous post: Even the speeds are about the same. Please keep in mind that the testing was in my darkroom, under my conditions, using no filtration on the Durst 1200 as the light source. Others might find different curves in their testing.
 
Is MCC 310 simply an RC version of MCC 110?
 
And of course I was very careful to say that the way the papers test and the way they look to those using them might be very different. No argument at all with those who say the differences are very readily apparent.

Ed
 
Clay2 said:
Now using Ilford Multigrade. Back in the day (1960's) my
favourite was Kodak Kodabromide Double Weight in Dektol.
Best regards,
/Clay
Click to expand...

Clay,

Well Kodabromide Double Weight in Dektol, that brings back some memories, always got consistent results with that combo!
 
I just started in on my 25 sheet pack of 11x14 Oriental VC-II glossy FB and am very impressed! This is most definitely going to become my go to paper for pure neutral black and white prints. I'm developing in 130 and toning in KRST 1:9 for 3 minutes and getting a wonderful charcoally slightly cold print. Wonderful!
 
I use Ilford Multi-grade double-weight fiber-based paper. This paper produces very nice prints, especially if you like photographs that "pop" a bit on the cold side.
 
sepiareverb said:
The surfaces are VERY different, and that makes a lot of difference.
Click to expand...

Would you consider amplifying your remarks? I have some MCC on hand which I would like to compare with the Ilford MG FB paper. How do the surfaces differ? Thanks.
 
The MCC is much smoother without being RC glossy. Much like the old Blue Box Oriental Seagull, and something I've not seen since. Wonderful stuff.

ILMGIV is flatter (reflectively) than the MCC. Nothing wrong with it- I make more prints on ILMGIV than any other paper, but there is a glow to prints on the MCC imparted by the surface that I really like. Certainly doesn't translate to a jpg.
 

Thanks for taking the time to respond....I'll be looking forward to noting the same features. What developer are you using?
 
Well, curiosity did get the better of me. I was up well before dawn contact printing the same 8x10 negative that I printed a day or two ago using Ilford FB MC, but now with the new Adox MCC. I used standard split grade printing as has been outlined on APUG and elsewhere many time in the past. The Adox was about 3/4 to 1 stop faster when using the low contrast printer, the same speed with the high contrast printer. The Adox was indeed a bit more "brilliant" and "glossy". The former might have to do with the color of the paper itself. The Adox toned much differently in Selenium than the Ilford. The Adox paper became warmer, the Ilford remained neutral to cold. The Adox paper did indeed seem to have a bit more "pop". Both papers are good, and of course the choice becomes one of prefering a certain "look". I used Ilford Multigrade developer. Other developers might well produce different results with the papers. More to follow as needed. Thanks for all who provided their information and opinions.
 
Does anyone else feel the ADOX is a little TOO glossy? Sometimes I look at the surface and it gives me that bad reflective feeling like glossy RC paper.

I've never been a fan of matte surfaces, so have always printed on "glossy" FB papers for the most part ... I like a little sheen, but ADOX may be overkill for my taste.
 
Agfa Portriga Rrapid 111 before they took the cadmium away. Now Ilford MGWT in Silvergrain Tektol Standard
 
Mahler_one said:
Would you consider amplifying your remarks? I have some MCC on hand which I would like to compare with the Ilford MG FB paper. How do the surfaces differ? Thanks.
Click to expand...


I am lost. I thought that you had already compared them, using special groovy methods:

 
My mistake for not being clear. Sorry. Some noted that the papers looked different, and I was simply asking what developer was used when the 5x7 prints were made. As was so very correctly stated, and I agree, the curves tell you little about how the print actually looks.

As to the method used: Not at all arcane, and pretty well known to all who test materials ( and use a densitometer ) in order to derive the ideal exposure for the lighting conditions on hand, and the time of film development in order to match the range of the paper to the film being used. Anything more technical than doing a step wedge and reading ( and plotting ) the results is pretty much out of my league.
 

Hi.

What I don't get is how if you originally stated that you have done all this objective testing and have concluded that the papers' curves are near identical, why you later made posts that sound like you have never even opened a sample pack of the paper. After telling us about your testing results and parameters, you stated that you "have some MCC on hand which [you] would like to compare with the Ilford MG FB paper", and you later asked one of us, "How do the surfaces differ?", and you also stated that "curiosity did get the better of [you]" and that you were "up well before dawn contact printing the same 8x10 negative that I printed a day or two ago using Ilford FB MC, but now with the new Adox MCC."

I also cannot find the post where you asked me what developer I used, but it was Ilford MG.

I did not call your methods arcane, but you did state, "When more objective and careful testing is done, and experienced is accumulated, the 'latest and greatest' might not evidence all of the advantages that have been imputed.", and later stated some of your parameters. All I was saying was that you state that you have done objective testing and such, which is more than I have done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tried several papers, but feel Adox MCC110 is by far the easiest to get nice perfect results. I have struggled also to make my pictures a way so it works in not perfect light conditions. A bright white base but still a touch of warmth in the blacks makes that possible for me. Joho...life is good!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register