Disappointed w/ Forte Elegance paper

Recently I began printing with Forte Polygrade V Fiber Base Variable

Contrast paper. I am printing a project that I thought would work well on a

white semi matte paper. The Forte was recommended to me so I gave it a shot

and the results are a bit disappointing.

 

First let me say that I have been printing on Ilford MG IV FB Glossy and have

never had anything but excellent results.

 

The prints that I am making on the Forte seem to have harsh shadows and

lack midtone separation of the Ilford paper. The paper is of course slower and

the longer printing times are annoying but tolerable. I first noticed the problem

with midtone areas. They just do not have the smoothness and detail

presence of the Ilford paper. Skies, grass, and textured wall surfaces all lack

the depth, detail, and smoothness I can obtain on MG VI. I really must be

doing something wrong.

 

I print with a VC cold light, process in Ansco 130 and must say that the Forte

produces a lovely neutral tone.

 

Before I shelving the Forte product, I was wondering if anyone else has used

this paper and can provide me with some valuable insight into working

successfully with it.

 

Thanks

Mike

Michael- I've used this paper for a while, and , like you, I like its

color. But my main objection to it is it's prolonged dry-down. The

stuff seems to keep getting darker for 2-3 days. That may be

what you're seeing, because the dry-down seems to occur

mostly in the shadow areas. Maybe lighten up on your filtration?

Wet, these prints will look flat; dry they look just about right. BTW,

I'm using LPD 1:9 and the color is lovely.

I've used Forte paper for several years now and it has become my favorite paper. I use a condenser enlarger, Kodak filters, and process it in Dektol 1:2 for 2 minutes. Either enlarged or contact printed I get a full range of tones with no highlight or mid-tone blocking, excellent separation, and deep, luminous shadows. I mostly shoot Kodak's T-Max 100 (now "100 Tmax") film in 4x5, but have also used it for contact printing Ilford's HP5+ in 5x7. One thing I have noticed is that printing with too high contrast is noticable more readily with this paper than with other papers; I used to make a print with a couple of different degrees of contrast and compare them side-by-side, but these days it is pretty obvious when I've put too hard a filter in. *grin* Maybe I'm just a better printer than I used to be.

 

Mike

Gary & Michael,

 

After reading your responses (thank you) I made three prints. I split print and usually do not check the filter grade, but I effectively lowered the contrast from a grade 2.6 to grade 1. The print was less harsh but still too contrasty. This eveing I will lower the contrast even more. I guess this paper is significantly more contrasty than the Ilford.

 

Additionally, the printing times with my cold light are very long. To get the same densities as I get with Ilford MG VI FB I am seeing exposures of almost 3-4 times longer. This particular print is running well over 100 seconds (units). With MG IV the times is approx 35 seconds.

 

Since I bought 4 boxes, I had better learn to make this paper work.

 

I have not seen the drydown issue, but I have not saved any prints as they were awfully harsh.

 

Mike

Michael,

 

I do not have experience with the paper you mention, but I thought I would mention that you are certainly into the reciprocity failure range with this paper if you are exposing that long.

 

As with film, when reciprocity fails, your contrast goes higher, as brighter areas are getting enough exposure to 'register' but darker areas are not. This may result in the problems you are having with the contrast. There is also a threshold point to this phenomenon that cause a serious problem providing a good continuous paper curve.

 

Another thing to consider: Have you done any paper curves for this paper? There are some papers that have quite horrible curves in the low contrast range, because the two emulsion sensitivities do not blend too well. This may result in somewhat difficult tonality due to noncontinuous curves. A steptablet test and some densitometer readings will verify this.

 

While you are at it, you could check the reciprocity failure by stopping all the way down and filtering the light so that your exposures are very long, in addition to a normal exposure. The difference in the two curves will be the result of the failure.

 

---Michael

You might try diluting the 130 further. If you're at 1:1 its a pretty contrasty developer. I go 1:3 if I'm starting fresh (unless I want high contrast). As a general rule I use old working developer that I save in a quart bottle(s) filled full then for the next session of 8X10s I add about 100-200ML stock 130 and water to get about 1.5 quart liquid in the tray. Sounds wrong, works very well. I consider this "replenishment" to give normal contrast. I'm using Bergger and Ilford papers and getting great results. Ilford RC gets 1 min 15 sec. Bergger VCCB gets 3 minutes (this seems to be to completion or near). Also it seems 130 works better at 72 degrees and up.

After a 6 hour printing session this afternoon/evening I have made a

command decision to abandon the Forte Elegance Polygrade V FB Glossy

paper. It just does not work for me as the exposure times are well over 125

seconds and the paper is just way to contrasty and harsh.

 

My negatives are processed to print on a grade 2 Ilford MG IV FB Glossy.

Even at a grade 0 I am getting harsh contrasty results. I tried Dektol 1:2, Ansco

130 1:1 & 1:2, and Agfa Neutol + 1:4 & 1:6 (Yucky blue color prints).

 

Thanks all for your insight and experiences.

 

Mike

125 seconds?

I've been using the museum weight Forte polywarmtone FB recently - I think it's a somewhat similar paper? (could be wrong there)

 

But I don't need times anywhere near 125 seconds.

 

Are you printing through newsprint... :-)

I was looking at the data on the Forte website. Other then trying to figure out which one is the right one for the box of paper I bought last month which I'm not sure I figured out. The thing that struck me is that if you use Ilford contrast filters the papers [all of the ones I looked at] get quite slow. OTOH with no filter they are either the same speed as Agfa's or one paper looks to be rated 50% faster then Agfa. Kodak contrast filters slow down the paper but less then Ilford.

Those times sound more like PolyWarmtone not PolyGrade. I noticed you are using split filter printing. This may be a paper that has some non-linear responses to the extreme filters. Maybe you could try a print using only a #2 filter and see if that makes any difference. I've used the paper but don't recall using any of the hardest/softest filters.

Why are you not using glossy ? Semi-matte is just not the same beast. Anyway, I have been using the paper in question (glossy though) for 3 years with Dektol at 1:4 for 4.5 minutes. My results are beautiful. I selected the Forte after testing a bunch of other papers including Ilford and Kodak fiber papers.

 

One of the things you mentioned that I thought was significant is that your "negatives print at contrast 2 on Ilford". When I finally decided to go with Forte, I calibrated my film developing times to match the Forte paper. You have left that step out of the process.

 

All papers have thier beauty and Forte works for me. It also works splendidly for Bruce Barnbaum. His prints will blow you away in person. Anyway, it is no big deal to keep using the Ilford if you can't find the combination to Forte. I hated T-max 100 for a long time, but begrudgingly used it because Tri-x does not come in readyloads. I am now a T-max convert. It just took a bit of time to figure out how to use it. I like it much better than Tri-x now.

 

Use what works for you and have fun.

 

Paul

As I printed with this paper, (about a year ago) my experience wasn't so bad in the printing/ drying stages. When I went to selenium tone them, it seems that I needed to dilute it many times over what I needed for other papers I have used. Even in a strong dilution, just as the print was starting to look nicely toned, it would turn purple quickly. The Forte paper seems to take poorly to selenium toning, however with a little more patience I may have been able to figure it out.

Excellent paper. For toning use 50 ml selenium in 3 liters of water, so a much more diluted solution than you might be used to. About 5 minutes works for me. No acid stop bath after developing, just plain water. I use 55-D 1:3, sometimes Dektol 1:4.

Exposure time should be around 20 secs, I use a dichro head. As long as your enlarger is well aligned have no fear of using f stops close to open, say one stop down.

 

I strongly advise you to calibrate as mentioned above: follow the steps as described by Paul Butzi in his writings about VC papers, on his website.

 

You may need a weaker inspection light in the darkroom.