# Paper



## journeyman (Aug 6, 2006)

I wanted to know more about the differences in types of papers.  I know that resin coated paper has a resin coating (easy enough) and take less time to develop.  Fiber based paper takes longer to print and is more like regualar paper.  I used mostly resin coated but now have a nice load of fiber based and would like to here how to better work with it.

Thanks for the help.


----------



## JamesD (Aug 6, 2006)

For a given emulsion, the exposure, developing, and fixng times shouldn't change.  The wash time for RC papers is much, much shorter than for FB, although using Hypo Clearing agent can shorten this time considerably.  RC papers are less squirrley, since they don't absorb water like FB papers do.  In general, I think FB papers give a nicer look to the final image.  FB papers tend to cost more.  Both are available in both graded and VC emulsions.

Different manufacturers papers will have different exposure times, degrees of contrast, and suchlike, but they're all basically similar.


----------



## terri (Aug 6, 2006)

Sounds like you know the basics, and that's enough to get started.  

Lots of folks like keeping RC paper around for its reduced wash times. I love it for contact sheets. When I want to print something "important" I'll use FB. I just love the feel of it.

Don't know where you got the notion FB takes longer to print - paper speeds vary by emulsion, and both can have similar emulsions and exposure times. The main differences are in the wash times and how they might react to various toners - and RC typically dries a lot flatter. FB papers are considered more archival, as well. 

Both papers also have similar finishes - glossy, matte or pearl - so whatever surface you like, you can choose either one. 

You might be thinking of graded papers as opposed to variable contrast when it comes to print times. Some of them can be very fast, though all papers have a certain speed. Again, it's just a matter of experimenting with what you have, and what you see out there that you want to try. 

I don't have a huge variety in my darkroom. I love both Ilford warm tone and Ilford MGIV, have some cheap RC, some Kentmere Document and Art Classic, and a couple boxes of the now-discontinued Agfa MC 118 in my freezer, that I'm hoarding for hand coloring and bromoil prints only.  

I want to try more papers, too. The whole study of paper making is fascinating to me - it's an art, itself!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 6, 2006)

Unfortunately I don't wet print photos anymore Ie enlarger so all my paper is rc.  But from my days in the dark, I remember some gorgeous textured papers.  My all time favoite was a silk textured paper.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 7, 2006)

Fine-tuning a paper includes testing it to find out how much light is required to give a full black in the lightest areas of your negatives. Once you know this, and once you have your film exposure/development under sufficient control, you can get the full range of white-greys-black that the paper can provide.

A check of the 'net or a trip to your library will uncover more information. It's often tied to sites covering the Zone system.

Once you start down that road, and if you haven't already done so, do set up a record book for your enlargements and include your enlarger film-to-easel surface distance along with the negative ident, paper, filter, f stop, time, etc. The data will allow you to duplicate a print at a later date when people start pleading with you for copies. With a set of correction tables, you can make a print on the same paper but of a different size without having to run off a new test strip.

Feel free to contact me directly for a set of correction tables. They're in pdf format. Alternately, I can mail you a printed set.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 7, 2006)

JamesD said:
			
		

> For a given emulsion, the exposure, developing, and fixng times shouldn't change.



Exposure time maybe not, but my development and fix times for FB are usually about twice the times of RC.  For instance I develop Ilford MG RC for 1 min, and fix for 2 min, but with Ilford MG FB I need at least 2 min for development (at one min the image is just starting to appear), and usually fix for 4 or 5 min.

I'm not sure why there is a difference with the same emulsion and different paper base.  With RC the emulsion is sitting 100% on the surface, while with FB some soaks into the paper fibers?


----------



## terri (Aug 7, 2006)

Typically a thinner layer of emulsion is applied to RC papers - or, so I've read. That might account for shorter times required in the soup.


----------



## journeyman (Aug 7, 2006)

thanks for all your replies.  Where I got different development time is on the front of Dektol it state in a 1:2 dillution RC paper has a 1 minute development time and FB has a 2 minutes.


----------



## Philip Weir (Aug 7, 2006)

I've always thought it quite interesting. I grew up prior to RC paper being invented and when it came on the market, it was somewhat of a gimmick, but slowly and surely it took over. It was more expensive at the time of its inception, but now everything has reversed and Fibre-based is now the way to go for art type printing.  Just a thought from my past.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 7, 2006)

Hey I remember buying only fiber before rc. I always said and still do that rc looks plastic. But then I say that about another photo type to.

I wonder if they still make luminise paper.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 7, 2006)

But seriously I have a paper questions. I develop paper negs in a closed daylight tank, so how long is fully developed for rc. There has to be a point of deminished returns.

I know from experimenting you can only push the paper so far then nothing changes.  I just wonder what would be the optimum point for the paper itself.

I run hot developer both in temperature and in mix.  usually it would figure to be about one to six since I have a mix that isnt quite stock.  If you give me an optimum time for a standard developer I can figure mine from there.


----------



## Philip Weir (Aug 8, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> But seriously I have a paper questions. I develop paper negs in a closed daylight tank, so how long is fully developed for rc. There has to be a point of deminished returns.
> 
> I know from experimenting you can only push the paper so far then nothing changes.  I just wonder what would be the optimum point for the paper itself.
> 
> I run hot developer both in temperature and in mix.  usually it would figure to be about one to six since I have a mix that isnt quite stock.  If you give me an optimum time for a standard developer I can figure mine from there.



Two things can happen if you develop too long. [1] Safe light fog, cover up half your print when developing and after a few minute, you will find a faint grey fog appears. [2] Using dev too hot can also cause a fog.  I often used to use warm developer, concentrated to increase contrast and to soften a print would develop in normal developer and a dish of warm water and transfer the print from the dev to the water to get a softer result.  Photography is about experimenting as you "mysteryscribe" obviously know.  Philip.

www.philipweirphotography.com


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 8, 2006)

experiment now there is a novel idea lol...

I know i was hoping there was an optimum time for the paper.  I am doing a tank development so I don't see it till it is fixed.  I was hoping there was a time that I could just expose the paper to match to the developer.  I am using six minutes so Im going to just stay with that I think.


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 8, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> i was hoping there was an optimum time for the paper.



Obviously the paper manufacturer has some recommendations, but like most things there are a lot of variables that influence what the optimum time might be from photographer to photographer.  What is required for a good print may not be the same as what is required for a good paper neg.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Aug 8, 2006)

good point... I'll just keep putzing along I guess...


----------

