What paper responds best.

Well I think what i'm going to do is try graded papers as well as warmtone VC papers and see if some of the work I have been doing can benefit from the change. some of my pics just shine with the papers I use but like this weekend I tried printing a 8x10 neg. I had done a Azo print on and after 15 sheets of 16x20 I got a good print but nothing close to the Azo. The highlights were not showing any detail or they were graying on me. I even used a water bath and still couldn't get them down. So as I run out of 16x20 I placed this thread to see what I could find out after using the seach on the threat to get info. I want to thank all of you for your part in this. I have found out 2-3x more information than I was expecting. I can't wait to recieve the new paper and see the results. Again thank you all for a good discussion. That is why I joined this group.



PS:
les I have gone to your website and printed several of your articles and will read them tonight. thank you
Regards
Michael Andersen

lee said:

I suspect that one needs to tailor their negs to the paper they are using instead of making the paper fit the negs.

lee\c

Click to expand...

Wise words indeed. Each paper has a specific curve. Each film has a specific curve. How those two curves match will determine the look of the final print. I think that is why one person can use a certain paper and get great results while the next photographer finds the same paper flat and lifeless.

Personally, I cannot look at the curves and tell how a paper will print. I have to actually try them with my negatives. For years I used Kodak FA paper. Now that it is gone, I have to find another paper.


That brings up the issue, however, should I pick a paper and change my film/developer combination, or keep the combination that has worked for me for years? What about reprints from my older negs. To a certain extent I have to change the paper to fit my older negs. And, given that papers come and go, should I change things to match any current paper, or develop a generic negative and tweak the paper to fit it?

The last two nights I have been printing older negatives on five different papers, trying to find the best fit with my older negatives. I would like to find one that works with out any change, but haven't found one yet. But, I'll keep looking.

Kevin, I thought that was your meaning but felt it needed clarifying. You are so right on this issue, this place can well do without those mindless idiots who have little better to do.

lee said:

I suspect that one needs to tailor their negs to the paper
they are using instead of making the paper fit the negs.
lee\c

Click to expand...

Tailored to A paper and A grade of that paper. Zone
system purists do embrace that credo. But that is
an objective. Achieving is the challenge.

Very likely A. Adams had more than one grade of paper
on hand and he did use contrast control developers.
Beer's and his split version of Ansco 130 are
two examples. Dan

dancqu said:

Tailored to A paper and A grade of that paper. Zone
system purists do embrace that credo. But that is
an objective. Achieving is the challenge.

Very likely A. Adams had more than one grade of paper
on hand and he did use contrast control developers.
Beer's and his split version of Ansco 130 are
two examples. Dan

Click to expand...

Dan,

When I wrote above about matching the film to the paper, I wasn't really talking about global contrast changes--developing a negative to print on grade two and then using a grade two paper. I was referring to how the toe and shoulder of the film matches the shoulder and toe of the paper. It is really more of a local contrast issue, not an over all development issue.

If two films are developed to the same overall contrast, they still will print differently on a given paper because of how the tones are distributed between the extremes. Like wise, a given negative may look different on two types of paper.

Films have long, normal and short toes and shoulders. Papers likewise have long, normal and short shoulders (sometimes called soft, normal and hard shoulders) and toes. To me, getting the highlights and the deep shadows right is often finding a paper where the shoulder of the paper matches the film.

A good printer can trick a less than optimal paper into good, even great results, but it is easier to start with a solid match. Of course, you still have to consider all the other factors like image tone, paper base color, how the paper responds to toning, etc.

I'm not one that likes to sit behind a densitometer or grafting paper and figure out how things should match. I have in the past but found that after awhile I was doing that more than photography. So I stopped, saw the light with Michael and Paula with developing by inspection and have been happy ever since. What I have found is that I have used many developers like rodinal, d-76, alot of hand formulas. But the one thing I found is that you have to use something that you are comfortable with. HC-110 was very contrasty to me. Rodinal just seemed harsh. After awhile I found that I liked Pyrocat-HD. Is this what everyone should use? NO! But it works for me. NOT my enlarger so much or some of the papers I have used. But I have to feel good about the negative first. then find a paper that will work. I use Azo for my contact prints but enlarging again is something I'm still exploring. Yesterday I tried to use J and C and found that most of there papers are incomplete and they don't seem to have anything in stock. I like to stay with people that back APUG but no stock no order. So I ordered forte, Oriental,I already have tried kentmere and Ilford and when around agfa and Kodak. J and C has some different papers I would like to experiment with, but I will have tt check back and see when stock is in. and I hope they carry more than one grade also.
NOW! developers are next. I use M&P Amidol for AZO, M&P Amidol for enlarging paper, and have tried Dektol, Arista cold tone develper and Ilfords MC developer and ID-78. The Amidol's I love so I will continue to use them but non amidol developers so far I like the ilfords. What are your thoughts?


regards
MIchael Andersen

I'm a big fan of the new Ilford Warmtone/Cooltone developers, and Ansco 130. Try the Ansco if you don't mind mixing your own, or also look into PPPD (I think there's a recipe for it here on APUG) - it's a pyro-based paper developer, said by many to give comparable results to Amidol, but without the expense or some of the toxicity.

If I may be excused to open up a little the topic of the thread, I'd like to have some comments on the meaning of paper/neg matching.

What I understand so far from readings and experience is that there is a rather simple correlation between the overall contrast of a negative (i.e. with the grade of a paper. If the density range of a negative is high (from very thin to very thick), then you are likely to need a lower grade of paper, and vice versa.

Now let's say we're comparing two different papers, A and B, of the same grade. What are the aspects of their curve that makes them different?

Michael9793,

I have been seeing some prints from Don Miller in Az that are very nice. He is using Michael and Paula's Amidol formula for Azo with regular enlarging paper. He is getting his paper via John at J&C but they are moving right now and as you found out have very little stock. He is using their Nuance for a graded paper and I am not sure what if any vc paper he is using. Regardless, the results are outstanding. He is also using a point light source with condensers so there will be a contrast jump there as opposed to the Zone VI you are using. Some of his negs are near bullet proof to get the separation out of the Efke in pyrocat hd that he uses. This post is not intended to do anything but tell you about Donald's methods.

lee\c

Another absolutely beautiful combination is Kentmere Kentona (available from Freestyle) developed in amidol. It's not as slow as Azo, but is slower than most enlarging papers, so you can contact print using a low wattage bare bulb as a light source.

I've never been able to make prints I was happy with on Ilford paper, but I have a friend (who uses the same enlargers I do) who makes gorgeous ones on it. He adds benzotriazole to his Sprint developer (he gets the benzo from PF - they call it Anti-Fog) and he gets beautiful separation in the highlights. Everywhere else, too, come to think of it.

mhv said:

If I may be excused to open up a little the topic of the thread, I'd like to have some comments on the meaning of paper/neg matching.

What I understand so far from readings and experience is that there is a rather simple correlation between the overall contrast of a negative (i.e. with the grade of a paper. If the density range of a negative is high (from very thin to very thick), then you are likely to need a lower grade of paper, and vice versa.

Now let's say we're comparing two different papers, A and B, of the same grade. What are the aspects of their curve that makes them different?

Click to expand...

Mhv,

Contrast changes.

You have the idea of matching the overall contrast of your film to the contrast of your paper.

You describe one way this issue comes up--taking a negative and then adjusting the contrast of the paper to match your negative. I do this every time I print on VC paper. I do test strips focusing on the highlights to set the exposure. I then adjust the contrast up or down to set the shadows properly.

The issue of overall contrast changes also comes up in that a photographer will decide on a grade of paper on which to print. Say you choose grade 2 as your standard paper grade. By experience or testing, you can adjust your standard development time to make the majority of your negs print well on that paper, with only minor changes to the contrast of the paper when enlarging.

Matching film and paper tonal gradation.

Matching the contrast of the negative to the paper contrast is only the beginning of making exceptional prints. It also helps to match the way paper distributes the tones between the extremes with the way the film distributes the tones. You can have a perfectly developed negative and print that on two different papers at the same contrast. One will look okay and the other will sparkle. There has to be more than global contrast changes going on. Simply, a given film will match up with one paper better than with another. That’s why I always take paper recommendations with a grain of salt. To me it is a film and paper combination that is important. Just focusing on half the equation doesn’t really tell us much.

Phil Davis describes this his book, BTZS, in chapter 10 “Image Gradation.” He states:

“When we fail to get good results it may be that we’ve handled the materials poorly, but it also may be because we’ve chosen the wrong set of materials for the subject type and for the interpretation we had in mind. Our materials may have unique characteristics but they work in concert. Although each exerts its individual influence, the ultimate ‘look’ of the print image results from their combined effect.” p. 147.

“Some combinations of materials can make this relatively easy; others may make it very difficult indeed.” p, 147.

He then goes on and describes the effect on the final image from a short toe v. long toe film and the corresponding paper choice. If you really want to delve into the science of sensitometry, read Phil’s book or visit the BTZS web site. As I stated above, I can’t look at a film or paper curve and envision how it will print. So I have to physically print my negs on different papers and compare the results.

If you don’t want to go into the whole film testing/paper testing mode, you can always just try different papers with your negs. Take a well exposed and developed negative and print it at the same contrast on different papers. (Note, you need to visually make sure that the papers are the same contrast. Two papers printed with the same filter may print at different grades). Compare the highlight separation and the rendering of the shadows. Pick the best one for your basic paper.

If you have trouble printing on one paper, it may be that you don’t have a good match between that paper and your film/developer choice. Try another paper.

Personally, I like a KISS approach. One basic film, one high speed film, one film developer, one warm tone paper and one neutral tone paper. Getting everything to line up is the problem.

I have to agree with Les, Ilford Warmtone is a wonderful paper , I have made prints on the bulk of the papers listed in this thread and Warmtone is right up there with any of them.

Allen Friday said:

If you have trouble printing on one paper,
it may be that you don’t have a good match
between that paper and your film/developer choice.
Try another paper.

Click to expand...

If one is close to grade with a paper that paper's
grade may be adjusted some small but meaningful
amount by using one or more of a few techniques.

If overall a paper's contrast is or can be made
suitable then one or more of several local contrast
controls may be employed.

No need to go on testing paper after paper after
paper looking for out of the box perfection. Dan

I agree with the Kiss idea. I feel that Iford paper has dropped off in the last 4-5 years. because it seems much better before and I don't seem to get the delicate highlights like I use to get. I have a shell picture with very delicate highlights and from that photo I can tell what responds and what doesn't. Using the same negative I tried using kentmere, It only took two sheets of paper to see that that wasn't going to respond at all. I did find out that Kentmere is not very sensitive to blue light, so the VC paper works best with the yellow and magenta filters. It says on the website that the paper does better with condenser enlargers with a light bulb than diffused and a flouresent bulb. I have tried many mixed and bought developers with these papers, but that is why I started this threat, I thought the enlarger may be some of the problem. But Les uses the same enlarger and doesn't have some of the problems I have. I have been using Ilford for about 4 years with some Kentmere due to the purchase and don't want to waist and kodak before that. But I'm getting low and wanted to try something new. SO now I when out and bought several papers and warm and neutral and I will see how they work with some of my developers. I love mixing developers, and like the ID-78 and amidol. I have never tried the ID-78 with warm tone papers so this sould be a neat thing to see. I have always been a cold or neutral print type of guy, but using warm tone papers on some of my subjects now may change me. (can't be a stick in the mud)


Lee
thanks for the info on J and C. I buy all my film from them and hope to try some of there speciality papers they carrry.

Regards

Mike Andersen

TheFlyingCamera said:

I'm a big fan of the new Ilford Warmtone/Cooltone developers, and Ansco 130. Try the Ansco if you don't mind mixing your own, or also look into PPPD (I think there's a recipe for it here on APUG) - it's a pyro-based paper developer, said by many to give comparable results to Amidol, but without the expense or some of the toxicity.

Click to expand...

I have tried it and found it worked good. since I use amidol anyway and buy it by the pound, I havn't gone back to it, the amidol for enlarging paper has worked good also and it isn't that much different than the regular amidol. What kind of difference do you see with ansco 130 and ID-78?

The Ansco 130 is a neutral-to-warm developer, but it does really nice things with highlights. You keep good separation in the highlight tones without losing the top end. I posted some examples in my gallery of a ring-around test I did with papers and developers.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

and

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

You can see some examples of the differences between the Bergger and the Kentmere, in the Ilford and Ansco developers.

All images were given the same exposure (per paper... ie all Bergger images were exposed the same time/aperture combo) and all were developed for the same length of time in each developer (2 mins @ approx 70 F).

dancqu said:

If one is close to grade with a paper that paper's
grade may be adjusted some small but meaningful
amount by using one or more of a few techniques.

If overall a paper's contrast is or can be made
suitable then one or more of several local contrast
controls may be employed.

No need to go on testing paper after paper after
paper looking for out of the box perfection. Dan

Click to expand...

Dan, I certinly agree with you about the local contrast controls and how they can be employed. And, I am not an advocate of constantly switching papers and developers. But, if a printer consistently is not getting good results with their current paper, if the paper changes, or (as in my case) the paper is discontinued, then it might behove the printer to try differrent papers.

My favorite paper for years was a Kodak paper. It is no longer with us. I am in the situation of finding a replacement. In my search, I am not looking for "out of the box perfection." I don't think such a paper exists. Or if it does, I am not going to get my exposure and development perfect every time. I expect that with any paper choice, I will have to use local tone controls on some negatives. But, I want to get close out of the box.

I want to find a paper that matches the film I have already shot and that matches my vision for the print. If there are two papers, one gives me good highlights most of the time, one does not, I going to use the first one.

My over all point in all this is that there are few, if any, bad papers out there. But, from the wide choice of papers available, some are going to match up with my negatives better than others. I would rather start with a paper that give me a consitently good starting print, than to start with one that consistently gives me a poor starting print. I will employ whatever means I have to to make the fine print. But starting with a paper that matches my other materials, gets me closer to the final print "out of the box."

This weekend I took a negative I just developed of a side of white barn which has a shadow making a design on it. It shows good highlight and shadow detail. I took two papers, Begger and Forte, Warmtone VC papers. I mixed up some Ilford ID-78 warmtone developer 1:3. I had no problem making good prints with nice tone separtion with detail. I tried increasing the contast on both by a grade and a quarter, and found out that the response was outstanding. Much better than what I have been able to get with Ilford and Kentmere. The shadows didn't muddy up and the highlights never grayed on me with trying to keep the same tone on the hightlights. I still have Oriental Seagul graded paper and Forte VC coldtone paper to try yet, and maybe some of the J and C papers, but at least I can get good separation now when I want more or less contast, and not trying to fight dull whites and muddy shadows. I will keep you informed on the future papers.

Regards
Michael Andersen

PS: I will try to scan the print and post. problem is it is 16x20, I will try a stetching process to get it on APUG.