Coating problems with Ilford MGRC Deluxe Glossy?

[Marco B]

Hi all,

I have been happily working with Ilford materials for years, but I recently bought a new package of Ilford MGRC Deluxe Glossy that has been giving me problems. Since I was not used to seeing this, I first thought about errors on my side, but I am now pretty sure this must be some kind of coating issue. I first noticed this on one of my recently posted images. E.g. see here:

On the way to "Red Line" demonstration in the Hague

Mother and daughter in the train on the way to the second "Red Line" demonstration that brought together about 150k people in the Hague

www.photrio.com

Notice that about 1/4 of the bottom, there is a faint line of tiny "white" spots visible, almost the entire length of the print. They are about 0.1-0.3mm in size, spaced (less than) one to a few millimeters max apart.

In fact, when looking through a 10x loupe, see one of the images below, it becomes clear these spots aren't in fact entirely white, but light grey with still visible grains, as if the second high contrast coating layer of the multigrade paper had these defects, but not the low contrast one. My first line of thought was a scratch (before looking through a loupe). But a scratch on the negative's emulsion should result in black, not white spots. Inspecting the negative on a light table using a loupe, also doesn't reveal an obvious issue, the negative looks fine without any spots, whether dark or light. And as for a scratch of the paper's emulsion through careless handling by me: there appears to be no visible scratch to the glossy surface when I bend the paper in strong light. Of course, with the emulsion of the paper being scratched, I would also expect the dots to be more or less completely white, instead of greyish. I have seen a few more prints with this type of "scratch" while using the same package, while other prints appear to be fine.

I also had a clear issue with one other print, see below, where there appears a large (about 0.5cm diameter) bright white "hole" in the print. Looking at an angle to strong light, there appears to be a clear "ridge" in the emulsion causing a tiny shadow to the right of the hole, as if an air bubble prevented the coating from sticking to the paper at that point. A second print of the same negative on a new sheet of paper was fine.

As to my processing:
- I always agitate the prints every 15-20 seconds during a 4 minutes development time, so failed development caused by (part of) a print floating dry on top of the developer, is essentially excluded.
- The very rare cases where I have multiple prints in the developer tray, I always put them back-to-back (front-to-front) to prevent the RC prints from sticking to each other.

Anyone else had issues with possibly the same batch of paper, see the attached label? And am I right these are most likely attributable to a coating issue at the Ilford plant? Again, I cannot remember having seen such issue before while working with Ilford paper. I guess I could contact Ilford, but before doing that, it would be nice to have some confirmation of my analysis of the potential problem, as I have not seen such clear issues before even though having worked with Ilford papers for years.

 

[Lachlan Young]

as if the second high contrast coating layer of the multigrade paper had these defects, but not the low contrast one.

Ilford Multigrade paper is (as far has been disclosed) a single blended emulsion layer + supercoat(s).

And air bubbles in coating tend to have a dark ring around a light centre.

It's much more likely that some tiny spots of (dilute) fixer on you, your clothing or the general environment got on the paper. It doesn't need to be working strength to have the effect seen.

 

[Marco B]

It's much more likely that some tiny spots of (dilute) fixer on you, your clothing or the general environment got on the paper. It doesn't need to be working strength to have the effect seen.

Ok, thanks for the analysis so far. I still have a hard time explaining the large white spot though, given my general workflow, but it most likely is then though no development, as I can't see a fixer stain getting such a clear perfect border.

As to fixer explaining the tiny dots, you may well be right, but I do tend to be quite rigorous, e.g. thorougly rinsing any tong that may have accidentally ended up submerged in a tray, only taking it out with another tong, not my bare hands, and washing my hands with soap afterwards before continueing to print. Anything to prevent my hands or clothing becoming stained / polluted.

That said, perfect cleanliness is of course impossible in a darkroom, and I certainly won't claim achieving it.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

As to my processing:
- I always agitate the prints every 15-20 seconds during a 4 minutes development time, so failed development caused by (part of) a print floating dry on top of the developer, is essentially excluded.
- The very rare cases where I have multiple prints in the developer tray, I always put them back-to-back (front-to-front) to prevent the RC prints from sticking to each other.




View attachment 401441
View attachment 401437 View attachment 401438 View attachment 401439

It's unusual to agitate paper intermittently.
Have you tried continuous agitation to see if that makes a difference?
4 minutes seems a long time for development.

 

[pentaxuser]

Contact Ilford with your pics and thoughts and tell us what it says

pentaxuser

 

[Marco B]

It's unusual to agitate paper intermittently.
Have you tried continuous agitation to see if that makes a difference?
4 minutes seems a long time for development.

The problem is not with the agitation, I have used the same method forever without issues.

Yes, 4 minutes is long, but needed. Even though using the bottle recommended dilution of this local Dutch brand developer and the instructions saying it would require some 90 seconds for development, this has proven far to short at the recommended dilution. It may partly be down to the fact that getting really fresh new developer here in the Netherlands, is not so easy, but I also think the bottle recommended dilution may be off. 4 minutes though garantuees full development, and makes it even less likely agitation has anything to do with it given the extended time and hence many times of agitation during the whole development process.

 

[MattKing]

Take a scrap of paper and expose it to an even light for long enough to give you a mid-tone when develped normally.
Develop that scrap as part of your printing session.
Examine it for the same issues.

 

[koraks]

As to the dotted-line defect: it doesn't look like a coating issue to me. Coating issues of repeating nature more likely occur in straight lines. They tend to not wander about erratically. The first thing that comes to mind is a trail of calcium drying spots left by a droplet of water finding its way down the length of the film as it dried.

I don't know what the big spot is. It's conceivable that you're contending with an air bubble that didn't dislodge due to your very minimal agitation routine. You might try a more conventional approach to print development.

But a scratch on the negative's emulsion should result in black, not white spots.

That's not correct. A scratch all through the image density may result in a black mark on the print. Scratches that are more superficial and especially on the non-emulsion side of the film tend to show up as white as they scatter light.

the fact that getting really fresh new developer here in the Netherlands, is not so easy

This is not the case, fortunately.

 

[Marco B]

As to the dotted-line defect: it doesn't look like a coating issue to me. Coating issues of repeating nature more likely occur in straight lines. They tend to not wander about erratically. The first thing that comes to mind is a trail of calcium drying spots left by a droplet of water finding its way down the length of the film as it dried.

I don't know what the big spot is. It's conceivable that you're contending with an air bubble that didn't dislodge due to your very minimal agitation routine. You might try a more conventional approach to print development.

That's not correct. A scratch all through the image density may result in a black mark on the print. Scratches that are more superficial and especially on the non-emulsion side of the film tend to show up as white as they scatter light.


This is not the case, fortunately.

Thanks @koraks,

I didn't know about the effect of scratches on the non-emulsion side. Still, a first close inspection did not show obvious damage. I may look a second time though to be sure.

As to calcareous deposit: final rinse is always with demineralized water and wetting agent. It is not a 100% garantuee for no problems, but I haven't seen much of issues in this respect after I switched to using demineralized water instead of just tap water with wetting agent, which definetely did leave ocassional marks of deposit.

Honestly, the agitation isn't that "minimal". It is fairly rigorous, but an air bubbel might still be at least one viable explanation.

One thing I will at least try to do, is a reprint of the mother and daughter photo, and see how it turns out. It will at a minimum reveal or exclude an issue with the negative.