What happened to single-wgt. paper?

[eddie]

My photography involves very fine subtle moments that sometimes a loupe can't reveal unless I backlit the sheets.

Do you back-light them to display?

 

[chip j]

HCB was pretty good @ just 35mm. I also do color and have 6x6 & 6x7. I learned in the Army on 4x5.

 

[cliveh]

Double weight Royal Bromesko, now that was a beautiful photographic paper and probably only equalled by Agfa Record Rapid, or maybe one or two other chlorobromide papers.

 

[NB23]

Do you back-light them to display?

I was talking about 35mm contact sheets. 35mm is a small format and very often I look at some shots and wonder "why did I take this shot, I need to be more cautious" and then a loupe reveals the fine details; the subject's eyes, something happening in the background, someone picking his nose... The images are extremely clear once backlit on fb sw.

and to answer your question, no. The prints all go into bags and into boxes.

 

[eddie]

I was talking about 35mm contact sheets. 35mm is a small format and very often I look at some shots and wonder "why did I take this shot, I need to be more cautious" and then a loupe reveals the fine details; the subject's eyes, something happening in the background, someone picking his nose... The images are extremely clear once backlit on fb sw.

and to answer your question, no. The prints all go into bags and into boxes.

I think I understand. I thought we were talking about contacting larger negatives.

 

[Roger Cole]

Nope. I'm not joking. These mostly make no sense. I'll take them one at a time.

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.

1. Easier on the eyes? WTF does that even MEAN? You mean it looks better but without something more objective that is, frankly, at best a personal judgement with no meaning at all to anyone else and at worst simply noise.

2. Easier on the fingers? Again, WTF? I agree that FB paper feels better than RC. But 1) I make prints to look at, not to handle, and 2) specifically I'm asking about SW vs DW FB and I think DW feels far better. Again, totally subjective, you've offered zero reason except "I like it better." I can't argue with that, but it doesn't mean anything to anyone else either.

3. Easier on pens and pencils. Again, you seem to be hung up on ranting about RC. Yes, it's easier to write on FB than on RC. But it's easier to write on DW than SW FB, at least if you write on the back and don't want it to bleed through and even for signing on the border or such DW is superior. Matte is superior in this regard to glossy too but I prefer glossy for the increased D-Max. Some people don't and I totally respect that and have seen prints I really like on matte paper, but I'm not going to choose it because it's easier to write on.

Again, get off the "raging against RC" bandwagon and try to explain, if you can, why you think SW FB is better than DW.

4. "easier to view/select 35mm and 120 shots to be enlarged" - Again, this makes no sense whatsoever. Paper surface has a lot to do with with this, and maybe the range (a reason to prefer a higher d-max, or at least one that most closely matches your final print) but not weight. Unless you're backlighting it I suppose but since I've never heard of anyone else doing that it amounts to "I have a peculiar way of working that it suits better" and that may be true for you but not true for others as a rule.

5. Doesn't feel el-cheapo? WTF? Again, this is TOTALLY subjective, and again you are ranting against RC. I am well aware of the differences in RC and FB since I use both, and I wouldn't argue with someone who has no use for RC though I do prefer it for contact sheets and am willing to use it for SOME final prints though this is rare - mostly things like some family snapshots I've done on TMZ and given to parents, not to be framed just put in albums or boxes. But compared to a good DW or HW FB paper it's the SW that "feels el-cheapo."

6. Ages well. WTF does that mean?? You mean it's more archival? Compared to RC - MAYBE. This is now debatable. Compared to DW FB, well it's easier to wash to archival standards, I'll give you that, but if adequately washed there should be no difference in image stability but the DW base will be more physically durable. DW FB wins.

7. Rolls very easily for a jacket pocket? Well, ok, I'll give you that. Frankly someone who rolls up prints to stick in a jacket pocket has no room to be lecturing me about quality. I suppose this might be good if one were shipping unmounted prints in mailing tubes or the like.

I believe in "appropriate quality." There is no need, for me, to use the finest paper for evaluating contact prints. I'll use the very best paper I can for the image in the final print, though. If you pay $150 for Nikes I hate to tell you but you are paying more for the name than quality.I have some Nikes - $50. And some New Balance - likewise. I have hard to fit feet (very wide) so I have to, to some extent, buy what I can find that fits. A pair will last a year to a year and a half, worn every day. Cheap $15 sneakers will last six weeks. So I agree, it's worth more money. But there is a point of diminishing returns in most things. This is really nothing to do with paper comparisons though. SW paper is, when one can find it, CHEAPER than DW. So the argument really doesn't apply (except that I agree you get, in that case, what you pay for and thus recommend going for the DW...) There certainly is such a thing as "good enough." I could make my contact sheets on my DW FB paper that I keep in stock and use for final prints. I see no advantage to doing so and it costs more, takes longer and more water to wash, and curls when dried and has to be flattened. For my contact sheets RC is not just good enough but actually better. For my final prints, so far anyway, I choose DW FB as do many photographers. Yes, I'm tempted by RC in the larger sizes for ease of handling without damage, but so far haven't succumbed.

 

[Roger Cole]

I was talking about 35mm contact sheets. 35mm is a small format and very often I look at some shots and wonder "why did I take this shot, I need to be more cautious" and then a loupe reveals the fine details; the subject's eyes, something happening in the background, someone picking his nose... The images are extremely clear once backlit on fb sw.

and to answer your question, no. The prints all go into bags and into boxes.

For that I prefer enlarged proof sheets. You can put several short strips of 35mm in a 4x5 glass carrier and print enlarged, or just make quick 3.5x5 or so proofs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Many people mount their prints, and when they do, the "weight" of the FB paper becomes moot!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

Many people mount their prints, and when they do, the "weight" of the FB paper becomes moot!

PE

That's very true. Then it's just the more delicate handling. I can see "well it was cheaper and I'm willing to handle it a bit more delicately to save some money."