Adorama VGRC enlarging paper cost comparison

I had a few free seconds recently and did a price comparison on Adorama for enlarging paper. Here's what I discovered:

Adorama VGRC Pearl 8x10, 250ct comes out to $0.36/sheet.
Adorama VGRC Pearl 8x10, 100ct comes out to $0.50/sheet.
Ilford MGRC Pearl 8x10, 250ct comes out to $0.80/sheet.
Ilford MGRC Pearl 8x10, 100ct comes out to $1.07/sheet.

I printed a handful of the Adorama and a couple of handfuls of the Ilford. The Adorama seems to be more contrasty, but other than that I am not seeing any obvious differences between the two papers.

The Adorama literally seems like a steal. Does anyone else have experience with this paper? There's precious little on the Interwebs about it (including here). What gives? It must be A TRAP.....

I've used Ultrafine and B&H multitone which I suspect are the same paper with good results. I have a couple hundred sheets of Ultrafine that I use for work prints then use Foma FB for final prints, Adorama has a better price point than Ultrafine. which is around .50 a sheet

Ultrafine VC ELITE Glossy Variable Contrast RC Paper 8 x 10 / 250
Item# 702-8100
$127.95

Any idea who is original manufacturer of this paper under Adorama and Ultrafine brands?

Made in the E.U, likely Harmon or a chance of Foma, made to order using an emulsion not used in of the main brands. Like with Ultraine films we will know when Harmon products will be labeled made in the U.K rather than E.U.

If the contrast is not a problem and it does what you need it to do then what's not to like about a cheaper price?. I doubt it is any kind risk to buy it

pentaxuser

pentaxuser said:

If the contrast is not a problem and it does what you need it to do then what's not to like about a cheaper price?. I doubt it is any kind risk to buy it

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

Amen, Amen I say to you. I bought a 250ct box after my experiments. Why not?

Dusty Negative said:

Amen, Amen I say to you. I bought a 250ct box after my experiments. Why not?

Click to expand...

Let us know how your purchase goes. Once anyone weighs up what they need and can accept from any product then the rest is about getting value for money in my book as you are doing.

pentaxuser

I will. I’ll do a couple of side-by-side comparisons with Ilford MGRC and (figure out how to) post them here.

Thanks - please be sure to indicate which version of the Ilford product you are using. The MGIV version has been recently replaced, but it seems that there is more of that still around than the new stuff.

Paul Howell said:

Made in the E.U, likely Harmon or a chance of Foma, made to order using an emulsion not used in of the main brands.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if it's simply fomaspeed, which foma also sells as it's own product.

It could also be made by one source, and cut and packaged by another.

I use Fomaspeed, contrast does not seem to match, and Formaspeed comes up more quickly. still could be, just my impressions. I think Photo Wearhouse cuts and boxes in house.

OK, folks, here are the results from a quick side-by-side comparison of Adorama VGRC Perle (sic) and Ilford MGRC Deluxe Pearl (this is the “new” paper.)

Before I get into the details, a quick note on my darkroom experience: minimal. Maybe 50 hours total?

With that out of the way, here are the details for the hardware:

Shot on Tri-X, box speed; developed in HC-110.
Enlarger is an Omega B8.
Ilford filters (the “0” and the “5”)
3-stop Neutral Density filter, because otherwise my B8 forces me down to 2 seconds frequently, even at f11.
Adorama 8x10:
12 seconds with “0” filter
5 seconds with “5” filter

Ilford 8x10:
13 seconds with “0” filter
5 seconds with “5” filter

Chemistry:
Sprint Systems Print Developer @60 seconds
Sprint Systems Stop @10 seconds
Sprint Systems Rapid Fixer @180 seconds
Water Wash @ 5 minutes

Digital ‘scanning’ of the prints:
Since I don’t currently have a macro lens for my digital system, this was shot on an iPhone using the Lightroom app, DNG format. I used a gray card, so the pictures are color/white balanced. A little (and equal) boost of contrast was given to all of the pictures, as was some noise reduction. They are otherwise not manipulated — you’ll see I added quite a bit of dust just for some street cred.

So now, the prints:
First photo is a full scale side-by side, with the Adorama on the left.

Next photo is a close-up side-by-side to show the slight difference in paper tone.

Third photo is a detail shot of Ilford.

Fourth photo is similar detail shot of Adorama.

My take, FWIW:
The Ilford emulsion is finer; it captures more gradation in the middle ranges, as you can see in the detail shots. Some of the “grain” in the Adorama detail shot is attributable to my iPhone and shooting in low light, but the Adorama emulsion nonetheless displays more rough mid-range details to the naked eye regardless of my poor scan.
The Ilford emulsion and/or paper has a green cast.
The Adorama paper has an overall more contrasty or “punchy” effect than the Ilford.
The Adorama paper renders a more neutral black-and-white image.

Given the price difference, I still quite like the Adorama. I have an irrational distaste for green; I do not like green casts in my B&W. I also like the punch and the neutral tone of the Adorama paper. However, for headshots I will still consider the Ilford given the smoother rendition of skin tones.

I look forward to folks with more experience chiming in here, and poking some holes in my process.

Thanks, Dusty, looks a very close run thing to me and if it does to you then if Adorama is cheaper then you made the right choice. I can never or very seldom tell any difference in grain in two print paper that are scanned so can't express any opinion

The only way to know how close a run thing it is, would be to place these prints in front of a statistically larger enough audience and ask each of them to chose not knowing which is which. I think that it might come out 50/50 or have a large number use the "no difference so can't decide option but that's just my opinion

pentaxuser