What happened to single-wgt. paper?

chip j · May 6, 2014

Forgive me for perhaps reviving an old topic, but single-wgt. used to be considerably cheaper than double-wgt., which is all there seems to be now.

rorye · May 6, 2014

I was just wondering if there has ever been a single weight multigrade paper?
I love Lodima for contacts but sometimes need to split grade print and would love to try this on a singleweight paper for a handmade book project.

Tom1956 · May 6, 2014

At one time, Polycontrast was sold in both weights like any other paper--Medalist, Kodabromide, and all the others.

Dr Croubie · May 6, 2014

Ooh, such a thing exists? (or at least did?)
I too would like to make a book of pictures I've taken over the past few years, as a graduation present for the missus. I was planning to scan/inkjet them (on my R3000 with a 13" roll of paper) and hand-bind somehow. If I could theoretically find some thinner paper I would love even more to be able to optically-print them (except for the one digital shot, unless I get a better shot of the subject any time soon).

edit: I've just noticed that MGiv RC is 190gsm, and I was planning to use 190gsm Moab inkjet paper anyways. Although if I could get anything thinner, like 100gsm, it wouldn't be such a beastly heavy book as it looks like it's going to be. MG iv/Classic FB is 255gsm, if I could get thinner FB paper it would look all the better.
So please keep suggestions coming...

Mackinaw · May 6, 2014

You should really post this question in the B&W Film, Paper and Chemistry sub-forum, not in the 35mm Camera section.

Jim B.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

It sucked so people more and more just used DW so they quit making it.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

More seriously, I know there are applications like this for a thin paper but I'm old enough to have printed on SW fiber paper (yes, Polycontrast) and while it wasn't too bad in small sizes like 4x5 in anything bigger than 5x7 it was difficult to handle without damage and curled like a beast. I only bought it because I was broke and it was cheaper.

markaudacity · May 7, 2014

Ditto that. Single-weight paper tears like tissue paper when it's wet, getting even an 8x10 out of the bath without damaging it is finicky.

It is too bad it's not around anymore, though, more options is always better.

NB23 · May 7, 2014

Nothing beats contacts on SW FB. Nothing.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

Except contacts on DW. Or RC.

Depends, I guess, on the size and what you're going to do with them. I make my contact sheets for evaluation on RC paper. It's cheaper, easier, and RC gloss doesn't obscure any detail. If you are going to display/use as final print contacts from LF or larger MF negs then I can see FB. But I still don't see ANY advantage to SW paper, aside from something like binding into a book.

Mike Crawford · May 7, 2014

Ilford used to make Multigrade (as well as many graded papers) in single weight. I used to do a lot of work about 20 years ago for a client who used it for pre-photoshop collages. Would be good to see it again and would be excellent for hand made books but expect the demand would be so small that would have to be charged higher than double weight!

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

I thought Slavich still made single weight paper and their web site confirms:

http://www.slavich.com/photo-bw

Now if you really want it, you need to find someone who can and will import it to wherever you live, unless you are in Russia. Silverprint in the UK lists Slavich paper, though out of stock, but only in DW.

NB23 · May 7, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Except contacts on DW. Or RC.

Depends, I guess, on the size and what you're going to do with them. I make my contact sheets for evaluation on RC paper. It's cheaper, easier, and RC gloss doesn't obscure any detail. If you are going to display/use as final print contacts from LF or larger MF negs then I can see FB. But I still don't see ANY advantage to SW paper, aside from something like binding into a book.

RC?
Gimme a break.

NB23 · May 7, 2014

For contacts, SW fb is superior to rc or dw fb exactly for ALL the same reasons as to why it's superior for making a handmade book.
RC is not a good solution.

And then again, the sub-8$ wine market is much bigger then the luxury wine market. It really must be better.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

NB23 said:
RC?
Gimme a break.

Yes, RC. I don't make contacts for display. I make them to evaluate negatives for enlargement. For this purpose I find RC ideal. I have plenty of FB paper and could use it if I wanted. The RC is easy, less expensive, quicker and easier to wash and dries flat. For this purpose I find it actually superior.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

NB23 said:
For contacts, SW fb is superior to rc or dw fb exactly for ALL the same reasons as to why it's superior for making a handmade book.
RC is not a good solution.

And then again, the sub-8$ wine market is much bigger then the luxury wine market. It really must be better.

Why's that? Because it's thin?

Really I don't get it. The reasons it might be better for a book are that you can add pages without it getting too thick, and you can bend the pages without creasing them, the same reasons pages in books are made of paper and not card stock.

This has no bearing whatsoever on individual prints, contacts or otherwise.

AgX · May 7, 2014

Paper with single-weight and half-weight base is still available at Wephota.

NB23 · May 7, 2014

Because you can bend them as you like, better acuity, better feel, can write and erase, you can backlight and have a much better feel as to what the final print will/can look like.

Overall, while I was contact proofing on sw, the whole experience was generally of much higher quality.
Since I'm contact proofing on rc, I'm having a hard time "seeing" the final images. There is definitely something lost in translation.

And that nasty rc feel on my fingers. Yes it's subjective but there's no denying that one quickly gets spoiled by Quality.

removed account4 · May 7, 2014

you can coat your own ... anyweight

NB23 · May 7, 2014

I can't stress enough the much, much higher quality that sw is. I juggle with contact prints a lot. My last trip represents 100 films/100 contacts. I spend a LOT of time manipulating them: writing notes on the back, using different colors for various sizes i plant to print. I constanty store them and take them out for further reviewing. I can view them in any light without fuzzy reflections. Glossy sw doesn't show fingerprints. It has a natural feel. And the last much longer. And of they crease, like paper, it's not a problem.
Often, when i want to study my contacts, I take a bunch, roll them and put them inside my jacket pocket and go in a cafe and take my time with them.
I just can't do this with rc.

And there's something to be said about aging. Sw paper ages well, just like an old book. RC paper, not so much.

At last, contacts are constantly being manipulated. I spend a lot of time with them. Holding fb sw is a joy. I don't experience this with rc.

Roger Cole · May 7, 2014

That is just bizarre. I've printed on SW. As soon as I could afford to use DW and RC I did, and I never looked back even when SW was available. It's easily damaged and curls like mad. I saw no advantages to it then and still don't.

Now the virtues of FB versus RC I agree with to an extent, for display prints, though even there modern RC papers have become so good I am sometimes tempted. FB looks slightly better and feels a lot better but most of the first and all of the second goes away when mounted under glass anyway. Especially in 16x20 where it's easy to crease even DW paper if one gets even slightly careless, RC has tempted me but so far I have not succumbed.

But SW? I've used it and I don't see the appeal at all.

removed account4 · May 7, 2014

NB23 said:
For contacts, SW fb is superior to rc or dw fb exactly for ALL the same reasons as to why it's superior for making a handmade book.
RC is not a good solution.

And then again, the sub-8$ wine market is much bigger then the luxury wine market. It really must be better.

hi NB23

i have made a couple dozen hand made books and folios, some big, some small with SW, DW and the last ones with digital c ( RC paper)..
they all have their charms and all can be easily made into nice books ... you just have to take into account the thickness of the papers when you make your spine

but i agree, thin papers are nice in a book ... the pages aren't as thick and have a nice feel ....

nice work btw ( the other thread/s ) are your books with 20x24 pages?

roger ...

the trick to getting the curl out is to dry it face down
and when it is almost dry you flatten them in a nipping press, or under weight ( even 1/4" glass ...
i can't help you with damages or creases .. i was warned from the beginning about that
but never experienced any damaged prints ...

john

Thomas Bertilsson · May 7, 2014

Tom1956 said:
At one time, Polycontrast was sold in both weights like any other paper--Medalist, Kodabromide, and all the others.

Yes, I have about 400 sheets of it at home in 8.5x11 size. It's badly fogged but I use it to season my lith developer before I use it for printing.

I quite like single weight. My stacks of prints are, well, stacking up. If they were all on single weight paper the stacks would be only half their size.

I have about 350 sheets of 8x10 Azo too that I intend to use for contact printing 5x7 negs. Those are single weight and will look lovely (hopefully) in a hand made book where double weight would be too thick, imo.

E. von Hoegh · May 7, 2014

Roger Cole said:
It sucked so people more and more just used DW so they quit making it.

Yeah, unless I was drymounting it I never used SW paper.
Anyone ever try to process big prints on SW?

Thomas Bertilsson · May 7, 2014

E. von Hoegh said:
Yeah, unless I was drymounting it I never used SW paper.
Anyone ever try to process big prints on SW?

I had some 11x14, which was the largest I could ever find. Difficult to handle; I found the best way was to wear nitrile gloves and use my hands. I was afraid of stretching the print by holding it from one corner.

What happened to single-wgt. paper?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency