What happened to single-wgt. paper?

[E. von Hoegh]

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.

I think NB23 is comparing FB and RC without realizing it. I agree that in some ways FB is better than RC; when I started printing FB was the only paper for fine prints RC was a timesaver and not really regarded as anything more.

 

[NB23]

Fb sw is perfect for contacts. And books. Nothing else, really. Not for big prints.

The nature of sw fb lends itself perfectly for contacts. Rc contacts aren't suitable if one has quality in mind and for many reasons that I already mentioned. It can still be done and some might prefer it.
Fb dw contacts would be overboard and expensive. Still a great option if you are concerned about quality.
Looking at a contact print on a light table is a revelation but can't be done with rc paper.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Fb sw is perfect for contacts. And books. Nothing else, really. Not for big prints.

The nature of sw fb le ds itself perfectly for contacts. Rc contacts aren't suitable if one has quality in mond, for manyreasons that I already mentioned. It can still be done and some might prefer it.
Fb dw contacts would be overboard but expensive. Still a great option if you are concerned about quality.
Looking at a contact print on a light table is a revelation but can't be done with rc paper.

I have quite a few, made in the late 80s when I got my 8x10 - I've never yet enlarged an 8x10 negative. They are stunning, the best ones have a nearly 3-dimensional look with texture seeming to rise off the paper.

 

[Photo Engineer]

SW FB paper represented about 10% or less of the market, mostly in contact papers. The paper itself was difficult to coat as the wet paper in the coating machine was like tissue paper and often ripped or frayed. The manufacturers of teh support and the manufacturers of the sensitized papers were happy to see these products vanish.

When used by the photographer, these papers offered no substantial benefit and often curled or wrinkled badly. The prints often deformed or otherwise changed size. The paper was so thin that it deformed easily. Just as it did in the coating machines.

PE

 

[chip j]

I've made 100's of 8X10 Agfa Brovira SW prints w/no trouble, just dry them in a Kodak blotter roll. I do agree w/NB23 that they seem to be sharper than DW.

 

[bdial]

The feature I liked best about single-weight paper was that it was cheaper than DW. So, I used it routinely for anything 8x10 and smaller. At that time, I had access to the big Paco drum dryers, so curling wasn't an issue.

Anybody remember Kodak Light Weight paper?

 

[Jim Noel]

Up until about the 70's single weight paper was commonly produced by several manufacturers. Roger says"it sucked". That was only true for people who handled it carelessly, especially with tongs or when squeegeeing.
I still have a few boxes of single weight Azo, Velox and Dupont Varigam all of which are still good and clear of fog.

 

[miha]

I still have some SW Record Rapid left, 4'x5', great for albums. SW suits my needs as I like printing small.

 

[Roger Cole]

Up until about the 70's single weight paper was commonly produced by several manufacturers. Roger says"it sucked". That was only true for people who handled it carelessly, especially with tongs or when squeegeeing.
I still have a few boxes of single weight Azo, Velox and Dupont Varigam all of which are still good and clear of fog.

When it required far more careful attention to handling and STILL creased or tore from time to time, and dried like a lump of formerly wet tissue paper and, when flattened, was, well, a sheet of thin paper with a photo on it I just saw and see no real redeeming virtues except that it was cheaper.

I don't know what the emphasis on contacts versus enlargements is or why that would affect which paper base one preferred. And contact proofs from rollfilm or smaller sheet film are one thing (best done on RC in my view) while contacts from sheet film for display are final prints and quite another. I still don't see any reason to prefer SW paper, but in that case I do see reasons to prefer FB to RC.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Roger, I have to agree, and the customers all over the world voted with you and the manufacturers breathed a sigh of relief.

PE

 

[NB23]

Roger, I have to agree, and the customers all over the world voted with you and the manufacturers breathed a sigh of relief.

PE

Kodak is notorious for having taken the best business moves, yes? Like dropping the whole paper business a long time ago, in the 90's, DW and SW altogether. What was that about, anyways?

 

[chip j]

Sic'em, NB23!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak is notorious for having taken the best business moves, yes? Like dropping the whole paper business a long time ago, in the 90's, DW and SW altogether. What was that about, anyways?

Paper was dropped in about 2005 when the overall market dropped 35% in one quarter as opposed to the expected drop of 35% in one year. Agfa and Ilford suffered severe consequences in the same year.

But then, how does your comment match up with mine? After all, Fuji and Ilford have stopped making SW papers, and LODIMA was coated on DW paper. It seems to me you have missed a point here. It is the CUSTOMER.

Oh, and I know of no SW digital paper either.

PE

 

[NB23]

I remember kodak having dropped the paper base manufacturing in the 90's and dropping its coating business in 2005. They weren't producing their own papers in the 2000's. I might be wrong.
I don't want to be confrontational but frankly, kodak has its share of shady decision making. And also frankly, for contact printing there's no better paper then sw fb paper. Yes, customers have voted with their wallets but that doesn't take away the fact that cheaper doesn't equal better.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, we like what we like, and often remember past things with a golden glow.

I'm not about to argue over this as there ate two camps albeit one is weak enough to have precipitated this entire situation. I might add that I like a good hefty print and some of my best feeling and looking prints are hand coatings on 300# cold press matte paper. That is some nice stuff.

 

[Roger Cole]

I remember kodak having dropped the paper base manufacturing in the 90's and dropping its coating business in 2005. They weren't producing their own papers in the 2000's. I might be wrong.
I don't want to be confrontational but frankly, kodak has its share of shady decision making. And also frankly, for contact printing there's no better paper then sw fb paper. Yes, customers have voted with their wallets but that doesn't take away the fact that cheaper doesn't equal better.

You keep saying SW is better for contact prints but have yet to say WHY or how contact versus enlarging makes any difference at all in selection of paper base.

Care to explain, other than some vague "it feels better" sort of thing? Ok, ok, they look better back lit on a light table than DW or RC. Why anyone would want to backlight a print on paper on a light table is beyond me but if you are going to do it, ok, SW is better. But seriously, for normal purposes, you've really not said why you like SW better, nor why contacts should be any different in this regard than enlargements. An 8x10 contact print from an 8x10 negative is better on SW paper but an 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 negative is just fine on DW? Huh?

 

[chip j]

What does a photo engineer do in Rochester? Dust Kodak relics?

 

[Arcturus]

I think NB23 is comparing FB and RC without realizing it. I agree that in some ways FB is better than RC; when I started printing FB was the only paper for fine prints RC was a timesaver and not really regarded as anything more.

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I really don't see much, if any, quality difference between FB and RC. I've recently started printing FB again (MCC 110) and I have a hard time telling it apart from Ilford Portfolio RC, they even have a similar feel to me. Considering the time difference between them, I will generally get better results from RC because I can fine tune it more quickly and with less drydown.

 

[Photo Engineer]

What does a photo engineer do in Rochester? Dust Kodak relics?

I teach others how to make emulsions and coat them so that the art can be perpetuated. I wrote a textbook on the subject as well.

What do you do for analog? Oh, BTW, I left EK and retired at the height of analog. You may be too young to remember that.

 

[chip j]

I teach others how to make emulsions and coat them so that the art can be perpetuated. I wrote a textbook on the subject as well.

What do you do for analog? Oh, BTW, I left EK and retired at the height of analog. You may be too young to remember that.

I've been doing full-tilt "fine-art" serious photography (analog) since I was 19. I'm now 67 and am one of the-if not THE-greatest photographers that ever walked this earth! Good Luck.

 

[Photo Engineer]

ive been doing serious photography since I was 12 and I am a bit older than you are. In fact, some of my early and crappy work was done about the time you were busy being born See my better pix in the gallery! Many of my photos were taken above the earth!

Oh well, why try to discuss this subject. Full tilt with only 35mm? I have 35mm, 2 formats of MF and 4x5 to choose from. I do color and B&W as well as mixed flow and teach analog at George Eastman Hous. Fine place. You ought to visit it sometime and see what goes on there.

Best wishes.

PE

 

[MattKing]

Is there something in the water?

 

[Roger Cole]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I really don't see much, if any, quality difference between FB and RC. I've recently started printing FB again (MCC 110) and I have a hard time telling it apart from Ilford Portfolio RC, they even have a similar feel to me. Considering the time difference between them, I will generally get better results from RC because I can fine tune it more quickly and with less drydown.

No, you're doing it fine you're just honest.

Some of us first used RC paper when it really was inferior in both image quality and permanence and remember those days. Once that perception is formed it often doesn't change even if the paper does.

I still think FB looks a bit better but the difference isn't much and even that mostly vanishes if mounted under glass. And 16x20 (the largest size I currently am set up to print) FB DW paper has to be handled quite carefully when wet, often tempting me to go to RC. I haven't given in - yet, except for contact proofs for which I see no reason at all to use FB.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I really don't see much, if any, quality difference between FB and RC. I've recently started printing FB again (MCC 110) and I have a hard time telling it apart from Ilford Portfolio RC, they even have a similar feel to me. Considering the time difference between them, I will generally get better results from RC because I can fine tune it more quickly and with less drydown.

I started printing in the 1970s. RC paper has improved quite a bit since then.

 

[NB23]

You keep saying SW is better for contact prints but have yet to say WHY or how contact versus enlarging makes any difference at all in selection of paper base.

Care to explain, other than some vague "it feels better" sort of thing? Ok, ok, they look better back lit on a light table than DW or RC. Why anyone would want to backlight a print on paper on a light table is beyond me but if you are going to do it, ok, SW is better. But seriously, for normal purposes, you've really not said why you like SW better, nor why contacts should be any different in this regard than enlargements. An 8x10 contact print from an 8x10 negative is better on SW paper but an 8x10 enlargement from a 4x5 negative is just fine on DW? Huh?

You are probably trying to make a joke. I'll bite one last time:
-easier on the eyes
-easier on the fingers (where, frankly, rc sucks)
-easier on pens and pencils (where, frankly, rc sucks)
-easier to view/select 35mm and 120 shots to be enlarged (where, frankly, rc sucks once compared to fb sw)
-doesn't feel el-cheapo (as opposed to rc)
-ages well.
-rolls very easily for efficient transportation in a jacket pocket(where, frankly, rc sucks)
...

I absolutely don't want to "convert" you to sw. I answerd this post for the rest of the members who value Quality and irreproachable working ethics.
I lost enough time trying to convince my dad that cheap 5$ chinese sneakers don't measure up to 150$ Nikes. That the Fruit of the Loom 3 for 5$ underwears will never match a fine Calvin Klein pair. And that, No, Costco jeans aren't the finest Jeans on the planet. I've had my share of headaches discussing Quality vs. Mediocrity vs. "Good enough".

I realized that i was spending a lot of time fiddling with contact sheets. My photography involves very fine subtle moments that sometimes a loupe can't reveal unless I backlit the sheets. RC-what? Pathetic.

RC? Good enough for you. Doesn't cut it for me and my work, just the same way that costco jeans, chinese 5$ sneakers and the fruit of the loom don't cut it.