Wow...using FB paper is a different experience for sure!

rpavich · Oct 11, 2016

I'm a darkroom noob, I've only been processing my own film and printing for less than a year. Up until now, I've used RC paper, almost exclusively Ilford MGIV Pearl finish but I decided to try a bit of FB paper so I got some Ilford Matte 5x7 and printed my first image last night.
What a different experience that was!
First, the emulsion side isn't obvious (don't ask me how I know that) but the feel of it is so different and when it's dunked into the chems that was a shock also...it went limp!

I have to say, I really like the results though, it's definitely a different look.

mooseontheloose · Oct 11, 2016

I remember feeling the same thing when I first started printing with fibre.

greg zinselmeier · Oct 11, 2016

my best friend who started to teach me photography, insisted I start with Fiber, When I was up and running and doing my own stuff, I decided to try RC! WOW!!!! what a difference, although not for the better.

rpavich · Oct 11, 2016

One thing I noticed was that I had to handle it more gently than RC paper. I grabbed it with the tongs like I always do and made a nice scrape mark on the surface of the print.

MattKing · Oct 11, 2016

I started with FB paper, because when I started, that was all there was.

But I use RC paper almost exclusively now.

It is so much better than it was when it first came out.

It is really good to learn and know both options, because they both have strengths.

A good print on RC is still better than a mediocre print on FB.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 11, 2016

Once you go fibre, there's no turning back!

Terry Breedlove · Oct 11, 2016

I bought some RC paper from Ilford and fiber just recently when starting in the Darkroom again. The new RC is much better than the stuff I was printing on in the 80's. Truly pretty damn good actually. However I mostly print with fiber especially the stuff I really want. The RC is mostly used for contact sheets.

Eric Rose · Oct 11, 2016

I love RC paper. It's the same emulsion as FB and a lot less hassle. For exhibitions I print FB only because the art snobs think it's better.

rpavich · Oct 11, 2016

I didn't intend to turn this into a "which one is best" thread, i just wanted to share my surprise at how different it was.

Eric Rose · Oct 11, 2016

Sorry. Way back in the stone age I started off with FB papers as that was all that was made. Great stuff.

dpurdy · Oct 11, 2016

I think you should try the FB glossy. It isn't glossy. Really for me a big difference between RC and FB is surface quality. RC glossy is bad IMO and you have to use the pearl which isn't nearly as nice as FB glossy. FB Matt surface, (and there was a recent thread that showed a difference of opinion), is terrible when dry IMO though it looks fine wet.

All that said... get a big camera and make platinum prints.

Dennis

paul_c5x4 · Oct 11, 2016

rpavich said:
I decided to try a bit of FB paper so I got some Ilford Matte 5x7 and printed my first image last night.
What a different experience that was!
First, the emulsion side isn't obvious (don't ask me how I know that) but the feel of it is so different and when it's dunked into the chems that was a shock also...it went limp!

Moisten your finger and dab it on the corner or edge of a sheet. the emulsion side will feel slightly sticky. When processing, it is worth wearing a vinyl or nitrile glove to pick up the print and transferring it between trays. As the gloves are cheap, I put a clean, dry one on before handling the next sheet.

If you like FB paper, wait until you try glossy - Totally different look to matte or pearl, and the blacks appear even darker.

mehguy · Oct 11, 2016

What is different with FB paper other than its archival properties?

mshchem · Oct 11, 2016

Definitely try a F surface glossy fiber base, then tone the print in Kodak Rapid Selenium toner, I don't like to wait so I tone 1 part concentrate diluted with 3 parts Kodak Hypo Clearing agent. . If you do the Ilford method you can fix the print for 1 minute in Fresh rapid fix and then go straight into the toner. I get dramatically richer prints. The toner mixed this strong will last forever and at 75 F it will only take a couple of minutes. This works great with rc as well.
Start with what looks like a light print, between the toner and Drydown on fiber the density of the print will increase quite a bit.
Best part of the week is making prints.
I was fortunate enough to lay my hands on an Ilford RC print dryer if you want to get hooked on rc, this thing will do it 10 seconds to dry an 11 X14 and it melts the gelatine onto the surface of the paper for excellent gloss
Best Regards Mike

mshchem · Oct 11, 2016

rpavich said:
I'm a darkroom noob, I've only been processing my own film and printing for less than a year. Up until now, I've used RC paper, almost exclusively Ilford MGIV Pearl finish but I decided to try a bit of FB paper so I got some Ilford Matte 5x7 and printed my first image last night.
What a different experience that was!
First, the emulsion side isn't obvious (don't ask me how I know that) but the feel of it is so different and when it's dunked into the chems that was a shock also...it went limp!

I have to say, I really like the results though, it's definitely a different look.

Glossy paper emulsion side is obvious in safelight . Also emulsion side is concave side. After you handle it for a while it becomes old hat. Of course you can also smell it , lick it (it's the sticky side) scratch the back side gently with a finger nail the uncoated side is got more "tooth"
I love it. Maybe some day the EPA will let someone make the good old stuff that contained all sorts of dabs of heavy metals etc. If it's OK to put mercury in light bulbs I don't think a little cadmium is gonna. ........,well on second thought.

Eric Rose · Oct 11, 2016

It's been proven over and over that there is no difference in archival qualities between modern RC paper and FB if proper procedures are followed.

Arklatexian · Oct 11, 2016

Eric Rose said:
It's been proven over and over that there is no difference in archival qualities between modern RC paper and FB if proper procedures are followed.

How can it have been proven (either one) to be archival when we won't know if it is truly archival for 200 or 300 years? I am far more certain of the lasting quality of FB paper because I own and have handled pictures that were printed properly a hundred years ago and look as if printed yesterday. Now if any of my family are still around over another hundred years from now, and take a look at the same photograph, I will admit that picture stands a good chance of being archival. The old-timers that taught me photography also taught me to try to make all my photographs "archival" which meant, in those days, leaving the prints in the developer until finished developing, rinsing in stop bath. fixing in "hypo" for a full ten minutes and washing for 30 minutes to one hour. (you and I both know I am not talking about "newspaper photographs") It works folks!......Regards!

MattKing · Oct 12, 2016

On the "archival" question, there are definite advantages to the very robust substrate materials that have been used for decades in RC papers. The emulsions are essentially the same.

Under certain conditions, RC papers are more resistant to damage. A lot more is known about how photographs - both RC and FB - may degrade over time and under what conditions than was known when RC papers first became common.

There is now more than four decades of experience with RC papers. Other than the very first types, most have shown excellent keeping properties when (as in FB papers) they are used and presented properly.

baachitraka · Oct 12, 2016

I wish RC have same surface as FB, but then a nice RC print when framed and matted may not show a much of a difference to FB's print framed and matted.

I have only used MCP 310 in the past but its base is pure white and wonder are there any RC paper which is half white?

rpavich · Oct 12, 2016

paul_c5x4 said:
Moisten your finger and dab it on the corner or edge of a sheet. the emulsion side will feel slightly sticky. When processing, it is worth wearing a vinyl or nitrile glove to pick up the print and transferring it between trays. As the gloves are cheap, I put a clean, dry one on before handling the next sheet.

If you like FB paper, wait until you try glossy - Totally different look to matte or pearl, and the blacks appear even darker.

Thanks for the tip and yes, I'll try glossy.

Helinophoto · Oct 12, 2016

Tried a lot of FB when I started printing again in 2009.
My experience: Unless you glue the thing to a card-board, you will never ever ever ever in a million years get it FLAT, ever!
(I tried; Drying under books for weeks, in a blotting-paper book with books on top,for weeks, ironing, press-ironing (similar to the paper-press thingy), spray glue and finally glue-fabric).
Even when hot-pressed and glued down, the edges still shows some rippling.

I gave up and went to RC, seriously, what the hell do you do with FB to get it flat?

I don't know anyone who actually prefer a curly/curly-edged/buckled/twisting/no-straight print, to a flat and straight one.

rpavich · Oct 12, 2016

Thanks everyone!

This has been an informative and fun thread. I have a lot to think about and try now.
My nephew (12 years old) is coming to visit next week and he's very excited to get into the darkroom after having me send him photos and videos of what happens in there.

baachitraka · Oct 12, 2016

I get it flat when kept under books for few days. Adox MCC 110 is my paper. But I don't dry it completely before putting them under the books.

mnemosyne · Oct 12, 2016

baachitraka said:
I have only used MCP 310 in the past but its base is pure white and wonder are there any RC paper which is half white?

IDK if this is what you are looking for, but the Foma Fomatone MG RC papers (warmtone) have a off-white base.

Svenedin · Oct 12, 2016

I used both FB and RC in the early 1990's. I could never get FB flat and all the washing was very tedious. I could not see what was so good about FB paper.

Now I have started darkroom printing again I have no intention of using FB. I am far more interested in taking the photos and printing them than wasting time playing with FB paper. Having a water meter and paying for every drop, as well as having limited time tends to focus the mind. I don't get the FB snob factor. RC gives me results I like, easily and without fuss, and my personal favourite Fotospeed RCVC tones very well too (sepia, selenium etc, it is a chlorobromide emulsion).

Each to their own of course. People use whichever paper they see fit.

Wow...using FB paper is a different experience for sure!

rpavich

mooseontheloose

greg zinselmeier

rpavich

MattKing

Moderator

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Terry Breedlove

Eric Rose

rpavich

Eric Rose

dpurdy

paul_c5x4

mehguy

mshchem

mshchem

Eric Rose

Arklatexian

MattKing

Moderator

baachitraka

rpavich

Helinophoto

rpavich

baachitraka

mnemosyne

Svenedin

Wow...using FB paper is a different experience for sure!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency