Why are you using two filters?

This does sound perplexing to me.  I have used MG IV glossy both RC and FB
for at least 3-4 years.  During that time, I have not found much difference
between the exposures for the working prints on RC and my fiinal prints on
FB paper (certainly not as much as you are describing).  I'm wondering how
you determine how long to leave the paper in the developer.  I usually look
for the emergence time (how long it takes to see anything show up) and then
develop the paper 5-6 times that.  (I use Ilford's liquid developer, but I
can't see that making a significant difference).

Sam

"

I may have missed something but you exposed the RC print at f/8 and FB at F/11 with times roughly
doubled, which means the same exposure.

I use mainly Ilford Multigrade for my work both RC (glossy and pearl) and FB (only glossy
air-dried).
I often use RC for the preliminary work as they have a similar (and pretty consistent between
batches) sensivity.
They have a difference in their contrast, FB being somewhat more contrasty, which is increased by
selenium toning (deeper blacks).
I don't like matte papers. May be this the reason you prefer the RC, try the glossy FB just
air-dried on screens, the aspect, while no being similar to pearl, is very agreable.

Regards,

John,

For hand-coloring, you definitely want FB paper.  

Yes, FB is a pain-in-the-a.s compared to RC.  But don't give up on it
quite yet.  Maybe give the single-tray method a try (kudos to Lloyd).  I
tend to use this for fiber because a) I use FB only for my best prints,
and b) I think it is more convenient when not doing many prints.  

With FB, you don't have the struggle of moving the paper from one tray to
the next.  After exposing the paper, put it in a tray and pour developer
in.  When developed, pour developer out, and in with the stop...and so on.
I even do the final rinse in the same tray.  

--PGG

jan1005 from Lloyd Erlick,

FB is easy and convenient once you get onto it. It will
never be as easy and convenient as RC, but that only
means if you are doing all this for nothing more than
ease and convenience, work on RC.

If you're crazy enough to load your own film (in the
case of LF workers especially) and process your own
film, plus all the associated craziness, then the small
added difficulty of FB is quite minor.

Personally, I dislike matte surfaces, so comparing an
FB paper with matte surface is unproductive. I also
happen to dislike the glaring, blaring, unsubtle
excessive glossiness of RC glossy surfaces (even more
than I dislike matte). For me, the best surface comes
from FB glossy paper air-dried.

Also, the final look of a print is very much enhanced
by selenium toning. Ilford FB Multigrade has the
reputation of changing very little in selenium, but I
believe most people find it improves subtly. I happen
to like Ilford FB Warmtone (I make portraits, ...), and
the effect of selenium is clear and obvious on this
paper. It is an extremely important processing step,
essential, in fact, to the final appearance, and not
just for archival purposes.

I found the problems of making FB prints nagging, as
you did. I muddled along trying to find a simple way,
and summarized my results in a bunch of pontifications
on my website, under the 'technical' heading in the
table of contents.

Judging by your remarks about paper curling, you should
also read my article on humidity management in the
darkroom. This (in the northern hemisphere) is the time
of year for dryness, static electricity, dust and hair
pulling, which only spreads dandruff on the enlarger. A
humidifier is a cheap alternative to darkroom rage.
When I hear the word 'curling', I think of humidity
readout devices sold cheaply at Radio Shack.

I have worked out an easy way to make FB prints, and
have been doing it for a number of years now. I would
never go back to the drudgery of my past -- that lineup
of trays, selenium toning after the fact so I couldn't
make small adjustments in that step (which potentially
needs small changes in enlarger exposure), etc etc etc.

I don't think I could defend FB over RC very well in a
technical debate, or even an esthetic one. But I do
like FB much better than RC, and have in fact stopped
buying RC at all. Don't judge FB until you have made a
first class print (and there will be no harsher judge
than yourself ...).

And finally, anyone who can submit to the demands of
sheet film has long since taken more and heavier
beatings than FB is capable of dishing out. I just punk
out and use 120 format film. I love FB prints, but I'm
not at all a glutton for punishment!!

regards,
--le