All Grade 2 Papers - Grades 0 to 4

This is a follow up to the thread Grade 0 Emaks
I started a few months ago. All papers tested were
Grade 2 DW FB Glossy. Beer's contrast control developer
1 and 7 was used. A 21 step step tablet used in conjunction
with the Log E.S. grade scale established the values. Allow
+/- 1/4 grade from listed values as a densitometer was
not used in making the determination.

Beer's 1 is the lowest contrast Beer's and equal
to Ansco 120. Results:
Arista 1 1/4; Emaks 1/4; Kentmere 3/4; Slavich 2 3/4

Beer's 7 is the highest contrast Beer's, a little higher
than Dektol's. Results:
Arista 2 3/4; Emaks 2; Kentmere 1 1/4; Slavich 3 3/4

Twixt Beer's 1 and 7 the differences in grades are:
Arista +1 1/2; Emaks +1 3/4; Kentmere +1/2; Slavich +1

Grades 0 to 4 by the 1966 ASA Standard. So 4 grades
from one grade of papers.

The Arista in Beer's 1 value may change. I think the
paper is old. It took well over a minute in each Beer's
prior to emergence and persists in showing a low level
of fog. Dan

Can't say I've ever heard of that developer, care to give a little more information about it?

RoBBo said:

Can't say I've ever heard of that developer,
care to give a little more information about it?

Click to expand...

Beer's is similar to A. Adams' split Ansco 130. Both
provide contrast control by varying the ratios of an
A and B component. With both the B parts have as a
developing agent, hydroquinone. The A part has metol
and with Ansco 130, glycin as well.

Dr. Beer specifies 7 blends. I take the ratios as
suggestions on Dr. Beer's part. A. Adams specifies
whatever works. For example, Beer's 1, 3, and 6+ may
do well for all print jobs. In effect 3 developers each
delivering a certain contrast. To easily combine the
A & B portions 3 and 6+ are quarter combinations.
The latter, 6+, is not a Beer's ratio but is near
his 7. Strictly speaking I don't use 7; I work
with very dilute one-shot chemistry. Beer's
7 is used without dilution. Dan

Dan;

Quite frankly, the differences in toe, shoulder and mid scale of papers vary so much that the measurement you give is almost meaningless. I know that it was hard work, and I'm sure it was carefully done, but that 'grade scale' cannot give a full appreciation of the real contrast. Only the curve itself with quantitative data can do that. In fact, we used 4 points on the curve to determine compliance with ISO contrast, and since there are 2 methods of controlling contrast even the most rigorous method can fail.

For example, one method centers contrast around a standard mid tone of 0.8 or 1.0 in which all prints turn out with the same mid tone density but toe, low toe and shoulder vary. Another varies contrast from the low toe speed point and contrast and apparent speed vary at the same time.

This is a very slippery slope. It is like saying "I made a bridge" when in fact, you have dropped a log across a stream. There is a big difference in the concepts involved.

PE

If anything, this test supports my suspicion that Emaks graded is more amenable to developer controls than other papers.

Do you know what the Arista paper is that you tested? They are usually something else rebranded.

The only comment I have is that the Fotokemika paper I have to treat differently and usually leave in the soup longer. I use it with Ansco 130 at 1+3 dilution and I use a three minute print time to reach d-max and develop to completion. It does like a negative with lots of contrast, but for me that's a good thing. It's how I like it. I don't know if it's 'correct' or not.
This is a completely unscientific observation (as I approach photography unscientifically) and is just how I feel about the paper after having gone through maybe 200 sheets of it. There's an attachment to this post using Emaks G3 with a normal contrast negative and 1+3 dilution of A-130 @ 72*F and 3 minutes.
(Shot with a Tessar Rolleiflex using FP4 film, developed in Pyrocat-MC [semistand]).
- Thomas

[QUOTES=Photo Engineer;564333]
Quite frankly, the differences in toe, shoulder and mid
scale of papers vary so much that the measurement you
give is almost meaningless. ...
In fact, we used 4 points on the curve to determine compliance
with ISO contrast, and since there are 2 methods of controlling
contrast even the most rigorous method can fail.

For example, one method centers contrast around ...
Another varies contrast from the low toe speed point ...PE[/QUOTE]

The specific tests conducted and determinations made
are for IN HOUSE purposes. My objective in doing these
tests is to determine the Exposure Scale of the paper.
Rough approximations of contrast distributions can be
made from the step tablet image. Also, the relative
speeds of papers can be determined.

My original post should not have implied any OFFICAL
status to the findings. Although all papers tested are
glossy non were ferrotyped. David Vestal states that
ES measurements for grade give false results with
dull-surfaced papers. Not exactly dull but not
fully glossed.

All that is not to say my grade determinations are not
accurate. They ARE within context meaningful. Two
developers, all other things being equal, and the
resulting Exposure Scales. Dan

Dan;

I fully understand. I guess that if I could show you some graphs, I might convince you that appearances can be deceptive. It is hard to judge qualitatively, the true contrast of a paper (or film in some cases), but your work can serve very well to point out relative differences. I meant no offense whatsoever.

I can cite several examples though that might help you.

Imagine two papers with exactly grade 2 mid scale contrast but one with a soft toe and the other with a hard toe. Your observation might be that these papers have two different contrast grades, but 'technically' they have the same contrast. Now, by sliding exposure up and down, the sharp toe paper can appear to have higher contrast than the soft toe paper but another exposure might show that they look the same.

The soft to paper, meanwhile, might blow you away by showing great highlight detail, but the hard toe paper might impress you with its rendering of shadows. That is why a subjective evaluation is often difficult. And, it is hard to explain in words. I need to start doing some graphing and posting of the graphs.

PE

Well,
A friend of mine is using Azo and amidol at this point. he is running out of Azo and saw that I was using Ansco 130 with almost all my contact printing and enlarging. So he took a print he had that was done on Azo #2 with good shadow and highlight detail and bought kentmere, oriental seagull and Ilford. printed all on #2 paper with Ansco 130. what a difference in the shadow detail from kentmere and the other two. From what I have already found using several different developers, that the kentmere highlights and shadow areas blocked up. the Shadow areas muddied up and the highlights all blended together. the other two showed good separation in high and low tones along with deeper blacks. Now I know there is alot of people who love kentmere and will respond against me, but unless you try your own tests, I'm sorry kentmere doesn't hold up to these papers. as for the match to Azo, well as always the Azo print just glowed and detail was there that non could get.
And as form Beer developer, I forgot all about that and will have to dig up the formula and try that again, just for fun.

Mike Andersen

Photo Engineer said:

Dan;
...but your work can serve very well to point out
relative differences. PE

Click to expand...

That is some consolation. Fact is I've based grade
determinations on a false premise. For those who followed
the thread Grade 0 Emaks and suspected something was
wrong I now see the error of my way. I hope I didn't
cause any unnecessary confusion or cast doubts
upon the industry.

After giving David Vestal's article Paper Contrast Perplex,
specifically the section Finding the Exposure Scale - Without A
Densitometer, I understand where I went wrong. In a nut shell
the relation ship twixt grade and steps is non-linear. So just
counting steps then multiplying won't do it. Mr. Vestal has
incorporated the non-linear relation ship in his 'edge
count' method of determining grade.

I'll make use of Mr. Vestal's method and post grades
more believable. Dan