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

I've printed fibre matt before, up to 8x10 and have been really happy with the results.

Yesterday I printed 12x16s for the first time. While the prints are pretty good, I have now noticed how rough I am with the paper. I have little impressions everywhere from where I have pushed the print under the chems! Now at least I know that I need to be far more careful. The tongs will be staying in the drawer...

darkroommike said:

You know those old papers had a lot of heavy metals in the emulsions, don't you? Things like cadmium, etc.

Click to expand...

But none of the current emulsions do, right? I'm not that old!

hoffy said:

I've printed fibre matt before, up to 8x10 and have been really happy with the results.

Yesterday I printed 12x16s for the first time. While the prints are pretty good, I have now noticed how rough I am with the paper. I have little impressions everywhere from where I have pushed the print under the chems! Now at least I know that I need to be far more careful. The tongs will be staying in the drawer...

Click to expand...

I learned about this from doing lith, which is extremely unforgiving to sloppy processing, in a way that regular darkroom work isn't. One of the first things we learn is not use tongs or to push or touch any part of the emulsion - because those marks will come to haunt you later. So it's nitrile gloves for me, and I only touch the edges during the entire process (I always print with a fairly large border, so that helps). As a result, I mostly follow the same procedures when doing regular black and white fibre printing.

mooseontheloose said:

But none of the current emulsions do, right? I'm not that old!

Click to expand...

Environmental regulations have pretty much done in those old papers, but some of the old time favorites had it. I suspect that early Kodak warm tone papers, the old Agfa Portriga, etc. would be suspect and perhaps some of the slightly more recent warm tone Eastern European papers but PE would be the guy to ask. It's just not a good idea to touch your tongue to anything in the darkroom.

A big big plus with FB is its keeping power. I have 20+ year old Galerie paper that prints just about as new, with virtually no fog. Also some Guilbrom I bought in 1990, five boxes of it! I have two boxes left, and it prints beautifully and tones to a lovely deep purple-red in selenium. I'm trying to preserve this latter paper as long as I can, so I nowadays make only 4x5's with it, as small gift prints for friends on their birthdays or anniversaries and as one-off Christmas images.

Given its hefty price tag, I use FB more sparingly than RC and generally I keep it for my best prints. So I use a lot less. And save money.

In the '60s and '70s working with FB meant an endless time in after darkroom work, but not so now. Use concentrated fixer and hypo remover (I mix my own, quick and easy) reduces FB washing times and saves water.

RC is ideal for work prints or giveaways. On the alas! infrequent occasions I sell a print, it will usually be RC as well. Printed in pearl, which everyone seems to love.

As other posters have reiterated in this thread, there are some truly wonderful printing papers out there today, in FB or RC.

darkroommike said:

Environmental regulations have pretty much done in those old papers, but some of the old time favorites had it. I suspect that early Kodak warm tone papers, the old Agfa Portriga, etc. would be suspect and perhaps some of the slightly more recent warm tone Eastern European papers but PE would be the guy to ask. It's just not a good idea to touch your tongue to anything in the darkroom.

Click to expand...

I never said that I did, nor would I recommend it to anyone.

I like the cooltone RC papers from Ilford, and the FB papers are muddy blacks to me. I did a series of prints that was the same negative on RC cooltone, regular RC Multigrade IV and FB Mutigrade IV. Everyone I showed the prints to preferred the cooltone, the FB looked muddy and lifeless in comparison.

I find RC papers are so much easier to work with, they stay flat and are easily processed. I find it very difficult to make large FB prints without damage. Not to mention the rate at which they soak up chemicals and then the fight to get all those chemicals out again.

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.

Click to expand...

once you go FB, it's hard to go back to RC.many use FB for their serious or personal stuff and restrict RC to the 'doesn't-matter-much' stuff.

RalphLambrecht said:

once you go FB, it's hard to go back to RC.many use FB for their serious or personal stuff and restrict RC to the 'doesn't-matter-much' stuff.

Click to expand...

True. But I've never understood that reasoning,

it's very subjective.

MattKing said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think we ought to list the strengths and weaknesses of today's FB and RC paper. In the "old days" FB had substantially greater life spans and toned more readily. Is this still true today? Or are the RC papers just as good? I can't image toning works all that well with RC but perhaps the technology has improved. RC papers, of course, are better for washing and they come out FLAT!

I went to an Ansel Adams exhibit a few years ago and I was a bit shocked to see that some of the prints had evidence of poor washing. I assume these were FB papers.

Ther are only a couple of RC papers that tone reasonably well, that is the Fotospeed RCVC papers and Kentmere, most others including Ilford's MG4, they seem to tone in a wishy washy sort of way, even the Kentmere/fotospeed papers, although reasonable, are not as good as even the worst FB papers, I have and do still use both, but prefer toprint on FB papers, using Ilford, Art 300/classic and Adox MCC papers, depending on the subject, as for drying flat, yes RC paper is flat, but I hang my FB papers with a paper clip on a line and they dry fairly flat, just a day or so with the prints face to face between 2 sheets of mount board with a few boxes of paper on top and two days later flat as a pancake

R.Gould said:

but I hang my FB papers with a paper clip on a line and they dry fairly flat, just a day or so with the prints face to face between 2 sheets of mount board with a few boxes of paper on top and two days later flat as a pancake

Click to expand...

Richard, under the kind of humidity conditions that are probably fairly uniform from the Channel Islands to say the Midlands of England do you find that once flat, they remain flat lying in a box or is there a tendency for them to curl again?

Thanks

pentaxuser

It depends on the paper, Ilford MG Classic tends to get a slight curl, AdoxMCC and Ilford MG 300 tend to stay flat, the curl is very slight, not really a problem, but I have never yet workedout why Classic curls slightly and the others not, mabe with the Art 300 it could be because the base is cotton rag, but why Adox doesn't is a mystery, but it is not a problem
Richard

Eric Rose said:

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.

Click to expand...

Art snobs? You are not an art snob simply because you prefer the look of fiber based paper.

Inspired by this thread I printed the same image I have worked up on MGIV RC Glossy onto MG WT Fibre Glossy, also like the OP a first use of fibre paper for me.

Certainly can echo many of the comments, floated when put into each tray more than RC but also very floppy once it had soaked in in the developer. Hung up on pegs and went to bed but Oh my God the next morning I have 5 pan flat RC prints and an FB print that has curled up like a toe nail cutting (and about as stiff feeling as well).

I almost wish I hadn't tried this in some ways because after eyeballing the two prints side by side, exact same image, I much prefer the print onto the MG WT FB. Its not what I expected either, the difference in paper tone is very obvious between these two papers but its the tones of the print that has got me. I must have lucked in with the exposure set up because I got the highlight and shadows tones pretty much identical looking but its the depth in the mid-tones that has got me hooked. Its a very marked difference which just makes one print look much deeper than the other, like the RC print is 'thin', sorry I can't think of a better way to describe it. Even my wife who has no interest in any of this said the same thing and prefers the fibre print. I do wonder however how much of this is the warmtone paper and if I can get as much depth out of the MG WT RC Pearl paper which I luckily also have a box of to try.

I can certainly understand however that if one has negatives that have a lot of dark tones in them already or if one prefers a lighter high key looking image you may well prefer a brighter/thinner looking print onto one of the neutral or cold toned RC papers.

One question however. I used my exposure recipe for the RC print and just compensated everything for the FB print using the ISO(P) numbers on the Ilford datasheet. This meant opening the lens one stop and cutting 1/3 stop of the times, but of course I read the line for WT RC and not WT FB which is a whole stop slower, but it came it perfectly as I had intended which is confusing. Perhaps this type of print formula translation form one paper to another is just not a reliable method. I am hoping that going from WT RC to WT FB is much closer because that RC paper whilst relatively expensive is still a big money and time saver over WT FB for work prints and freebie copies.