FB paper dried image issues.

G

Guest

Guest
OK started printing again. Purchased ilford Multi IV Mat FB paper, store gave me an out of date bottle of Kodak polymax T 2009-2010, noticed after two sessions the polymax in the bottle had turned very dark and had sediment at bottom. Have since purchased some Dektol and am chucking the polymax.
my question is, when printing the first time the paper was great when wet but after drying they were flat, second time printing used hair dryer on test strips and that made the finished image better after seeing what the final print would look like.
I used Ilford Galerie Matt FB paper thirty years ago and never had a problem with having to dry the test strips. I have done two prints on the new paper and comaped them with my old Galerie prints and the blacks are no where near the old paper, tone and everything else also bad.
Showed both sets of images to the store owner and she said the silver content is not the same as it used to be, meaning the blacks will not be as good.
So is the paper lower quality,
the developer the priblem,
is there less silver or not nowerdays,
I am going in the dark again tomorrow and before doing so wondered what you chaps think about this.
I contacted Ilford and they sent me a sample pack of paper with prints about 3x4 in size. The Galerie is there but only in gloss sadly.
Cheers,
James.
 
All fiber based papers 'dry down'. The light tones darken slightly so test strips must be dried before evaluating them. I used an inexpensive microwave for that (don't do this in the one you cook food with, since the test strips will have fixer and other nasty stuff in them).

Ansel adams wrote about the problem of drydown decades ago. He once made a large edition of prints that were ruined because of it. That particular image had a lot of delicate light tones that dried down more than he anticipated.
 
As Christopher said you have to dry your prints to make proper decition. I am using hair dryer for that.
I don't have any opinion about the papers belongs to the 30 years back, but i can get rich blacks with ilford papers.
 
Ralph Gibson has the same complaint. "There's nothing to print on anymore. You can use Ilford, and if you don't like that, try Ilford." I used to use Brovira back in the day, and Kodabromide. I sure miss those blacks!
 
The blacks may not have quite the same depth/richness of old silver heavy paper, but you should still be able to get a proper black, what grade of filter are you using?
 
Here is a tip if you want to make sure you are getting the deepest black and clearest white possible during your print session.

Take a small piece of paper (2" x 4" or so) and place it under the enlarger lamp with something opaque (paper box, etc) covering half of it. Blast this with light and then develop FULLY. Now you have a sample in your fixer tray which you can place right over your print to check for full blacks & whites as you work.

It should be stressed to always develop your test strips and prints fully. A common rookie error is to pull the print too soon if it looks like it is getting too dark.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Good tip Gary. I do this, plus I also take a strip of paper straight from the paper-safe into the fixer then wash. That gives me a reference for true paper-white, which I compare with the unexposed piece that went through the developer first. If the unexposed, undeveloped - but-fixed piece is whiter, then I've got fog on the paper or something similar, perhaps from aging or badly stored paper or a bad safelight. If the exposed and developed piece isn't really black then my developer is probably off.
 
If you liked the results from Galerie 30 yrs ago, you can still purchase Ilford Galerie today, but it is pricey.

I use several papers and get as good a result today as I did 30 yrs ago, really better, I'm a better printer now, I think you just need some practice.

Marty
 
I like ADOX MCC which is a remake of the Agfa Multicontrast Fibre paper, on a slightly whiter base. It has really deep blacks and has the highest DMax, I believe, of any current B&W paper.
 
bobbyrab said:
The blacks may not have quite the same depth/richness of old silver heavy paper, but you should still be able to get a proper black, what grade of filter are you using?
Click to expand...

Put a densitometer on every paper ever made and you willl see that a Dmax of 2.3 is extremely unusual -- and that the highest Dmax comes from old contact papers with quite low coating weights. You will also find out that a high Dmax is substantially irrelevant in how a print looks, as above about D = 2.0 the eye doesn't see much difference except under dazzling light. Mid-tone differentiation is what matters, as shown in platinum prints (very low Dmax).

Cheers,

R.
 
Dry-down typically equates to about 10-20% of the exposure and 1/2 paper grade or less. In other words, if a print looks good wet, to get a similar effect when dry, give 15% less exposure at 1/2 grade harder. That should get you close enough to the wet look that you can refine it later to suit your own paper and developer.

And the Ralph Gibson quote is ignoring an important point. If you don't like Ilford, buy a competitor's paper. As long as there are any. And if Ilford stops: well, consider the phrase, "or nothing."

Cheers,

R.
 
Just wanted to add to this thread, I really like Kentmere Fineprint Glossy FB paper and recommend it very highly

Cheers
 
Here is a different perspective:

Ilford MGWT is an exceptional paper, as is Adox MCC. If you have seen really well produced prints recently you will know what can be achieved.... still.

As for dry down, I would give a figure somewhat lower that Roger, at 8-12%. Some papers dry down more or less, but most will fall into the above. What also has an impact is the evaluation lighting (of the wet print) and the final dry print. With experience, you do not need to calculate anything, you can look at the wet print and know where it will be at when it is dry. That takes time and consistency of materials, lighting etc.

Matt papers appear to dry down more. Much more.

I do not like MGIV at all. It just does not work well for me unless toned into submission with selenium. Works great for others, just not me.

As Roger says, the issue is not the shadows, but the mid tones. Even with modern papers truly eye watering prints are still possible.

If you want a roughly neutral paper base and image tone, try MGWT in Eukobrom or Dektol. it can be made to look beautiful even untoned. With neutral developers the image tone can be a bit green, but with cooler ones I really like the prints untouched.

The attached exhibition prints were all off MGWT and mostly untoned. Don't look all flat and lifeless do they?
 
Turtle said:
Here is a different perspective:

Ilford MGWT is an exceptional paper, as is Adox MCC. If you have seen really well produced prints recently you will know what can be achieved.... still.

As for dry down, I would give a figure somewhat lower that Roger, at 8-12%. Some papers dry down more or less, but most will fall into the above. What also has an impact is the evaluation lighting (of the wet print) and the final dry print. With experience, you do not need to calculate anything, you can look at the wet print and know where it will be at when it is dry. That takes time and consistency of materials, lighting etc.

Matt papers appear to dry down more. Much more.

I do not like MGIV at all. It just does not work well for me unless toned into submission with selenium. Works great for others, just not me.

As Roger says, the issue is not the shadows, but the mid tones. Even with modern papers truly eye watering prints are still possible.

If you want a roughly neutral paper base and image tone, try MGWT in Eukobrom or Dektol. it can be made to look beautiful even untoned. With neutral developers the image tone can be a bit green, but with cooler ones I really like the prints untouched.

The attached exhibition prints were all off MGWT and mostly untoned. Don't look all flat and lifeless do they?
Click to expand...

No argument: I'm sure you are right. I was giving the roughest of ballpark figures, for subsequent ballpark experiment. I was deliberately sloppy, because I know that if you say '8-12%' there are people who will say, "Oh, in other words, 10%," and treat that as gospel. That's why Ilford no longer gives two development times, for a G-bar of 0.56 and 0.70: they found that too many people just used a development time half way between the two.

Cheers,

R.
 
Turtle said:
Here is a different perspective:

Ilford MGWT is an exceptional paper, as is Adox MCC. If you have seen really well produced prints recently you will know what can be achieved.... still.

As for dry down, I would give a figure somewhat lower that Roger, at 8-12%. Some papers dry down more or less, but most will fall into the above. What also has an impact is the evaluation lighting (of the wet print) and the final dry print. With experience, you do not need to calculate anything, you can look at the wet print and know where it will be at when it is dry. That takes time and consistency of materials, lighting etc.

Matt papers appear to dry down more. Much more.

I do not like MGIV at all. It just does not work well for me unless toned into submission with selenium. Works great for others, just not me.

As Roger says, the issue is not the shadows, but the mid tones. Even with modern papers truly eye watering prints are still possible.

If you want a roughly neutral paper base and image tone, try MGWT in Eukobrom or Dektol. it can be made to look beautiful even untoned. With neutral developers the image tone can be a bit green, but with cooler ones I really like the prints untouched.

The attached exhibition prints were all off MGWT and mostly untoned. Don't look all flat and lifeless do they?
Click to expand...

BTW may you inform us about the attached photos? Have you uploaded them to anywhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom