For reasons of economy in materials and resources, I would like to use a resin coated paper for the bulk of my printing, saving the dw fiber base for the occasional really great image that is worth it. I see that Adorama and Freestyle both have good prices on their own papers. Has anyone used these?

-- Bruce Appel (appelgate @aol.com), February 09, 2001

Answers

Last I checked RC was not all that much cheaper than FB paper so I don't understand your point about economy.

Also, although I can't really quantify it there is a difference in how RC and FB express the same image. RC just looks all shiny and fake to my eyes where the same image in FB reveals more subtilties.

Just my two cents.

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), February 09, 2001.

Economy of water and time primarily. Locally there is A HUGE difference in price as well. Mail order Rc is still cheaper than fb, though not as much. My water supply is a spring of low flow, and towards the end of summer water conservation is a real issue.

-- Bruce Appel (appelgate@aol.com), February 09, 2001.

Bruce, I am with you. I use RC for the bulk of my work, printing on Ilford MG IV RC Deluxe Satin. I usually tone it slightly with Kodak Polytoner. I live on a rather dry island and feel that I should not waste all the water on fiber. Also, I hold that 99 percent of photographers looking at my mounted photos would not be able to tell that they are RC.

However that may be, I do love fiber and do print my very special prints on them, I also found that my scanner loves the MG IV Matt Fiber.

It is my understanding that Freestyle stuff is mostly Ilford. I have used it and like it. I think it may not always be the most 'current' Ilford stuff. For example with RC it may still be MG III, but I honestly don't know. I do think you won't be disappointed if you send away for a pack.

Good luck!

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), February 10, 2001.

I haven't used them, but have always thought they were the older Ilford emulsions as well. The only difference I can see, would be whether or not they were developer incorporated. This might not be an issue with you, though. You could also check the prices on some of the other papers like, Luminous or Sterling. Sometimes these are a little cheaper. I live in a urban area and don't (yet...) have a water problem, but my approach to printing is very similar to both of you. Sometimes you have to look at the "big picture". Good luck.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 10, 2001.

Hi DK, I have never run into developer incorporated paper with Freestyle's Arista line.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), February 10, 2001.

I have used Ilford MG IV (pearl) for year. Recently I have been trying the Adorama MG. It IS different, but not bad. I find that the contrast is higher with the Adorama. For instance I can get the same contrast with a 1.5 to 2.5 filter on Adorama that I would need to go to 3 or 4 with the Ilford. In the end the pics look the same, but the Adorama is better with flat negs. Also, for some reason the Adorama tends to 'tire' the developer much sooner. I find too that the Adorama seems a little more sensitive to the light. For instance, if I make a test and find that I've underexposed the print by what I would judge to be a full stop, I need only increase the exposure about 20%, instead of the 60 to 80% that I would have to with the Ilford. All that said, the Ilford still gives a feeling of higher quality, but that is just a subjective personal comment. The papers are different, but they both have their place.

thanks,

chuck k

-- chuck k (kleesattel@msn.com), February 10, 2001.

Christian, if that's the case, then chances are that it isn't MG III Rapid...

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 12, 2001.

DK, I don't remember if MGIII was all 'rapid.' I thought I remembered that it was basically the whole line of regular Ilford RC paper.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), February 12, 2001.

Christian, geez, I guess my memory's totally shot here. I've thrown out all my Ilford catalogs, except for something from '93-'94. I was using this stuff about ten years ago, I can't remember if there was a regular, "Deluxe" version or what. So, you may be right. If those Arista papers behave a little differently (contrast wise) than MG IV, they probably are something else. It doesn't really matter that much really, the only difference would be if you were concerned with the stability issue of a dev. incorporated paper, or if you were using an older machine processor. It must be Monday morning...

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), February 12, 2001.