Which b/w papers suck, and why?

[stormbytes]

Okay so before I get flamed....

I decided to start this thread simply to see how many people were experimenting with modern papers and what their thoughts were. Often we go out and buy a paper based on some gloriously qualitative account. More often then not, hopes dash and the paper isn't "all that & a bag of chips".

Yes yes I know.. You can get "great results" with practically any paper today. Just match your film/processing to a range of tones that your chosen paper can support! right?

Ahhh... If only life were truly that simple.

I spent the last 12 hours or so locked up in my darkroom. I decided to try some new papers out to see what I'd get. Here's part of the scoop (sorry I'm too tired to give a full account at present, but i'll cut in if folks find interest in the thread):


- Arista.edu FB VC:

Okay, this is basically a glorified RC paper. Noooo I'm not saying it's *actually* RC, but damn well looks like it! For starters, this is a high-contrast paper. I did some tests with TX-400 in Rodinal & the only model that was willing to cooperate with me (my 10-months-today old son Shuli). All shots were taken in diffuse daylight. Development was done in good ol' fashioned Dektol 1:1 @ room temp. (70-deg F).

More often then not i had to crank down the contrast on the enlarger - this paper really REALLY likes toes. My flavor had a glossy finish. Cheesy/cheap plastic looking "high gloss". very (and I mean VERY) poor shadow seps, high values were "acceptable" (no Portriga Rapid mind you). The whites are DEATHLY PALE - omg, don't do any darkroom work before going to bed, you'll have nightmares about the grim reaper coming to get you!

In short - this is the artist-wanna-b's ilford MG RC

** But: for the budget-minded photographer... eh, if the shoe fits


- Fotokemika Varyacon VC FB (I know I probably have 3-4 spelling mistakes in that, but forgive me, my Czech is kind of rusty - or was that Serbian?)

Same film/frames as above, same chems.

Okay the gloss on this paper is nice. Practically identical to the finish on Agfa MCC. The whites are punchy and the paper works hard to tame your tonal range. "Look & Feel" = better then Arista.edu, and certainly an acceptable FB paper, but nothing I'd do cartwheels over.

I'm going to be toning both these papers at some later point and if there's interest, I can post results.

Personally I love to see reviews that contain concrete facts and examples, hence the chosen format for my very own little critique

Sorry if I'm all doom & gloom. I haven't seen the light of day in 12 hours now!

I'll continue with iLford MG FB and what little Agfa MCC I have left.

Should I post results or learn to keep quiet?

 

[Bob Carnie]

At least you are experimenting and I like that.

I compared about 10 different papers about a year ago including rembrant.
I have to say Ilford WT and Agfa multicontrast fared better to my eyes than forte, bergerr , kentmere and others.
My workflow is totally tuned into Ilford papers now and with post toning I am happy with the results.
I am also using the Harmon Paper which is a lot like gallerie paper and works well for me.
Kentmere though quite nice , when toned gave me inconsistant results. I want to work with this paper more and will try to make it work in my darkroom.

No magic bullets, even some folks would say Azo is the best , I would only use this paper for proofing as it was designed for and used for in the 60's and 70's. but hey different strokes for different folks. It seems some people here swear on it but compared to Ilford it doesn't come close.

I would say if you are trying lith printing some of the old papers work well but for my money you cannot get better paper than Ilford Warm Tone.

 

[wildbill]

- Arista.edu FB VC:

Okay, this is basically a glorified RC paper. Noooo I'm not saying it's *actually* RC, but damn well looks like it! For starters, this is a high-contrast paper. I did some tests with TX-400 in Rodinal & the only model that was willing to cooperate with me (my 10-months-today old son Shuli). All shots were taken in diffuse daylight. Development was done in good ol' fashioned Dektol 1:1 @ room temp. (70-deg F).

More often then not i had to crank down the contrast on the enlarger - this paper really REALLY likes toes. My flavor had a glossy finish. Cheesy/cheap plastic looking "high gloss". very (and I mean VERY) poor shadow seps, high values were "acceptable" (no Portriga Rapid mind you). The whites are DEATHLY PALE - omg, don't do any darkroom work before going to bed, you'll have nightmares about the grim reaper coming to get you!

In short - this is the artist-wanna-b's ilford MG RC

** But: for the budget-minded photographer... eh, if the shoe fits


Arista.edu FB VC is Forte Polygrade V
Did you buy .edu or .edu Ultra?
.edu is a great paper, it's just about all i use and no "high gloss" and shadow detail is just fine. Try it in printol 1:10. I've never had anyone tell me it looks like RC.

 

[Ole]

Most of the time, Varycon sucks. But when it's right, there's no better paper.

Bergger "Silver Supreme" is another one of those: With the wrong negative it's a waste of (lots of) money, but with the right negative there's no better paper.

Most negs give decent prints on Ilford MG IV. Also, most negs give GREAT prints on the right paper.

YMMV...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

while there is still some available, try Bergger VCCB fiber. The gloss is not pronounced, the warm tone is very easy to manipulate with developer/toner choice. All basically irrelevant now that I'm mostly doing pt/pd. The Arista.edu ultra is now I think Kentmere. Which would explain the extreme contrast. I found the Kentmere papers to be too contrasty for my taste.

 

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've used both the Arista EDU ( Forte Polygrade V) and the Arista EDU Ultra ( FOMA) and to my eye they both look fine. the gloss doesn't look plastic to me. Try it in Ansco 130 or Donald Millers PPPD Devloper and see what you think.

Jim

 

[stormbytes]

Arista.edu FB VC is Forte Polygrade V
Did you buy .edu or .edu Ultra?
.edu is a great paper, it's just about all i use and no "high gloss" and shadow detail is just fine. Try it in printol 1:10. I've never had anyone tell me it looks like RC.

Mine is Arista.edu - not Ultra, which brings me to ask, what's the difference?

I did find it to be sort of "high gloss", kind of plastic-like. I much rather the look of Agfa glossy finish. Looks more... "organic" ? (for the lack of better words).

Whats the deal with Printol? Which gets me thinking... I've got a bag of Selectol Soft. I've been on Dektol for so many years now I forgot that I might want to try a lower contrast developer! I'll probably also end up experimenting with matt finish Arista.edu, if only for kicks.

Another point that comes to mind is that my batch of Arista.edu had somekind of sandy residue on it. Weird... at first it got me thinking that I should dust my equipment more often! hah! But after a couple of sheets I realized it was the paper. Doesn't appear to be a defect though, and nothing I wasn't able to speedily remedy with a few strokes of a camel hair brush.

As for shadow detail, that's probably got more to do with tailoring film/exposure/development to a given paper's tone rendering scale. I'm no closer to achieving that then I was 10 years ago! But at least I'm on the right track.

Maybe I should just settle on one paper, good or not, and test the hell out of it? Go figure...

Advice?

 

[jmcd]

I am getting nicer prints more to my liking, much easier, using graded papers instead of VC. I have had satisfying results with Ilford and Kentmere.

 

[stormbytes]

Most of the time, Varycon sucks. But when it's right, there's no better paper.

Bergger "Silver Supreme" is another one of those: With the wrong negative it's a waste of (lots of) money, but with the right negative there's no better paper.

Most negs give decent prints on Ilford MG IV. Also, most negs give GREAT prints on the right paper.

YMMV...

Spoken like a tried-and-true Master of the craft.

I have to admit, in the midst of my tests there was something about Arista.edu that definitely caught my eye. I couldn't put my finger on it (and in a large part, I still can't), but there's some appealing characteristic to it. As I mentioned in my post, the paper, at least with my chemistry, seemed to run for the toes. It loves rendering dark tones. So right there I'm thinking to myself, I won't get very high film speeds with this paper, and Rodinal, being a low-contrast developer, seems to be right up it's alley. I'm going to be re-examining my test prints with a fresh set of eyes at some point, hopefully in the not-to-distant future. I agree with you though, the paper does have potential; but the it's not very forgiving and negative's high's and low's would have to be *right on the money*.

Were it not for the cost-saving incentive, I would shelf this idea altogether. But be it as it may, cheap(er) is good.

I should add, Emaks (Fotokemika) is a major contender. Nice normal contrast paper, relatively inexpensive, and far more forgiving then Arista.edu

 

[stormbytes]

while there is still some available, try Bergger VCCB fiber.

Bergger = $$$$$ so that's kind of out

Kentmere papers to be too contrasty for my taste.

Kentmere Classic is, imho, very comme-ci comme-ca. It's a very LOUD paper (contrasty/dramatic), kind of like a low-budget thriller. The only Kentmere paper that caught my attention so far has been discontinued

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Kentmere produce some wonderful papers. I have a very soft enlarger head and find the Kentmere Fineprint FB (which may be the paper mentioned but certainly does not have a seriously glossy finish when air dried) works wonders. Fast as heck too! This paper produced images that really surprised me (in a pleasant way) for a few negs that were not looking right on my other papers.

The Kentmere Bromide is also reputedly very impressive. I have some Zone 6 graded paper and I recall people mentioning that this is likely Kentmere rather than Ilford and this stuff is beautiful.

As for papers that honk, I struggle with conventioanal Ilford MG FB to get great prints and dont like the finish particularly, but then with the right neg it looks great. In contrast to another poster, I find that Forte produces outstanding prints.

Its all about meshing; whether your neg suits the curve of the paper, as raised in another thread.

 

[Sean]

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.

 

[Curt]

Arista II the next generation, made in England, is not in the running?

 

[srs5694]

I have to admit, in the midst of my tests there was something about Arista.edu that definitely caught my eye.... I agree with you though, the paper does have potential

I hate to break it to you, but as a long-term solution, Freestyle Arista.EDU doesn't have potential, at least not if my understanding is correct. It's made by Forte, which has gone under, so the supply is limited. If you decide you really like the stuff, you should buy as much as you can afford (and think won't go bad before you can use it). That said, I don't know how long whatever amount is in the supply chain now is likely to last; it could be months before it starts to disappear from store shelves.

 

[Rolleijoe]

Since Agfa died, at the time I went with Ilford, cause Kodak and me just didn't get along. But now there are more choices, I've used Foma and printed the same neg (4x5 APX 400) on some of my last MCP 16x20, and the Foma.

The difference was that Foma tends to give more shadow detail, and as far as dialing in contrast with my D5 Super Dichroic, there wasn't much to change.

As soon as I tried Fotokemika Varycon fiber, that was the one. It's so close to traditional older Agfa papers from the 30s-50s, doesn't curl much, and works well with any film I throw at it, but pair it with Efke 25 or 100 in Rodinal, and you'll know the meaning of perfection.

I've been printing almost 30 years, and it's great to have 1 film/paper combination that I'll know ahead of time what it'll look like.

 

[dpurdy]

I am a warm tone guy and basically all the WT papers suck if you are old enough to remember better. It seems to me over the last few years all the papers have been changing and you can't count on what you are going to get. Ilford warm tone was a lot nice just a couple years ago as well as forte is completely different paper than it was not so long ago. Also the price of paper is ridiculous.

I decided to invest as much money as I could recently and put paper in a freezer to save long term cost. I boiled it down to 4 papers: Ilford MC WT, Forte Graded WT, Foma classic on a warm base and Oriental WT luster. I have come to the conclusion that Ilford sucks because it is so expensive, Forte sucks because the paper is super brightened and the color of the emultions is weird. Foma sucks because it is slow and if you use a warm tone developer it comes out the color of mustard with reddish mustard shadows. Leaving my choice to be Oriental WT FB. Which isn't very warm at all but it is just a good as Ilford and it has a nice glow about it. I also have tried the Oriental neutral toned fiber and it is nice paper as well. I guess now I am an Oriental guy.

Dennis

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I am a warm tone guy and basically all the WT papers suck if you are old enough to remember better. It seems to me over the last few years all the papers have been changing and you can't count on what you are going to get. Ilford warm tone was a lot nice just a couple years ago as well as forte is completely different paper than it was not so long ago. Also the price of paper is ridiculous.

I decided to invest as much money as I could recently and put paper in a freezer to save long term cost. I boiled it down to 4 papers: Ilford MC WT, Forte Graded WT, Foma classic on a warm base and Oriental WT luster. I have come to the conclusion that Ilford sucks because it is so expensive, Forte sucks because the paper is super brightened and the color of the emultions is weird. Foma sucks because it is slow and if you use a warm tone developer it comes out the color of mustard with reddish mustard shadows. Leaving my choice to be Oriental WT FB. Which isn't very warm at all but it is just a good as Ilford and it has a nice glow about it. I also have tried the Oriental neutral toned fiber and it is nice paper as well. I guess now I am an Oriental guy.

Dennis

I disagree with a lot of this. Forte Wt is not super brightened IMO and pretty warm....Oriental WT semi Matt is pretty darned warm....If I recall many of the legndary WT papers were very SLOW.

Tom

 

[panastasia]

I second what Tom said about Forte Papers, they don't have optical brighteners incorporated as far as I know. Great paper - the best for handtinting IMO.

 

[dpurdy]

that is weird. The forte graded wt I just printed on is way brighter paper base than the Ilford or the Oriental. And I have boxes of brand new forte and old forte WT and it completely different paper. The older is far contrastier and the base if far warmer. I also have old and new stock Ilford WT FB Glossy and the older stuff was quite nice. My favorite for a long time and it was much warmer till just recently. It is still nice but I prefered the older stuff. The legendary papers were slow but in doing a comparative between current papers I was down to deciding between Foma and Oriental WT papers and the foma is at least a stop slower and much less contrasty with my enlarger. Which isn't to say I like contrasty that much. When I printed both the papers side by side with my normal developer they were hardly warm at all though the Foma was a little warmer. At that point I was leaning torwards the Foma. Then I tried them side by side in a warm tone developer and the Oriental wt looked really good though still barely warm while the Foma got really ugly especially in the shadows.\

Now I understand that it is all subjective and there are variables in darkrooms and developers so it doesn't surprise me that someone doesn't agree with me.
Dennis

 

[stormbytes]

Arista II the next generation, made in England, is not in the running?

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

 

[stormbytes]

I hate to break it to you, but as a long-term solution, Freestyle Arista.EDU doesn't have potential, at least not if my understanding is correct. It's made by Forte, which has gone under, so the supply is limited.

Thank you so much for posting that. I had absolutely no idea! I originally fell in love with Agfa MCC, however seeing as it is now defunct, I decided to move on. I am certainly not going to even bother testing (much less standardizing) on a paper that's on its way out. For some odd reason I had the impression that this was some flavor of Foma. Go figure.

As for the "buying up" school of thought, had I been a man of means I would've gone for remaining stock of Agfa MCC. Arista.edu pales in comparison. And if Agfa MCC didn't make it past my financial obstacles despite its undisputed appeal, I hardly think Arista.edu makes for a contender altogether.


Thanks for saving me a lot of time & $$$$

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

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

Since Ilford has quit the rebranding game, I'd be leaning more towards Kentmere. It's harder to guess based on country of origin, because there seem to be more companies making paper than there are making film by some twist of fate.

 

[stormbytes]

As soon as I tried Fotokemika Varycon fiber, that was the one. It's so close to traditional older Agfa papers from the 30s-50s, doesn't curl much, and works well with any film I throw at it, but pair it with Efke 25 or 100 in Rodinal, and you'll know the meaning of perfection.

Most likely my first choice as well, and partly for the same reasons. I plan on testing film speeds & development for this paper. As I am not a fan of extensive shadow detail, I am optimistic that this paper will provide for the faster film speeds needed for convenient portraiture.

Always nice to recognize fellow minded people

 

[firecracker]

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.

 

[srs5694]

For some odd reason I had the impression that this was some flavor of Foma. Go figure.

It's understandable. Freestyle's house brand for most products (not just film and paper) is Arista; however, they use multiple suppliers. In the case of film and paper, they use sub-brands to differentiate them. From memory:

• Arista.EDU = Forte
• Arista.EDU Ultra = Foma
• Arista II = Agfa (film) or Kentmere (paper)
• Arista Pro = Ilford
• Arista Color = Ferrania (color film only)

I could be wrong on one or two of these, and there may be others I don't know about. I'm pretty sure about the first two, though. The Forte-, Ilford- and Agfa-sourced products are discontinued. They may still have some stock of a few (particularly the Forte), but I haven't gone hunting on their Web site. The bottom line: If you want to know who's making what you buy in rebadged products (particularly in Freestyle's Arista line), you've got to pay careful attention!