The only RC paper I've used is the Ilford Multigrade. It's alright for
an RC paper. I've seen prints made on the Kodak Polymax and prefered the
Ilford paper to it.

After you get back into the flow of printing again you should do yourself
a favor and look into a couple of the fiber papers.

I always seem to come back to Ilford Multigrade IV RC, though I've
played with some of the Kodak and Forte papers too.

Why not buy the smallest package you can of each and compare them
yourself? They're *your* pictures, and you are the only one you need to
please with how they turn out.

I'm in the process of doing this myself, having a need for some graded
RC paper (PMK negatives). So I chose a couple of likely candidates and
placed an order with B&H for a couple of 25 sheet packages.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH     "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg                    pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W       - Hospital/Shafte

Scott Coutts <scott.coutts@med.monash.edu.au> wrote in news:DskTd.173958
$K7.145357@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

Fred -

Ilford, Agfa and Kodak are fairly ubiquitous papers.  I've used a lot of
Ilford (mostly as repackaged by Arista/Freestyle) - its a good neutral
tone papaer.  I've used a little Agfa - my sense is that its a colder
tone, but I can't consider myself an expert.  Used to use Kodak, but
haven't in many years.

One of the issues with paper is availabiltiy.  I live in a remote area
where it's difficult to purchase paper directly from a dealer in a store.  
Most of my paper purchases are by telephone or the web, and that is one
of the factors that has driven me in the direction of Ilford/Arista.

I don't believe that Fotospeed or Tetenal actually make their own paper.  
If so, the question is whose paper are they repackaging.  The major
candidates are Ilford and Forte.  Both companies have been going through
some financial problems, but the latest news appears to be that Ilford
will survive.  The bottom line is not yet known with Forte.  

The reason this is an issue is that, IMO, the best strategy is to pick a
paper and stick with it for several years while you hone your skills as a
photographer/printer.  Madly changing paper introduces another variable
into the equation and will only screw up the learning process.  
Therefore, you want to choose a paper that you are reasonably certain
will continue to be available.

  I haven't used Tetenal or Photospeed, which I think is
sold under a different name in this country, but I've used a
lot of the others. Kodak, Ilford, and Agfa are all good
papers but look a little different. The differences are hard
to describe and can be subtle. Unlike some other posters to
this thread I don't think fiber based paper is significantly
better than RC, at least as far as tone rendition is
concerned. One difference is that most RC papers (but not
Ilford) contain developer so that they can be used in rapid
access activation processors. The developer in the emulsion
tends to make the paper somewhat less flexible in the
developer than fiber, which does not have the developer.
  The quality of prints on any kind of paper is dependant
on having good negatives; a poor negative will not give you
an outstanding print on any material.
  You can try small packages of each paper and work with
each a little. Compare the results the next day in normal
illumination. There is always some change in the print as it
dries. Often your opinion of a print in the darkroom will
change when you see it in normal light.
  Developer makes a relatively minor difference but the
color of the image may vary with the developer. At the
moment I am using Agfa Neutol Plus, a Phenidone and ascorbic
acid print developer. It is very clean working and seems to
have large capacity. I use the "economy" dilution 1:9.