nworth
Allowing Ads
I've begun using this paper, and it is taking a bit of getting used to after using Ilford MGIV. It was strange enough that I did some tests. My eyes and the tests still don't quite correspond, but I am beginning to get used to the Adox product. Some differences are obvious, and they make a big difference in the appearance of the image. The most important one is the surface. Adox 312 is much more lusterous than Ilford MGIV Pearl. That means a higher DMax and higher contrast. But my eyes think they are similar or even that the Adox has thinner blacks. Weird. Another thing is image color. If you look at a piece of developed fogged paper, the image tones are very similar, and MGIV may be a very slightly bit warmer (probably an invalid impression due to the lesser DMax). Measurements also show both the blacks and midtones to be similar in warmth. But when viewing real prints, my eyes tell me that the Adox product is noticeably warmer than MGIV. Adox MCP 312 developed in D-72 is on the warm side of neutral black, just as the data sheet says it is. The advertisements for Adox 312 say that the tone can be manipulated by using different developers. The data sheet is more cagey about this, saying that the image tone is primarily determined by the emulsion but that some limited change may be possible with different developers. I tried developing prints in both Defender 54-D and Ansco 115, a warm tone developer. The change in tone was barely perceptible.
I contact printed a step tablet onto the Adox paper using Ilford filters 00, 3, and 5. For comparison, I also printed it onto Ilford MGIV Pearl FB. The results are below. The Adox paper has a huge contrast range, giving a gamma of about 0.78 with the 00 filter and 1.85 with the 5 filter. Gamma with the 3 filter is about 1.1. For comparison, the gamma for MGIV with the 3 filter is around 0.83. DMax for the Adox varies from 1.71 with the 00 filter to 1.89 with the 5 filter. It is 1.87 with the 3 filter. The paper seems to be a bit slower with the 00 filter than with the 3 and 5 filters, but not seriously so. MGIV has a much lower DMax - 1.26 with the 3 filter.
I thought I noticed some muddiness in the shadow detail on inspecting my prints. That could be caused by a decided shoulder in the curve. The shoulder is there, but inspection of the negative showed that it was also partly to blame. Things like this can gang up on you to make life less than ideal. The shoulder also occurs with MGIV, but it is sharper and more well controlled. Both the Adox and the Ilford papers also have decided toes, which could affect highlight rendering.
I contact printed a step tablet onto the Adox paper using Ilford filters 00, 3, and 5. For comparison, I also printed it onto Ilford MGIV Pearl FB. The results are below. The Adox paper has a huge contrast range, giving a gamma of about 0.78 with the 00 filter and 1.85 with the 5 filter. Gamma with the 3 filter is about 1.1. For comparison, the gamma for MGIV with the 3 filter is around 0.83. DMax for the Adox varies from 1.71 with the 00 filter to 1.89 with the 5 filter. It is 1.87 with the 3 filter. The paper seems to be a bit slower with the 00 filter than with the 3 and 5 filters, but not seriously so. MGIV has a much lower DMax - 1.26 with the 3 filter.
I thought I noticed some muddiness in the shadow detail on inspecting my prints. That could be caused by a decided shoulder in the curve. The shoulder is there, but inspection of the negative showed that it was also partly to blame. Things like this can gang up on you to make life less than ideal. The shoulder also occurs with MGIV, but it is sharper and more well controlled. Both the Adox and the Ilford papers also have decided toes, which could affect highlight rendering.
