dektol&ilford paper

[bikegeek76]

Hi all. anyone have any tips on using dektol and ilford paper?(mg IV) I tried it with a well exposed neg, and it was grainy as hell and reciprocity seemed to be out the window.
Thanks.

 

[Markok765]

what fiulm were you using? i always got great results from this paper

 

[david b]

that is my preferred paper/dev of choice.

what film are you using? how big are you printing? ever use other combos?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've been using MGIV with Dektol 1:2 or 1:3 for ever since the paper came out with no problems whatsoever.

PE

 

[photobum]

Here's another me too. Dektol and the various Ilford MG's for years without a problem. I fail to see how there could be any problem with "grain" or reciprocity.

 

[Gay Larson]

me too, I like the combination.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'll join in. Ilford MG-IV (RC or FB) works great with Dektol 1+2. There is no problem with this combination whatsoever. Please explain your problem in more detail. The gremlin is somewhere else.

 

[srs5694]

I'm a bit puzzled by the problem description. What film format are you using? Your summary information says you're using medium format. If that's accurate, then I'd expect grain to have more to do with the graininess of the negative than of the paper or anything else in the enlarging process. A paper would have to be really dreadful to cause an increase in apparent grain from a medium-format negative.

Also, when you refer to reciprocity, do you mean you're not getting the speed you expect from the paper? If so, compared to what? (For instance, the same paper in Developer X.)

Given your comment about grain, I can't help but wonder if you're complaining about issues that are actually related to your film and/or film developer rather than the paper and/or paper developer.

 

[PhotoJim]

Dektol works great with Ilford papers. The normal 1:2 dilution is entirely appropriate.

Ilford makes a developer, Bromophen, that functions very much like Dektol (using phenidone rather than metol), in fact.

 

[david b]

So where is the original poster? He has a lot of questions to answer.

 

[htmlguru4242]

I also must say that I use this paper almost exclusively with Dektol 1:3. It works really well for everything except solarization.

I've never had a problem with speed, either. It's a tad slower than the Kodak stuff that I use from time to time, but in the range of a second or two more exposure ...

 

[DannL]

I agree with most everything already stated. I use Dektol 1:2 most exclusively with MGIV Deluxe. Dev 90 sec, stop, fix for 3 min. If you're experiencing an issue with grain, you should suspect the paper replicating the grain which is already present in the negative. (via enlargement). I would say you're working with a very grainy negative. If you ever make a paper negative with MGIV and then develop in Dektol you will note this combination has no visible grain. Maybe there is though . . . under a microscope. I personally like grain, and also develop T-Max and Delta Pro in Dektol 1:2. Works for me.

"reciprocity seemed to be out the window" . . . good, I never found a use for it anyway. LOL!

Ciao!

 

[htmlguru4242]

If you ever make a paper negative with MGIV and then develop in Dektol you will note this combination has no visible grain.

Ya, i've done this before, too. I've never been able to find grain in paper negatives; on a light box, the texture from the paper is even more visible than the grain, in a host of different developers.


As to the suggestion of the neg. being too grainy, that's probably the case. Unless the grain is fairly large (like Delta 3200 large), it may not be immediately apparent upon visible inspection of the neg. Have u looked at the neg. under a loupe to see?

 

[firecracker]

I use the Dektol and Ilford RC pearl as the set for my parameter for printing. This helps me see things consistently in many ways.

 

[bikegeek76]

crappy poster

Sorry everyone. I posted and then got busy buying a house. The film was 35mm tri-x. The same thing happened a while back when I ran out of kodak paper and my buddy let me use his ilford paper. It just looked grainy. It was not the negs, because the prints from the same roll at the same time & place came out fine on kodak. I'll try it again and see the results...Again, sorry...

 

[srs5694]

Sorry everyone. I posted and then got busy buying a house. The film was 35mm tri-x. The same thing happened a while back when I ran out of kodak paper and my buddy let me use his ilford paper. It just looked grainy. It was not the negs, because the prints from the same roll at the same time & place came out fine on kodak. I'll try it again and see the results...Again, sorry...

This just doesn't make sense to me; the grain in paper should be so tiny as to be unnoticeable. Are you sure you're not confusing the finish of the paper (glossy vs. matte) with degree of graininess? Most manufacturers offer both glossy and matte finishes (and possibly others, or these under other names). A matte finish has a more "textured" look and feel that's vaguely like grain -- if you squint and twist your head just right. ;-)

 

[Bob F.]

Good point re' paper finishes. I could not make any sense of the original post as, like others, I could not see how the paper would give visible grain so refrained from comment but now you mention it, Ilford's Satin and Pearl RC papers have a mechanical texture to them that may be the source of this "grain".

BG, can you look at the label on the paper pack and tell us if it says "Satin", "Pearl, "Glossy" etc and whether it is RC or fibre?

Cheers, Bob.

P.S. Hope the house purchase went/goes through OK - can be a real pain!

 

[gnashings]

I frankly prefer the Agfa paper - but its not really an empirically justifiable prefernece. I have used Iflord paper with Dektol with great results (at least from that part of the process - the part behind the viewfnder always leaves something to be desired). I slowly sttled on a 1:2 or 1:3 dilution after starting with 1:1. I prefer the slightly warmer look I find it gives me - its a subtle but in my opinion noticeable difference.
No grain issues. The only time I had any issues was when I left a print in the soup for something like 15 minutes, and it was too warm to begin with (I got distracted) - but that was just my mistake through and through.
You mention Kodak paper - I have developed Agfa, Ilford and Kodak paper in the same session, in the same batch of soup - no differences other than those inherent to the paper speed and finish (and to smaller degree, tiny differences in how they react the contrast filters - again, miniscule!).

Peter.

 

[noseoil]

Would like to see side by side scans of this one. I can't see how the paper would be affected in this manner, but who knows? Can you post an example of each so we can see what is happening? Dektol & MGIV is my standard for proofing, with excellent results. If it won't print decently this way on grade 2, I don't bother to go beyond for a finished print. tim

 

[bikegeek76]

Paper type

It's rc gloss. I don't thing that the issue was the texture of the paper. I'll be in the darkroom tonite, I'll try again. Maybe I had my head up my butt.
And thanks for the empathy. This house stuff is a pain...

 

[Bob F.]

It's rc gloss. I don't thing that the issue was the texture of the paper.

Fair enuf - it rules that idea out, which is useful...

Only other things I can think of is if you are printing the Ilford at a higher contrast than the Kodak paper which would show up the film grain more, or vastly overdeveloping the paper (but I suspect you would really have to cook it in that case, which is unlikely). Try printing the same negative on both papers at the same size, grade, etc and see what you get. All jolly odd...

Good luck! Bob.