A new direction.

markbarendt · Nov 29, 2010

Yesterday I had my first experience with graded paper and wow, what a difference it was.

I was printing both XP2 and FP4 (in Pyro) negatives.

My normal paper has been Ilford MGIV, the paper I tried was Oriental Seagull R-4.

The MGIV wasn't bad and I was liking what I was getting with grade 4 filtration and I was thinking about a bit more contrast filtering but on a whim I tried the R-4 that had been sitting on the shelf, "cleaned up the mud" instantly.

After playing with this paper a bit it also gave me a fresh way of looking at printing, well a transferred way. I have more experience with RA-4 which is essentially a 1 grade world. I'm guessing RA-4's curve is close to grade 4 maybe sneaking up on 5 when compared to B&W.

What happened was that I stopped worrying about adjusting the contrast of the paper and started thinking about printing to the paper and the prints started getting even better.

So like choosing a film I think I'm starting on a path to choose a paper or two with the right look that I can "shoot to".

Anybody else had this epiphany?

chimneyfinder · Nov 29, 2010

I agree, Mark, that graded papers can concentrate your thoughts and that often the results can have a bit more 'sparkle'. If I wasn't so used to working with my multigrade head and the fact that I have acquired a large stockpile of variable grade paper and the fact that duplicating paper in different grades is relatively expensive I wouldn't mind at all sticking to graded at 2, 3, and 4. As it is I only have some assorted graded, some of it 20"x24", and not enough of the same type in different grades. As for MG IV, I'm not a huge fan, I prefer the Agfa/Adox and Foma multigrade papers.

Stick with it. I inwardly groan when I hear of a new paper, because I inevitably try it, but that's how I got back to Adox after happily using Agfa for years previously. I find that because of the fantastic variety of techniques and products kicked up by the forums, it is best to stick mainly with what you are happy with, say 75% of your time, and experiment for the other 25%. That way you can achieve finished prints and stumble on these epiphanys.

Regards, Mark Walker.

pentaxuser · Nov 29, 2010

If it's any help Tim Rudman describes and shows examples of how pre-development bleaching allows a single high grade paper to replicate lower grades when required. It takes a bit longer to do a print of course but seems to allow a one high grade box( he uses Grade5 but presumably grade 4 would do the same thing) to be used instead of having boxes 2-4/5.

It is in his Master Printing Course book. Well worth obtaining.

pentaxuser

Robert Hall · Nov 29, 2010

I've used Tim's suggestions in the past with good success, but I have to say that using graded paper is a great experience in and of itself.

Show us what you got there, Mark.

markbarendt · Nov 30, 2010

Here you go Robert.

One of the Oriental, one Ilford filtered to Grade 4, same neg.

The third print is on the Oriental and with a little more work it ought to be ready for a final print. It's a straight print and with a taste of dodge/burn it should be done.

The only manipulation I did here was to set the white point with the dropper on the border of each.

The scan of the cross doesn't do it justice.

Robert Hall · Nov 30, 2010

Definite gain in contrast. Wasn't that a cool little church? I wish we could have helped them out on their power bill.

I think today is pretty close to the deadline which we need to get things to Per, no?

Curt · Nov 30, 2010

markbarendt said:
Yesterday I had my first experience with graded paper and wow, what a difference it was.

I was printing both XP2 and FP4 (in Pyro) negatives.

My normal paper has been Ilford MGIV, the paper I tried was Oriental Seagull R-4.

The MGIV wasn't bad and I was liking what I was getting with grade 4 filtration and I was thinking about a bit more contrast filtering but on a whim I tried the R-4 that had been sitting on the shelf, "cleaned up the mud" instantly.

After playing with this paper a bit it also gave me a fresh way of looking at printing, well a transferred way. I have more experience with RA-4 which is essentially a 1 grade world. I'm guessing RA-4's curve is close to grade 4 maybe sneaking up on 5 when compared to B&W.

What happened was that I stopped worrying about adjusting the contrast of the paper and started thinking about printing to the paper and the prints started getting even better.

So like choosing a film I think I'm starting on a path to choose a paper or two with the right look that I can "shoot to".

Anybody else had this epiphany?

Mark, I'm familiar with Oriental Seagull G but I can't find Oriental Seagull R-4; What is it?

ic-racer · Nov 30, 2010

markbarendt said:
Here you go Robert.

One of the Oriental, one Ilford filtered to Grade 4, same neg.

The third print is on the Oriental and with a little more work it ought to be ready for a final print. It's a straight print and with a taste of dodge/burn it should be done.

The only manipulation I did here was to set the white point with the dropper on the border of each.

The scan of the cross doesn't do it justice.

I see the big difference, thanks for posting the pictures. Hmm...is the Ilford paper fresh? Did you try the Ilford paper at Grade 5 also?

Mick Fagan · Nov 30, 2010

Having used Ilford MGIV RC paper extensively, plus quite a few graded papers from all sorts of manufacturers. I would be hesitant to suggest the difference is normally that startling.

I have the impression that the Ilford paper (as presented) doesn't look anywhere near the same contrast as the graded paper. Looking at the shadow detail in the foliage, I would assume the Ilford paper has actually been exposed at a far lower contrast than a true grade 4 on the multigrade scale. The Ilford paper looks muddy and soft and slightly over exposed.

It is possible for a number of reasons that this may be the case, safe lights, light source, filtration system, paper age.

In the past I have switched to a graded paper for a slight lift in certain aspects from a negative. A graded paper will certainly produce different results, and I have certainly produced far closer (not identical) results than what I'm seeing, in all situations.

Interesting presentation nonetheless, thanks for showing.

Mick.

markbarendt · Nov 30, 2010

Mick,

I don't know the age of this box so that is a distinct possibility. In previous sessions though this box has printed the same as fresh.

The filtration is right, two filter (M&Y) setup as specified by Ilford. Saunders LPL with a color head.

Safe light is about 6 feet away and sits on top of a shelf that blocks any direct to-the-paper lighting. Has to bounce off the ceiling first.

The sheets move from the paper safe to the easel and are being exposed within 5-10 seconds, after exposure the go into a JOBO drum, about 10-15 seconds there. Total exposure to the safelight on a sheet where I'm all thumbs is still under 45 seconds.

markbarendt · Nov 30, 2010

ic-racer said:
I see the big difference, thanks for posting the pictures. Hmm...is the Ilford paper fresh? Did you try the Ilford paper at Grade 5 also?

Did not try 5.

I printed another XP2 shot that is not shown and the Grade 5 filtered Ilford MGIV is very close to RA-4 and this Oriental Grade 4 paper.

markbarendt · Nov 30, 2010

Curt said:
Mark, I'm familiar with Oriental Seagull G but I can't find Oriental Seagull R-4; What is it?

It also says RP on it.

http://www.orientalphotousa.com/msds/newseagull.asp#rp

Gerald C Koch · Dec 1, 2010

Traditionally for non-chromagenic films, medium format film is developed to a gamma sufficient to permit the negatives to be printed on grade 2 paper. The gamma used for 35 mm film is somewhat less and are printed on grade 3 paper. This is done to reduce the grain of the final image. If you constantly have to use grade 4 (or higher) paper then your negatives are underdeveloped. Increasing development time will improve shadow detail in the negatives. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams "The Negative" and also "The Print" for more information on adjusting the film characteristic curve to that of the paper.

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2010

Gerald C Koch said:
Traditionally for non-chromagenic films, medium format film is developed to a gamma sufficient to permit the negatives to be printed on grade 2 paper. The gamma used for 35 mm film is somewhat less and are printed on grade 3 paper. This is done to reduce the grain of the final image. If you constantly have to use grade 4 (or higher) paper then your negatives are underdeveloped. Increasing development time will improve shadow detail in the negatives. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams "The Negative" and also "The Print" for more information on adjusting the film characteristic curve to that of the paper.

Tradition is just tradition.

MF and LF can gain the same benefit of lower grain from softer development too.

I have Ansel's books and have read them.

Essentially what I learned from Ansel is simply to match a film's curve steepness to a papers curve steepness to get a good result. That's the norm in the C-41 RA-4 world.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 1, 2010

markbarendt said:
I have Ansel's books and have read them.

Essentially what I learned from Ansel is simply to match a film's curve steepness to a papers curve steepness to get a good result. That's the norm in the C-41 RA-4 world.

Very good. But why do you need grade 4 paper with regular B/W films? Am I mistaken that you use both chromagenic and regular B/W films?

markbarendt · Dec 1, 2010

Gerald you are not mistaken,

The grade 4 is just what I had.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 1, 2010

markbarendt said:
Gerald you are not mistaken,

The grade 4 is just what I had.

Explains everything, I thought that you were using grade 4 because the negatives were of low contrast.

drpsilver · Dec 1, 2010

Gerald C Koch said:
If you constantly have to use grade 4 (or higher) paper then your negatives are underdeveloped. Increasing development time will improve shadow detail in the negatives. I would suggest reading Ansel Adams "The Negative" and also "The Print" for more information on adjusting the film characteristic curve to that of the paper.

01 Dec 2010

I completely agree!

I have been using Ilford MGIV for many years with several films from 35 mm to LF. I was surprised at the "muddiness" of the prints posted above because it did not agree with my experience. My first thought was that this negative is underdeveloped. The negative looks properly exposed because I see detail in the shadow. If the negative was properly developed a grade 4 would make that branch shadow on the wall look "unreal". Increasing development time will also balance the overall contrast of the negative.

Regards,
Darwin

markbarendt · Dec 2, 2010

drpsilver said:
01 Dec 2010

I completely agree!

I have been using Ilford MGIV for many years with several films from 35 mm to LF. I was surprised at the "muddiness" of the prints posted above because it did not agree with my experience. My first thought was that this negative is underdeveloped. The negative looks properly exposed because I see detail in the shadow. If the negative was properly developed a grade 4 would make that branch shadow on the wall look "unreal". Increasing development time will also balance the overall contrast of the negative.

Regards,
Darwin

The negative is as stated above is FP4 in Pyro. It had plenty of exposure and was developed at a workshop under the tutelage of Per Volquartz.

That's actually not a shadow on the wall, it's a weed in the foreground.

I do fully realize that I can increase development to "balance" the negative.

The question though is "balance to what?"

Grade 2 is simply the traditional choice.

markbarendt · Dec 2, 2010

Gerald C Koch said:
Explains everything, I thought that you were using grade 4 because the negatives were of low contrast.

Well given that the XP2 shots are printing nicely on the Oriental paper too, the FP4 is probably lower contrast than is traditional. For all I know that may be a Pyro thing.

This is not necessarily a bad thing in my mind, lower contrast adds flexibility at the camera and minimizes grain.

Part of what took me down this rabbit trail is that I have in a separate experiment a while back I tried printing normal B&W negs (HP5 and Delta 400) on the "harder" RA-4 paper. Some of these showed some promise but my printing skills at that point were meager (I not claiming mastery here, just that things are starting to get easier ).

One of the seductive things about choosing to print at grade 4 as a standard is that it would allow me to standardize more closely my traditional and chromogenic "curves" and to experiment in cross pollination. I can print C-41 and traditional B&W films more similarly if their film curves are more similar.

The other driver here is that in learning traditional B&W printing the single thing that has provided me the most frustration is; chasing the "right" paper contrast.

I truly find that it is much easier to get color work right than to get the contrast right in traditional B&W. (Measured by the count of paper sheets in the trash.)

A new direction.

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency