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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?