</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Les McLean @ May 5 2003, 08:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Your observations on the three papers you are testing are just about the same as mine although I do not use Forte now because I find it inconsistent. I spoke to the production Director of the company about this problem at Photokina but he really was not interested, so I decided to stop using their products. It's a pity for it is an excellent paper but no good to me if I cannot be sure of the consistency. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Well, so far so good on the Forte out here. I have not experienced any inconsistancy (but I have not used it in a lot of repeatable situations like you may have) The resluts last night were that I could not tell the difference from the Forte Forteza and the Ilford Galerie (Except for the speed.) The Cachet was the dry winner though. Its gloss lustre finish really added sparkle to the image. I have been using a lot of matte paper - The Forte gloss (un-ferrotyped) is nowhere nearly as shiny as this Cachet RF (un-ferrotyped). Other than that - The blacks ar no blacker on the Cachet - which is what I was hoping for based on their claim to have a much greater silver content. It was useful to try several papers at the same time to see how they veried - I had not done that before. It seems chemistry is a much larger variable than papers of similar make up. I do believe that at some point it is time to settle down with one and get good with it. I came full circle with 4x5 film. I bought a big box of TRI X after messing with HP5, APX100, FP4 and Tmax400 (used with PMK.) I think for a while it will be my only 4x5 B&W and maybe even for 6x6cm (used with DiXactol) as well. I may wind up adopting the Cachet RF - and then think of a reason to use matte finish at all. The jury is still out on developers. The D65 (glycin based ansco 130 like photoformulary brew) is OK I guess - kind of pricey compared to this Agfa paper developer I have been using for RC prints. It is a hydroquinone based brew and so far has really exceeded my expectations. It seems the glycin brews work on the highlights for the long haul where the commercial Agfa stuff gets it all done in a hurry and then stops. (I think). Of course a brilliant image makes them all look pretty good.
Maybe I need to ask for my inheritance early and buy some Amidol. I would then be the "Prodigal Photographer" and have to beg my way back to Dektol some day.
Thank again for all the good insight! - Frank