Which b/w papers suck, and why?

[srs5694]

any papers in the modern day that are labeled "Made in England" typically scream "Re-badged ilford". I could be wrong of course.

Ilford used to supply re-packagers of their products, but they got out of that game a year or two ago. Thus, any "made in England" film or photo paper must be one of three things:

• Old Ilford stock from before they stopped this practice.
• New Ilford stock that was bought in large sizes or quantities and re-packaged by somebody else. I don't know of any confirmed cases of this happening.
• Kentmere product (for paper only; AFAIK, Kentmere doesn't make film).

 

[PeterB]

Ilford used to supply re-packagers of their products, but they got out of that game a year or two ago.

So who makes the Oriental New Seagull paper then?

Peter

 

[BBarlow690]

I did this, ad nauseum, a few years ago. 12 papers in 12 developers under fairly controlled conditions. 3 articles in View Camera plus one never published. About 200 hours of darkroom work.

You can download .pdfs all four of the journals of my insanity with this for free at Dead Link Removed. It includes my tests for drydown, the results of which surprised me.

Favorites? Forte Polygrade V (boo hoo - gone). Ilford Galerie. Fine Art Versaprint and good ol' Dektol. But the differences were surprisingly subtle. The surprise was Kodak Polycontrast IV, which was almost as good as Galerie, and RC to boot!

Then Azo in amidol blew them all away... But I don't have a spare $2,000 for an Azo enlarging head, so it's contact prints when I choose to do so.

 

[Rolleijoe]

From what I hear, the quality of the current Oriental FB paper VCFBII, made in China, varies and sometimes sucks. My complaint of this paper with my own experience is the coating that chips off quite easily.

The RC version seems a bit more stable.

I had this same problem when rying this paper about 7 years ago. Even with their RC paper, the emulsion seemed to peel away. during washing. Threw away what was left, and scratched them off my list.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Within the next six months I'm going to get into the printing game. I'm actually fishing around for advice on paper without outright saying so because it seems that paper is such a personal decision on so many photographers' parts. At this point I know what papers I'm going to try and what developer I'm going to use, and I'm going to print until I get what I want using my developer. I have an "always do your own tests" policy.

 

[brooklynkid]

Kentmere Paper

I have found Kentmere VC RC to be a really nice paper. Especially with the Arista andClayton ultra coldtone developers. Maybe a little better with the Arista developer. I have tried Ilford, Oriental, and Kodak. I like the Kentmere best with the Kodak a close second.

 

[rjas]

Just the other day I had 100 sheets of 11x14 arista.edu vc fb ultra arrive. It was soooo cheap I thought it would be worth a shot. I'm a little nervous now after reading some posts here but I'm sure that no matter what I'll find a use for it.

It is a fine paper. I use it becuase it is affordable and I can't find anything wrong with it. I think all modern b&w papers are of pretty high quality. remember, a great image will probably look good on almost any paper.

 

[jeroldharter]

Paper choice is really subjective. Most people are mentioning the papers they like, not the ones they hate. Hate might be strong, but I have never had the knack with Ilford papers, especially the warmtone paper. Nor do I like the Kentmere warmtone.

I have no experience with it, but I have heard some negative comments about Slavich, the Russian paper from Freestyle.

Now I use mostly Kentmere FP VC and I am using up my existing stock of Forte Polywarmtone. Used to like Kodak Polymax.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Paper choice is really subjective. Most people are mentioning the papers they like, not the ones they hate.

Absolutely. As you say, you may not 'have the knack' for Paper A, and I may not 'have the knack' for Paper B, but we both know that this doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

Even Slavich, widely regarded as the worst paper easily available today, is without doubt loved by some.

And what does 'sucks' mean in this (or any non-obscene) context anyway?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[aldevo]

Absolutely. As you say, you may not 'have the knack' for Paper A, and I may not 'have the knack' for Paper B, but we both know that this doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot.

Even Slavich, widely regarded as the worst paper easily available today, is without doubt loved by some.

And what does 'sucks' mean in this (or any non-obscene) context anyway?

Cheers,

Roger

Roger - I think you'll find that the reaction on this forum to the Slavich Unirbrom paper now available at Freestyle Photo has been almost universally positive.

In fact, I've been the lone dissenting voice so far, but the chorus of support for this product has been such that I'm willing to dismiss my previous experience as an anomaly and give it another try.

 

[aldevo]

I did this, ad nauseum, a few years ago. 12 papers in 12 developers under fairly controlled conditions. 3 articles in View Camera plus one never published. About 200 hours of darkroom work.

You can download .pdfs all four of the journals of my insanity with this for free at Dead Link Removed. It includes my tests for drydown, the results of which surprised me.

Favorites? Forte Polygrade V (boo hoo - gone). Ilford Galerie. Fine Art Versaprint and good ol' Dektol. But the differences were surprisingly subtle. The surprise was Kodak Polycontrast IV, which was almost as good as Galerie, and RC to boot!

Then Azo in amidol blew them all away... But I don't have a spare $2,000 for an Azo enlarging head, so it's contact prints when I choose to do so.

I really miss Kodak Polycontrast IV. I was never a Kodak RC fan until they introduced this paper - and, sadly, it proved to be very short-lived.