Over the last few years I've gone through at least a half dozen (probably more) 50- and 100-sheet boxes of 11x14 Ilford Multigrade Classic and Warmtone (always glossy). This note describes differences I noticed between paper from 100-sheet boxes of Multigrade Classic I purchased in May 2025 and April 2026.
There were a lot of physical differences - the newer paper felt finer (I can't find a better word than this), slightly smoother and thinner, and just a bit more pliant and limp. It reminded me of some Foma paper I'd used a few months ago. Measuring the thickness with my Starrett vernier revealed that the new paper was very slightly thinner than the old: 0.0115" for the old and 0.0112"-0.0113" for the new.
The two papers also curled differently. The old paper's out-of-the-box curl was in the long direction, i.e. the two long edges curled towards each other. The new paper curled the other way, short edge towards short edge.
The papers expanded differently when wet. The old paper grew more in the short dimension while the new grew more in the long direction. When placed atop one another, wet sheets of old and new were clearly different, with the long edge of the new paper about 1/4" longer than the old, and the short edge of the old paper a bit longer than the new. They were the same size after drying.
I also ran test strips since I was in the middle of a short series of supposed-to-be-identical prints. Where the old paper had required a 12-second exposure, the new needed 13 seconds to reach the same mid-tone density. Contrast, at least with an Ilford 2-1/2 filter, appeared identical, as did image color and response to toning (not much, if I'm honest), it's just that prints on paper from the new box needed about 8% more exposure to match those from the older box. This is the first time I'd ever run into this - all prior boxes had always matched each other quite closely.
This isn't a complaint. Ilford's (and Foma's) papers remain excellent products, and the physical differences aren't of any practical consequence. But from now on I'll always run test strips if I have to switch to a new box of paper mid-stream.
There were a lot of physical differences - the newer paper felt finer (I can't find a better word than this), slightly smoother and thinner, and just a bit more pliant and limp. It reminded me of some Foma paper I'd used a few months ago. Measuring the thickness with my Starrett vernier revealed that the new paper was very slightly thinner than the old: 0.0115" for the old and 0.0112"-0.0113" for the new.
The two papers also curled differently. The old paper's out-of-the-box curl was in the long direction, i.e. the two long edges curled towards each other. The new paper curled the other way, short edge towards short edge.
The papers expanded differently when wet. The old paper grew more in the short dimension while the new grew more in the long direction. When placed atop one another, wet sheets of old and new were clearly different, with the long edge of the new paper about 1/4" longer than the old, and the short edge of the old paper a bit longer than the new. They were the same size after drying.
I also ran test strips since I was in the middle of a short series of supposed-to-be-identical prints. Where the old paper had required a 12-second exposure, the new needed 13 seconds to reach the same mid-tone density. Contrast, at least with an Ilford 2-1/2 filter, appeared identical, as did image color and response to toning (not much, if I'm honest), it's just that prints on paper from the new box needed about 8% more exposure to match those from the older box. This is the first time I'd ever run into this - all prior boxes had always matched each other quite closely.
This isn't a complaint. Ilford's (and Foma's) papers remain excellent products, and the physical differences aren't of any practical consequence. But from now on I'll always run test strips if I have to switch to a new box of paper mid-stream.
Last edited:
