Are there B&W papers better matched to T-grain films?

[brianmquinn]

Kodak came out with their Tmax line of films and then came out with PolyMax B&W paper. When they did this it was marketed as being better suited to printing the straight line Tmax films. I don’t know if it really worked better or was just marketing by Kodak. Anyway does anyone know a paper that in general does better with Tmax films? I am not looking for a magic solution just another paper to try out and see for myself.

 

[Ian Grant]

PolyMax wasn't marketed that way in the UK. However most manufacturers did tweak their papers to suit their own films, that's been happening for many years.

Pre WWII papers matched the thicker film emulsions of that era and modern papers can't match those papers in terms of tonality with those older negatives.

I found Tmax printed well on most papers, it's very good with Multigrade IV which is your equivalent.

Ian

 

[jp80874]

When Kodak dumped Polymax (and me) several of my friends switched to Kentmere Fine Print. When my Polymax ran out I also tried it and liked it. It was somewhat different but very good and less expensive. Then Kentmere was bought by Ilford. I stayed with Kentmere. Then Kodak dumped just about everything else I used and priced T Max out of the market in 8x10 and 7x17. Now I very happily use Kentmere and Ilford film (HP5+) because; it works, I can pay for it and Ilford has supported the market that interests me.

John Powers

 

[Tom Kershaw]

PolyMax wasn't marketed that way in the UK. However most manufacturers did tweak their papers to suit their own films, that's been happening for many years.

Pre WWII papers matched the thicker film emulsions of that era and modern papers can't match those papers in terms of tonality with those older negatives.

I found Tmax printed well on most papers, it's very good with Multigrade IV which is your equivalent.

Ian

I've found XP2 Super to print well on MGIV but my Delta negatives seem better suited to Adox MCC in general.

Tom

 

[BetterSense]

It seems like, since TMAX has little shoulder and a lot of highlight contrast, that an ideal paper for TMAX would have a long, gradual toe region. Is that correct? It seems to me that I do have trouble sometimes with tmax's tendency to have more latitude than fits on the paper, requiring highlights to be carefully burnt or masked down.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Kodak came out with their Tmax line of films and then came out with PolyMax B&W paper. When they did this it was marketed as being better suited to printing the straight line Tmax films. I don’t know if it really worked better or was just marketing by Kodak. Anyway does anyone know a paper that in general does better with Tmax films? I am not looking for a magic solution just another paper to try out and see for myself.

You got it backwards. You match your negatives to your paper/developer combination, not the other way around.

Until you do this, you will not realize the full potential of any paper.

 

[brianmquinn]

"new Oriental papers are made by Ilford and are the same as Multigrade IV"
This is not true.

Simon has made it very clear that Ilford will no longer sell any of their products under any other name than Harmon / Ilford. They will make similar but not identical products for other companies and allow them to be sold under other names however. So any new paper will be MGIV only if is says MGIV.

 

[brianmquinn]

"You got it backwards. You match your negatives to your paper/developer combination, not the other way around."

Sounds fine and I pretty much agree - Until they stop making the paper you were using and you want to reprint some of you older negatives.

 

[2F/2F]

My Delta 100 negatives seem to print equally well (although obviously a bit differently) on Polymax Fine Art (no longer unfortunately), Multigrade IV FB, and Oriental VC FB. Which reminds me, at the Sexton workshop he told us he had it on good authority the new Oriental papers are made by Ilford and are the same as Multigrade IV. I have never been able to get confirmation on this. They seem similar, but the Oriental paper still appears to tone more in Selenium than Multigrade IV (unless I'm just seeing things). So I've always been confused about this. The Oriental box says it's from Japan, but is it really from Japan or made by Ilford? If it is made by Ilford, is it identical to Multigrade IV FB, or is it made by Ilford to Oriental's specs, and therefore a different paper? I'm currently using Oriental VC FB, but I think it's mostly because I used the original Oriental stuff back before it folded in the 90s. I loved that paper. I doubt the new stuff is the same but I've been using it anyway. Although I'd still like to know if it is in fact re-packaged Multigrade IV. Because if it is, I wouldn't have to order my paper from New York anymore and could pick up Ilford paper at the local photo shop.

Michael
Montreal, Canada

Use the two side by side for the same negatives (something I have recently done), and it will be obvious that they are different. The Ilford does not have the same "bite" to my eyes, and the greys are not as neutral. I found the Ilford to be muddier and to have more of a hue than the Oriental VC. Perhaps they have changed the paper again, and I don't know about it. If so, it is a horrific loss! I love Oriental VC paper. I am now using it and Adox MCC 110 for almost everything in which I want a neutral paper; Oriental for when I want more graphic pictures, and Adox for when I want to try to dig information out of highlights and shadows.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

"You got it backwards. You match your negatives to your paper/developer combination, not the other way around."

Sounds fine and I pretty much agree - Until they stop making the paper you were using and you want to reprint some of you older negatives.

Yes, that's a compromise for sure. It might take some trial and error before you find a paper that works for you again. It's not easy to predict that a company like Kodak would all of a sudden cease black&white silver gelatin papers, for sure.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, that's a compromise for sure. It might take some trial and error before you find a paper that works for you again. It's not easy to predict that a company like Kodak would all of a sudden cease black&white silver gelatin papers, for sure.

There is a lot that can be done with paper chemicals. I'd suggest that anyone having trouble getting the right "look" to match on older print when using one developer try one of the many, many others out there. The most common example of this is a printer using either Kodak Dektol or Selectol-Soft depending on what he or she is after, or even a mixture of the two.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Or just vary the chemistry you are using, changing the dilution, etc. I use Ethol LPD, a remarkably flexible paper developer that can be tweaked to do different things. I keep stock around, replenisher, and working solution. This way I can vary the dilution on the fly and still maintain a working solution that I replenish.

There is a lot that can be done with paper chemicals. I'd suggest that anyone having trouble getting the right "look" to match on older print when using one developer try one of the many, many others out there. The most common example of this is a printer using either Kodak Dektol or Selectol-Soft depending on what he or she is after, or even a mixture of the two.