Simon warned earlier that this paper was not recommended for conventional enlargers or for printing color negatives. His comment in this thread does hold some hope, however. That said, it looks a lot like Panalure in its sensitivity and contrast. (Grade 4 is about what you need for color negatives.) I can see contrast control as being a possible headache, although color negatives are pretty consistent. I wonder how it responds to the Beers developers and similar contrast tweaking brews.
I assume that frotog's point is that aside from spectral considerations this paper might be be slower from its basic emulsion formula as a digital printer might have a more powerful lightsource than a common enlarger.
Originally Posted by AgX
We are assuming that a laser printing device would deliver a much higher output than a tungsten light source and that may not be the case. Knowing nothing about these devices, I couldn't say. Maybe someone will chime in here with some comparative numbers. Something like lux delivered to the paper by a typical tungsten enlarger vs. a laser printing machine for a given magnification factor. That might be just the sort of data needed to make an informed decision about the product.
I have a vague memory about reading another post about this issue which referred as well to considerations of reciprocity, and the fact that laser exposures were designed to be very short.
Originally Posted by fschifano
So there could be other considerations as well.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I was interested in trying this stuff but last I checked, I could only get some by buying a large roll. At least that's what wynit told me. If there are sheets available then I would become re-interested.
The oriental hyper seagull does ship in sheet form, as I recall, but I haven't tried it yet.
I use this paper RC digital and the fibre version as well.
Both papers are maximised for laser exposure and I believe some LED devices.
I have not used either papers under the enlarger .
The fibre version is basically gallerie G 4 with an extra red sensitivitey
The RC version *I believe is Ilford MG4 rc with an extra red sensitivitely.
I believe that the next wave of young photographers will be using these papers at school with enlargers much like the digital deveer units.
Both papers are of excellent quality ..
I concentate on the fibre paper exclusevely for show printing, which I can then tri tone exactly the same way any traditional fibre paper is finished.
I use the rc version as a tester of digital files to look for artifacts and changes required before going to show printing.
We first started this process in 2002 using Agfa Classic, ** I believe we were the first Lab , using lambda laser device to produce fibre base prints.**
This material or product has become an very important service for our Lab.
At the present there are a select few labs worldwide using this process and paper .. I think that within 5-10 years there will be thousand of labs using this black and white bartya emulsion, digitally and analogue.
If the paper's sensitivity isn't radically different than a traditional b/w paper than perhaps it's merely the paper's extended red sensitivity that sets it apart? This would be the best case scenario for those of us interested in using this paper under an enlarger. Unless I'm unaware of a digital process that uses a tungsten source for exposure the inclusion of "tungsten or tungsten halogen" as appropriate means of exposure as stated in the product info from Ilford seems to suggest that one could indeed use this paper w/ an enlarger. I was hoping that Simon would come back with a definitive answer as the info so far is tantalizingly ambiguous.
Originally Posted by MattKing
I have a roll on order. I'll be back once I have some results.