The Harsh Realties Of The Fine Print In This Day And Age

Good morning folks - hope you are well - 10-15 minute read warning!

This is quite a long piece so feel free to scroll off somewhere else  - I really don't mind and it is probably of little interest to anyone who doesn't use a darkroom.

Right, this was written over a couple of weeks and from an increasingly angry point of view (nothing to do with age, just economic sensibilities and pre all the bombs, madness and megalomania) . . . 

An honest opinion?

Let's face it folks - as a traditional printer in this day and age, you're Farquahar'd. 

Or to put it in proper Scots . . You're On A Hiding To Nowhere.

There, I've said it, but before I get into the economics, here's a little snapshot of what set me thinking.

I would say I am a fairly experienced printer . . . but some days IT comes along and IT really doesn't want you to do anything except waste your precious paper and get frustrated; last week being a case in point.

 

I've got a box of 100 sheets of Fomabrom Variant III 10x8" and I felt I should really use it, rather than it just sitting there (after all it cost about £120 UK Pounds - not an inconsiderable amount of money.) 

I'd already used a few sheets and wanted to print some more before I decided what paper I was going to stock-up on - more on this later.

Anyway,  I did my usual, which is, cut up a sheet of THE SAME PAPER IN 5x7" SIZE for test prints . . did a test print . . assessed my exposure . . decided to make a proper print of it; got out a 10x8" SHEET OF THE SAME PAPER and gave it the same exposure and guess what?

The print looked nothing like the test print.

The air was blue to say the least (and no I hadn't moved the head or the easel, it was all exactly the same) so I got one of the £1.20 10x8" sheets of THE SAME PAPER and cut it up into test strip size pieces (it bugs the heck out of me every time I have to do that) did some more tests, made a print and again nothing was playing ball at all . . 

So (approximately 2 hours in on the same print) I had used (read wasted) FIVE sheets of paper - £6 worth . . . just like that.

I wouldn't mind if it was my mistakes . . OK I did make some . . . but it was the inconsistency of the paper (and being unable to speed match Grades) that made me realise I'd never use Foma Variant glossy again. 

Time and energy are precious . . life is just too short!

Reading back through some notes recently, I had written (when I first got the box of 10 x 8"):

".. strangely, feel the emulsion on the 5x7 variation of Variant is slightly different - a bit more contrasty, but also with more of a lift to the highlights too if that makes sense. - the matt though seems to be fine."

The question is, it's a paper beloved by many people, so how can it have gone wrong? 

Am I making big mistakes and looking for an easy out? 

Possibly. 

All I know is that in the olden days (and a lot less experience remember) using the likes of Agfa and Adox and Forte paper, my results were pretty consistent.

When I opened this box of Variant the first few sheets came out (when I developed them) with a heavy line of edge fog . . 

I wrote to Foma and received no reply . . 

Could this just be a dodgy box? 

Well if it is, then it's a bloody expensive way of proving QC issues isn't it.

And so, to that end, I have finally been driven into the corner I predicted years back - I am now pretty much solely an Ilford MGFB/Ilford Portfolio user.

One more nail in the coffin.

I have another confession to make - at times, I can be a pretty appalling printer, stuck in my own rut of what I think is a good print and also the best way to achieve it. 

My training back in the 1980's was from Joseph McKenzie - a fine printer (indeed some would say Scotland's finest printer) so it was a good grounding . . . but the thing is, you have to place Joe in the times in which he worked. 

Photography was big business then; darkrooms were rife; hobbyists printed till they were blue in the face, but 'pre' the wide-scale use of decent multigrades (Yes Simpkins, I know it was introduced in 1940!) a huge amount of work was done on Graded papers. 

As I've discussed here before a Graded paper was a very different beast to a Multigrade. 

I say WAS because as far as I am aware, there's no longer any Graded available, or else if it is listed it is out of stock/production, so, I think I can safely say, we're in a Multigrade world.

Anyway, that's away from the point. Joe McK. kind of insisted we all learn on Grade 2 Kentmere Bromide, or Kenthene RC. 

For fine work it was Grade 2 Ilford Galerie, (or Grade 3 at a pinch) though weirdly Galerie 2 was very flexible as a paper, capable of giving that crisp highlight detail so much more obvious with using a Grade 3 or even 4 on MG.

As such, 'modern' techniques like split grade printing, were never even mentioned. 

The printing was basic, but solid. 

Hands for dodging and burning; timing by marching elephants in your head; judicious toning; spotting if necessary; dry mounting at the end.

In other words, what most of the world of 'fine art' printers had been using for decades.

As far as I remember, MG was very much seen as the amateur paper (I think Joe regarded it as such at the time) - I could be wrong and would love to be told so, however for the purpose of this blog, I'll state that as a salient fact.

Anyway time machine forwards 40 years - Split Grade; Flashing; Warm Tone MG; Cool Tone MG; MG; F-stop timers; Platinum and Palladium being seen as a relatively attainable process; Cyanotypes and indeed all the 'Types' as quaint things one can do with that art class certificate you got for your birthday . . .

There's no more dry mounting; everything is archival this that and the other - in other words, as little physical interference with the print post-drying as possible.

It's an entirely changed world, but the old world was a world I was used to and as such have rather doggedly (and typical for me) stuck to my guns and continued in my own rut.

I dodge and burn with my hands; use room temperature chemicals and a knackered old Paterson print washer - my one luxury is the superb timer on the DeVere. 

I develop, stop, double fix, wash, tone, hypo clear and air dry. 

The lovingly crafted prints then get assessed.

Most months they come along with me to my beloved DCA Forum; they get looked at; mumbled over ( I am the ONLY traditional printer in a collection of 20+ people most months); talked about with me on-hand or talked about with me not to-hand to explain why I've presented yet another set of essentially the same pictures!

Then they get filed away, never to see the light of day again.

The thing is, I am proud of these prints. 

In this day and age when it is no longer clear whether anyone that eats and breathes has anything to do with what they are claiming they've done, they're as solid as month-old porridge. 

I have the negatives. 

I have the prints.

They match each other and as such they're proof of a little humanoid effort in creating what could loosely be classified as "art".

But we're dying.

We really are.

Rapidly.

Yeah sure, I see young bucks shooting a trillion rolls of Harman Red every month, with very nice results, but to a man, they are not printing!

Even the most enthused seem to be only using MGRC or Kentmere. NONE OF THEM have used fibre.

So who is using MGFB or MGFB Warmtone, or indeed Portfolio? 

And especially in the largest sizes?

The reason stated by said young bucks, is often cost.

 

Photography is like being a crack addict . . yeah the buzz from that first hit (the wonderful negatives you got from using your vintage Nikon [sic] is incredible, but it is only half the story.)

As I've said many times before, film photography is a game of two halves - I've always felt that in order to balance the excitement of the taking and developing stage, you really do need the craft side of the printing stage as a balance.

But you see, the first half is so addictive - who gives a fig about spending £11 on a roll of 120 TX 400 when it is the really exciting part?

Who really wants to spend more than 70 UK pence on a sheet of 10x8" paper when the results look so-so?

If it was say 40-50p a sheet, people would probably use more, learn better craft skills and in the end (if they felt serious enough about it) actually spend approximately 150 to 200 UK Pounds on a box of fine paper.

My Mum always used to say: "you can't make an omelette without breaking any eggs."

And she had a point. 

CRAFT SKILLS, which I'm sure you'll agree are the backbone of darkroom printing, need to be developed and nurtured.

Let's put it this way, your child likes drawing and painting, but you're not going to start them on charcoal or oils are you. 

Nope, it's poster paints, felt tip pens, HB pencils and lots of cheapish paper.

It's the same with darkroom printing.

You start out on a cheapish paper, which at the current time (February 2026) is approximately £80+ for a box of 100 sheets of Ilford MGRC (or £65 for the Fotospeed equivalent/£70 for the Kentmere equivalent) and that in the UK is about it!

Then you think, maybe we should progress onto fibre . . .well (2026 prices):

Foma Variant - £130 for 100 sheets of 8x10"

Ilford MGFB - £133 for 100 sheets of 8x10"

Ilford MGFB Warmtone - £170 for 100 sheets of 8x10"

And that's it:

"Wait a minute Simpkins, what's that? You HATE all that quaver-like curliness of FB paper and you want something thick and substantial, rather like a foot-long Sub?

Well here y'go:"

Ilford Portfolio - a premium, RC paper and really wonderful stuff:

Ilford Portfolio - £180 (approx. [and if you can actually find somewhere that stocks it]) for 100 sheets of 8x10"

Factor into this, the cost of chemicals (not cheap and strangely quite inconsistent these days - I've had PQ Universal go bad on me very quickly indeed - not like the glory days of Agfa NE which lasted for well over a year when opened.)

You also have to factor in the cost of setting up a darkroom (admittedly cheaper than it used to be); the space in the family home, or renting a darkroom from an arts facility, and it is no wonder printing is dying.

But I genuinely believe that the eye-watering price of paper has a lot to do with it. And if I (as a committed darkroom printer) am thinking that, then who else is?

There always used to be a thing in retail (I worked in it for nearly 40 years so should know what I am talking about) called "London Pricing". 

What we meant by that, is that things in the nether-regions of the country were priced more like they were in London. 

Hang your heads in shame for instance Oxfam book shops (your stock costs are nothing . . . and you even get paid for the books that go to be shredded because they're unsaleable)

Photographic paper (and indeed most things in traditional darkroom and film-based photography) are currently on London Pricing.

The thing is, the rest of the UK isn't London and doesn't earn the same wages as those in London and as such are finding it effing difficult to continue.

Did you know that Ilford's FP4+ has risen by £1.50 in the past 6 months?

Oh that's not much, I hear you say, but they've turned an item which was reasonable (sic) at £6.50 into something you have to think twice about and if I am thinking twice about it . . well, worraboot the young 'uns?

Who out of younger enthusiasts (with all the costs associated with younger to middle life) can afford the materials with which they may further their craft?

I know I couldn't have at their age and with all those pressures.

Process Supplies recently said to me that paper sales were "bouyant" . . but yeah, that's London . . . 

I genuinely cannot see a way forward.

Certainly it is an expensive world, but remember to most people PHOTOGRAPHY IS A HOBBY. 

Not a business. 

Let me state that again, PHOTOGRAPHY IS A HOBBY. 

A pleasurable thing to while away time and in the meantime bring some heart-felt joy and pleasure to your life. 

But if the shit hits the fan and you have to trim costs, your hobbies are the first things to go.

In a world fuelled by nutters, inflation and uncertainty, how much longer can you afford to sustain a hobby that you could easily spend a hundred-plus quid on every month?

As a guitar player for over 50 years I have seen the costs of that hobby rise exhorbitatntly on things like amplifiers, and yet decent guitars are realtively cheaper than they ever were. 

Back in the 1980's I used to spend about £3.50 on packs of GHS Boomer strings coz they were proper metal . . . 

Today, I can buy a 6 pack of those self-same strings for £24 or approximately £4 a set . . 

THAT is the sort of inflation photography materials should be experiencing. 

Certainly film contains silver and with the uncertainty caused by various madmen that will continue to rise and cause much pain to the likes of you and me. 

But wait a minute, GHS Boomers are a product made with nickel and steel, surely they've been affected by inflation and production costs too . . 

And wait a minute, they're MADE IN THE USA too with reciprocal tariffs, duty, shipping and so-on . . . 

So WHAT GIVES?

The German company Thomann can sell you a very decent (better than the starter instruments of my day) electric guitar for £78 shipped. 

It is made in the Far East.

My recently deceased friend, the wonderful bass player (and skilled luthier) Chic Black bought Harley Benton basses claiming they were easily the equal of or better than his 1970's Rickenbackers . . . .  they just needed a tweak. 

His '75 Rickenbacker 4001: "A playable instrument only made better by extensive work." 

His Harley Benton 6 string Bass:  "An extremely playable instrument only made better by maybe changing the pickups."

So if they can do it, why can't Harman/Ilford?

Is it possibly something to do with effectively being a monopoly?

Hmmmm . . . . .

But, as I have said before, with costs rocketing, how much longer can we go on?

If you're a traditionaist like me, I urge you - stock up, keep it cool - paper and film. 

Powder chemicals and bulbs. 

Spare everything, because it is quite likely in the next 20 years that cost vs. sales, will take out the whole area of traditional darkroom-based photography and you will be as dead as a dodo. 

And as lost (well certainly that would be my case).

Friend Bruce from The Online Darkroom saw the writing on the wall a number of years back and has been channelling his excellent printing skills into inkjet and coming away with prints that would not be amiss in a gallery . . but even then he's caught between a rock and a hard place, because he's using really old software . . all it takes is a new OS and you could well be gubbed and having to take it back to basics again.

It really is a harsh world for the photographic enthusiast - GOOD LUCK OUT THERE!

Anyway, today's prints - all scans off of Ilford Portfolio - I was going to scan the Foma ones but they looked crap. 

The camera was a Mamiya C330F with 80mm lens. 

Film is Kodak 400TX developed in 1+75 Fomadon R09.

It has a very nice tonality.

They are all from my (now quite large) collection of seascapes. 

I like it - I find both taking the pictures and printing them quite calming.

I also enjoyed being alone and about 1.5 metres below the High Tide line, which is where I was in the above photographs.

You would think I would learn!

Actually I did. I bought an Optech Tripod strap - absolutely brilliant because now it means I can explore places like the above with a walking pole and wellies - those rocks aren't half slippy at times. I no longer have to worry about trying to use the tripod as a walking pole, because it's not very good for such things.

Anyway, that's that, you can wake up now.

Till the next time, take care, be safe and keep taking the brown M&Ms.

H xx