Proof on RC, Final Print on FB?

[jp498]

I suggest sticking with what the final print will be. Otherwise you'll waste a lot of time for no gain.

Perhaps it's heretical, but I don't see a major difference between top quality RC paper and FB paper in terms of their ability to display a nice photographic image. I don't use FB because RC is lacking in image quality or because I don't think RC can show the tones. I think they both obviously appear superior to anything my big inkjet printer can put out.

Yes the surface texture is a little different, viewers rarely care whether it's glossy (rc) or almost glossy (fb). The tones look good on either. I consider Ilford MG WT RC paper to be a top quality RC paper. I use mostly RC paper, but will use FB once in a while if I want some image to look authentically old as FB paper would be more period correct. I also use FB once in a while for the choice of paper base that isn't like RC like Fomatone Classic VC FB Cream.

[hpulley]

I like Ilford MGWT in both RC and FB but they are quite different in speed, tonality, surface and response to toning. I just wish there was a Portfolio weight warmtone available as the standard weight is quite floppy especially in large sizes.

[RalphLambrecht]

Ok, so let's say you're planning a large print, say 11x14 or 16x20, do you print a final on 8x10 first before going up to the large size? or just start with the large size?

This methods works if scaling and reciprocity failure are considered. I would get the printing map ready (dodge & burn in f/stops) from the work on the 8x10, and just make a final test strip for the 16x20 to get the highlight exposure and contrast right. In fact, that is one of the benefits of the f/stop printing method. Printing maps can be used from any print size for any print size.

This definitely works, but a straight scaling calculation alone will fail.

[Michael R 1974]

Ralph, Brian,

I can see the value in this method if you wanted a fine 8x10 print in the first place and then wanted to try scaling up. But if you're simply targetting the large size to begin with, why waste time working on an 8x10 and then possibly finding out the image simply doesn't enlarge well to the bigger size? Rarely an issue with sheet film, but particularly with small or medium format, you might make a beautiful print at 8x10 and then find at 16x20 there is too much grain, or the negative is noticeably soft etc?

[RalphLambrecht]

Michael

Agreed. Starting out with the intended paper size makes most sense.

[brian steinberger]

Thanks guys.