[Leica] Success!! (partial anyway)

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> OK, I made 3 prints:
> 
> - One on a RC Ilford Multigrade
> - One on a gloss Fiber Ilford Multigrade
> 
> - One from a scanned image (LS-8000, glass carrier 4000 DPI) printed
> on Baryta Gold Fiber
> 
> 8x10 is only 3x+ or so enlargement (each dimension) from the 6x7 so
> not a stretch at all. Anycase, observations:
> 
> RC print is definitely the weakest. A good inkjet print trumps it
> easily. It is the same grade paper and get the same amount of light as
> the FB but it just lacks the punch and contrast.
> 
> My wife thinks the traditional FB looks "cheap," mainly because of the
> gloss. but I think it's because she's used to seeing them in a
> gallery, behind glass.
> 
> The subjective quality of the Baryta print and the FB are different.
> The FB has much better shadow separation and purer highlight, but with
> the inkjet, I am almost certain that it can be tweaked. The Baryta
> print is very good. The grain is more apparent under a loupe and looks
> like scanned and inkjet grain, whereas the grain on the FB is very
> smooth. As it is, the FB looks better, but ultmiately inconclusive as
> I have not try to coerce better tweaks on the Baryta print yet.
> 
> While the computer file can be tweaked indefinitely, it's actually
> easier and faster to tweak a wet darkroom exposure and see the result
> in a few minutes rather than making another (costly) printout.
> 
> The FB paper of course needs to be pressed straight somehow...
> 


Ilford is the paper I used in the darkroom as well.
Its' interesting as the fiber base FB paper Multigrade and the RC resin
coated versions are the exact same emulsions but in these two different
paper configurations. This has never happened with other paper companies in
the past to do a thing like this. Use the same exact emulsion in both FB and
RC papers.
The actual image itself on these two prints the RC and the FB could be
matched to be the same as I is the exact same emulsion on both. You should
not expect to get the same exposure to make these same matching prints or
contrast even as there are variations from batch to batch in each box and
the age of the  paper has effect. But they can be matched exactly and the
exposure will be within 20 percent.  This could take a half an hour or an
hour in the darkroom to pull off and involve a half dozen sheets of paper.
Matching two prints from two differ paper boxes.
THEN you can make a comparison.

Behind glass it would be impossible to tell which print was which.
Its the surface which makes this evident and behind glass you can't see
that.

The plastic gloss service on an RC is reprehensible especially in comparison
to a traditional FB print. But far worse is the "Pearl" print RC service
which tries to emulate a glossy print dried down to semi glass through an
imprintation of a texture. A FB print has no texture.

The RC prints make good contact sheets and first time though "work prints".
After a month you'd print it again on real paper having lived with it and
shown the work print to friends.
You go into that second printing session knowing you'd want to do this or do
that.
Lighten it up and give more contrast. Whatever.
Subjectivity in the darkroom is the biggest thing you have to work against.
Making work prints is the best way to fight it.




Mark William Rabiner