My first foray into fiber papers.

[Xia_Ke]

Finally got a chance to do a some printing today to try out the sample of fiber papers I got in last week and did a quick comparison test. It was quite a difference using FB compared to RC. Here's my quick comparison for what it's worth. Just keep in mind I've only been printing a month and this was my first time with fiber.

Lens Aperture: f/16
Developer: Ilford Multigrade 1+14
Developer Temp: 70F
Developing Time: 3:00 (1:30 for Ilfospeed)
Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+9
Fix Time: 2:00
Wash Time: 30:00
Drying: Squeegeed backside and hung back to back for 1 hour when pretty dry, then pressed under a ton of books.

Ilford Ilfospeed Grade 2 Glossy

Overall Exposure: 0:15
Left/Top/Right Burn: +0:10
Bottom Burn: +0:20
Center Burn: +0:15

Fotokemika Emak Grade 2 Glossy

Overall: 0:30
Left/Top/Right Burn: +0:30
Bottom Burn: +0:40
Center Burn: +0:20

Slavich Unibrom Grade 2 Glossy Double Weight

Overall: 0:25
Left/Top/Right Burn: +0:25
Bottom Burn: +0:40
Center Burn: +0:20

Slavich Bromportrait Grade 2 Glossy Embossed Surface Double Weight

Overall: 0:35
Left/Top/Right Burn: +0:30
Bottom Burn: +0:50
Center Burn: +0:30

(Please excuse the funky borders. I have a crappy easel and it's hard to get it perfectly lined up and my scanner also clipped some borders weird for some reason Anyway, it's too late to mess with correcting them. I also added a scan of an Ilfospeed just as that's what I used to get the basic times and it's what I'm used to printing on.)

The Slavichs are supposed to be red safelight only. However I forgot to change over to a red safelight to avoid any possible problems but, didn't notice any issues with the OC safelight which is only about 3 feet from the easel though facing away a bit. I was expecting the Bromportrait to print more on par with the Unibrom. It actually turned out to be softer and slower than the Emaks. For overall image feel, I like the Bromportrait the best hands down for this comparison but, I just can't seem to get past the embossed surface I didn't know what to expect but, thought I would try it out. I will never, EVER, buy an embossed paper again, just not my cup of tea. When it came to drying, you guys all mentioned about fiber curl and really I had no idea what to expect. The Emaks actually dried fairly flat, at least in comparison to both Slavich papers. Good god, thatsa lotta curl I'll keep them pressed for another day or so and see if that helps. Would drying on screens help at all? Anyway, all 3 turned out to be excellent papers though unfortunately I think beyond by printing capabilities to really bring out what they're capable of. Based on my one session today, the Emaks was my overall favorite, followed by the Unibrom, and then the Bromportrait. I'm putting the Bromportrait last based SOLELY on the embossed surfaced. If not for that, it would have been easily first. Well, that's my simple comparison. Take it for what it's worth from a virtual newbie at printing.

[photophorous]

Looking good, Aaron. I don't know anything about the different papers. I just used Ilford and I liked it a lot. Curl sucks. If one paper curls less than the others, I would definitely consider choosing that one to work with. I have prints I made a couple of years ago that still won't stay perfectly flat. If they were good prints, I'd have to figure out what to do about it.

Paul

[mtbbrian]

What a difference a different paper makes!
I have never heard of those other papers.
Are they Russian? Where did you get them?
Looking good!

Brian

[Xia_Ke]

Originally Posted by photophorous

Looking good, Aaron. I don't know anything about the different papers. I just used Ilford and I liked it a lot. Curl sucks. If one paper curls less than the others, I would definitely consider choosing that one to work with. I have prints I made a couple of years ago that still won't stay perfectly flat. If they were good prints, I'd have to figure out what to do about it.

Paul

Thanks Paul While the Slavichs had a lot more curl straight out of the box, and way more upon hang drying, I've had all 3 under about 100lbs each of books since last night and now they are all pretty even curl wise. The biggest issue right now is they have some rippling in the middle of the top 1/3 or so. I hung them back to back with 2 clips on the top, one on either side. MAybe that caused the rippling??? I really need to get some screens. While clips were not an issue with the RC, it is leaving definite marks on the FB paper. Once I get to the point where I can make a decent print, I plan to get a drymount press and I will start drymounting keepers. Also thinking about get a print drier in the hopes of getting a better gloss with the ferrotype of the drier.

[Xia_Ke]

Originally Posted by mtbbrian

What a difference a different paper makes!
I have never heard of those other papers.
Are they Russian? Where did you get them?
Looking good!

Brian

Thanks Brian The Slavichs are Russian and the Fotokemika is Croatian. I do all my ordering from Freestyle. I couldn't find a link to the Slavichs but, posted the link for Fotokemika. Chatting with some people elsewhere, there many who swear by these papers, preferring them over Oriental and Ilford. Being half the price is just the icing on the cake. The Slavichs will run $58.99 per 100 sheet box in 8x10 double weight and the Emaks runs $57.49. Compare that to $97.99 for Oriental and $134.99 for Ilford Galerie! I haven't tried those 2 yet but, they would have to be some pretty insane paper to justify that much of a difference in price.

[photophorous]

Originally Posted by Xia_Ke

Thanks Paul While the Slavichs had a lot more curl straight out of the box, and way more upon hang drying, I've had all 3 under about 100lbs each of books since last night and now they are all pretty even curl wise. The biggest issue right now is they have some rippling in the middle of the top 1/3 or so. I hung them back to back with 2 clips on the top, one on either side. MAybe that caused the rippling??? I really need to get some screens. While clips were not an issue with the RC, it is leaving definite marks on the FB paper. Once I get to the point where I can make a decent print, I plan to get a drymount press and I will start drymounting keepers. Also thinking about get a print drier in the hopes of getting a better gloss with the ferrotype of the drier.

The old prints of mine that still aren't flat were actually very flat at one point. I used a press and they looked good for a while and then over a few days or weeks, they got kind of wavy again. I guess dry mounting would fix that.

Is dry mounting an archival process? I was always told not to permanently attach the print to anything because it hurts the value from a collector stand point...which obviously doesn't matter for prints I was making, but I wanted to do it right from the start. I'm not sure that really is correct though, because I don't see any other way to make them stay flat.

I always dried mine laying flat on a screen, so I'm not sure how hanging them would effect it. They always seemed to curl up on the front side, so laying them face down helps minimize that. Not a big difference though.

The darkroom had a print dryer, which also had old window screens in it. I really only used it for RC, because I could run it for 10 minutes at the end of the printing session and take all my prints home that night. With fiber it was never fast enough for that, so I let them dry over night.

That's cool about those paper brands being cheaper. Wish I had known about them when I was printing.

Paul

[Xia_Ke]

Hi Paul, no, drymounting is not archival because it is permanent. There's actually a pretty long discussion going on at APUG right now, "How do you mount your prints?". Seems like it would be the most maintenance free though doing prints for family and friends. I suppose when I blow up and am being featured at MOMA than I'll have to do something different though...LOL

[photophorous]

Thanks for the link...good info there. It sounds like a lot of people just dry mount them, but I wonder how the galleries handle a stubborn fiber print when dry mounting isn't an option. I didn't get to read too far, so I'll have to finish it later.

Paul

[jgredline]

wow, so much to learn. I am really surprised to see that much difference in paper.

[Xia_Ke]

It's definitely turning into a case of "the more you learn, the less you know". I'm sure part of the difference has got to be with my printing but, I tried to get them as close as possible for comparison sake. Next is to try them all with a different developer. Then to play with some selenium toning with each of the paper/developer combos. Then...

[drg]

Originally Posted by Xia_Ke

It's definitely turning into a case of "the more you learn, the less you know". I'm sure part of the difference has got to be with my printing but, I tried to get them as close as possible for comparison sake. Next is to try them all with a different developer. Then to play with some selenium toning with each of the paper/developer combos. Then...

Then you get to see if you can do it consistently!

These all look pretty good in contrast and definition (at this size anyway) but this is one of those places that seeing the real thing obviously would beat the 'net images by a long shot. From the scans I'm seeing I like the Slavich Unibrom the best.

The key to what most people think of as archival is to be sure that the materials used are all themselves archival in nature. Acid free, degrade to a clean result (not get sticky or change color) and help to protect the print from such things as UV light.

There are also 'archival' treatments where the product is either stored away from light and also to limit the oxygenation issues that eventually cause damage. This gets costly and I am not going to be here in 300-500 years so I don't care!

Protecting your negatives is the first best thing to accomplish!

[Xia_Ke]

The problem is, I try to follow archival guide lines in my developing and storage of my film and now prints but, how do you really knows if it's enough. I won't know until 10, 20, 30, etx years down the road

[jgredline]

Xia, the way I see it, is that your trials and tribulations are the forum members gain... (trying to be politically correct, but who am I kidding)..

[Xia_Ke]

Well, it was a worthy effort Javier...LOL

I dunno, I'm sure that at least half the time I'm just making myself look like an ass. Basically though, I'm trying to teach myself without any benefit of hands on training. All my learning is done via books, internet, and trial 'n error. I by no means even know all the proper terminology for everything. I figure though that if this is how I am learning than there has to be others and that is how I approach these threads. Most of my threads come from me searching for answers about something and then I just try and explain how it makes sense in my head. Take these papers for example, I asked around and got lots of descriptions from people about why they liked such and such paper and what's so great about it. Well, to someone who has never used fiber paper before and only seen limited examples of it behind glass in a gallery or museum, it's all gibberish. I have gotten PM's on a few places thanking me so, I guess it's worth it in the end

Okay, it was sushi and sake night here so, I'm going to stop rambling now...LOL

[reverberation]

I think they look great Aaron. When I was at sea level I would usually keep the prints pressed for at least a week. I also had wooden hangers that clamped together (for hanging pants I think) and I would use two of these on a print when I first hung it with a strip of old towel. Those prints are fantastic for the amount of time you have been printing.

[Xia_Ke]

Thanks reverberation I just used binder clips to hand them from hangers. Right now I have them under the Time Life and Kodak Encyclopedias of photography, plus another box of books on top of that. Seems to be working well so far. I'm going to start keeping an eye out for a press though.

[Photo-John]

It smells like.

Well. It smells like fixer.

Graded fiber paper is a beautiful thing. It's like switching from a point-and-shoot digital to a DSLR. Or going from 35mm to medium format. The quality is immediately noticeable and undeniable. I used to love Oriental paper and when they stopped production, Kodak Elite. Variable contrast poly paper totally sucks once you've printed with good fiber paper.

Aaron, when I was in school we dried our prints on racks made from window screens. Do you have a squeegee? That makes a big difference, too. And yeah - a press is key. But don't dry-mount your prints. That's not kosher. The only way to mount is with archival tape. Anything less is for rubes

Thinking about big fat boxes of fresh silver bromide paper is making me miss the darkroom. Nothing like watching a 20x24 print come up in the developer. That's magic.

[Xia_Ke]

Come on John, you gotta love that smell wafting up while stand over trays of fixer and stop bath...LOL

It is definitely a big difference going from digital prints, to RC, and now to fiber. All are photographs but, all have a completely different feel to them.

I did squeegee prior to drying. I squeegeed the backside of the prints on a mirror. I'm going to go to the hardwear store next weekend and get some nylon screen material for drying. Hanging with clips isn't going to work, unless they were to be mounted with that mat overlapping, and covering up, the clip marks.

I would love to try some 20x24 prints but, don't have the room. My enlarger won't go that large anyway. I could do a 16x20 with a 1/4" border and that's about the limit on mine. I don't even want to think about the price for an easel that size though, nevermind the paper prices

[reverberation]

Silk can also be used for drying prints, it takes much longer (3x) for the prints to dry, but you could do silk screened prints .

[Xia_Ke]

The Bromportrait is silk embossed. Is that close enough?...LOL