Current Ilford Multigrade Paper

[Peter Schrager]

Any. comments on this stuff?? I bought some because Freestyle is no longer my candy store and I figured how bad can it be
WRONG....there is no depth to the paper. I'm usually using Foam 131 but can't get my Beseler 23C to put out enough light to get realistic printing times with it. (My amazing little Minolta enlarger is in storage)
Regardless I'm way disappointed in this paper and I believe the last MG version was way better. Ilford is making Bergger paper and it's supposed to be nice but at even higher prices. I'm surprised no one here has mentioned this before.
So what are you printing on? Just very curious.....
if you do have what you consider a great print with this paper to prove me wrong send it to me; I'll gladly pay shipping both ways!!

 

[Lachlan Young]

The current Ilford Multigrade classic kicks MGIV all over the park. As does the Cooltone. Classic seems to match HP5+ nicely, Cooltone Tri-x. Both are fantastic papers, and much easier to get a great print out of than MGIV. I use a lot of both for various printing jobs & rate them very highly. Fomatone needs sheer raw power from the enlarger to expose it right - the speed difference between it & Ilford Cooltone FB is rather dramatic.

 

[mshchem]

Current Ilford papers are amazing.

 

[pentaxuser]

It sounds as if something has happened recently that has made you question the current batch of Ilford MG paper. If so this is unfortunate. I wasn't aware that the current Ilford paper MG paper which is MGIV has changed for many years. Can you supply more details on what you say in your middle paragraph. Currently it appears that you received a batch of Multigrade paper which fails to match your previous batch but more details on the "before and after" paper would help us

I take it that you wish to get to the bottom of what has "changed" but we need more information to help you. Otherwise I feel you will get a range of replies that stretch from mshchem's reply to others that suggest your process/chemicals have changed or try paper X, Y etc

I am assuming that you are looking for replies about others' recent experiences in terms of Ilford MG paper.

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

It sounds as if something has happened recently that has made you question the current batch of Ilford MG paper. If so this is unfortunate. I wasn't aware that the current Ilford paper MG paper which is MGIV has changed for many years. Can you supply more details on what you say in your middle paragraph. Currently it appears that you received a batch of Multigrade paper which fails to match your previous batch but more details on the "before and after" paper would help us

I take it that you wish to get to the bottom of what has "changed" but we need more information to help you. Otherwise I feel you will get a range of replies that stretch from mshchem's reply to others that suggest your process/chemicals have changed or try paper X, Y etc

I am assuming that you are looking for replies about others' recent experiences in terms of Ilford MG paper.

pentaxuser

MGIV is the current neutral tone resin-coated paper only - the FB emulsions changed in about 2013 to MG Classic in 1K, 5K & MG Cooltone in 1K only.

I suspect either unsuitable negatives (really rather difficult to do) or a user error somewhere in the paper exposure/ handling procedures. Safelights are usually a good place to check first if the paper is behaving poorly. Choice of developer chemistry may be playing a role too.

 

[MattKing]

RC or FB?
I use RC almost exclusively now, and I am very, very happy with it.

 

[Peter Schrager]

In regards to the paper I'm using the FIBER based. all the safelights are turned off except one 15 feet from the enlarger
I don't really use this paper but B+H has few alternatives in stock. my regular paper is foma 131. I'm not trying to compare the 2 papers at all; just to judge the paper on it's own merits. Pentaxuser there is no before and after I bought the Ilford because I really couldn't wait a week for a shipment from Freestyle. I really think the foma papers have it all over the Ilford.
honestly I'm more interested in seeing a print in person than lots of chit chat on the internet. I've been printing for 50 years so I might have an idea of what I'm doing. It's also not about bashing Ilford or their papers.

 

[Peter Schrager]

The current Ilford Multigrade classic kicks MGIV all over the park. As does the Cooltone. Classic seems to match HP5+ nicely, Cooltone Tri-x. Both are fantastic papers, and much easier to get a great print out of than MGIV. I use a lot of both for various printing jobs & rate them very highly. Fomatone needs sheer raw power from the enlarger to expose it right - the speed difference between it & Ilford Cooltone FB is rather dramatic.

send me a print let me be the judge...

 

[Ian Grant]

I've used a lot of Ilford paper over the years going back to when only Ilfobrom (graded) and Ilfomar (long gone) were available. They've always been excellent.

My guess is it's because you're comparing quite a warm-tone paper the Foma 131 (probably the warmest on the market) to a neutral toned paper. I printed a 5x4 negative on MG Classic recently as well as my more usual Forte Polywarmtone while both are good prints I much prefer the subtlety of the warm tone print.

Another point is I develop my warm-tone prints slightly differently as there's a lot of latitude to increase exposure and curtail development to increase the warmth. MG Classic and similar papers need more precise development and that includes the temperature to get the best from them.

Ian

 

[bdial]

I like the new(ish) MG classic and cool tone papers, but as Ian suggests, you might be happier with the MG warm tone.
I can show you some prints if you want to meet up in Brat sometime.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

RC or FB?
I use RC almost exclusively now, and I am very, very happy with it.

Same here. MGIV RC Pearl. It’s easy handling, fast processing and fast drying. The only time I do FB paper is if a customer requests it or if I want to do a larger archival print that I plan to selenium tone. Everything else is RC. My life is too short to make FB prints for every single thing I print.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Essentially, I'd reiterate what Ian said - and add that the toe of Fomatone is quite different from MG Classic. I use lots of Classic & Cooltone & it is significantly easier to get first rate prints from them than it was from MGIV.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've used a lot of Ilford paper over the years going back to when only Ilfobrom (graded) and Ilfomar (long gone) were available. They've always been excellent.

My guess is it's because you're comparing quite a warm-tone paper the Foma 131 (probably the warmest on the market) to a neutral toned paper. I printed a 5x4 negative on MG Classic recently as well as my more usual Forte Polywarmtone while both are good prints I much prefer the subtlety of the warm tone print.

Another point is I develop my warm-tone prints slightly differently as there's a lot of latitude to increase exposure and curtail development to increase the warmth. MG Classic and similar papers need more precise development and that includes the temperature to get the best from them.

Ian

I did some experimentation yesterday, printing the same TMY-2 (35mm) negative on ILFORD MGWT and MG Classic. A direct comparison makes the subtlety of the warmtone paper very clear, there is more definition in the mid tones. Developer ID-78 1+3, Se toned. The same neg printed on Galerie well, but I'm not sure ID-78 is the best developer in this case, may be better with D-72.

Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

Tom, I tend to print slightly differently with Neutral papers which is something I don't do often. I would typically use a different developer ID-62 (PQ Uninversal) which is the Neutral equivalent of ID-78, the extra Bromide in a warmtone developer will change the curve although I tend not to think in those terms.

Ian