Didd Kodak introduce a new B&W paper?

[mikewhi]

Odd......they didn't check with me first.

Anyway, can anyone point me to some info on it? I went to the Kodak site, but didn't see anything. I'm just hoping it's not another RC\VC paper......

Thanks.

-Mike

 

[steve simmons]

It is but it is supposed to be pretty good. We will review it as soon as we can.

steve simmons
View Camera and CameraArts

 

[DKT]

Odd......they didn't check with me first.

Anyway, can anyone point me to some info on it? I went to the Kodak site, but didn't see anything. I'm just hoping it's not another RC\VC paper......

Thanks.

-Mike

here's a link to it:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...037/g4037.jhtml?id=0.1.16.14.28.46.14.4&lc=en


sorry but it's Polycontrast IV--replaces poly III and polymax II. I used polymax II for years where I work, and then switched to multigrade IV, now I just ordered 2 cases of poly IV to try out. I've only used about 15-20 sheets so far, but from what I can tell, it seems pretty nice. Like Polymax II, it has a different type of range to it than any Ilford paper. Whether this is a good fit for your negs, is hard to say. I think it will work pretty good with the TMX we use in our studio though--but I think it might be a bad fit for the old glass plates I have to print as well. In which case, I use Ilford Warmtone.

One thing I noticed about it, is the base material--it reminded me of the base weight for a kodak dye sub print in a way. I'll probably try to get some of the D surface--it's a new surface--if I can find it in a small quantity. Our machine is down right now, so I haven't been able to give a good workout yet, all I've used is E and F surface, but I liked the little bit I used.

 

[Tom Duffy]

I just picked up some in 5x7 "E" surface at Adorama. I noticed the "D" surface was available in 100 sheet 8x10 boxes.
I'm going to print with it tonight. I have some TMY negatives developed in Acufine that need some help (bad film/developer combination). I'll try to print a couple of Tri-x negs on it, as well and report back tomorrow.
There was a comprehensive and well done report on it in PhotoTechniques (the issue before the current one). It will be available in RC only. I think it's optimized for Tmax, "the miracle film" , which some are taking to indicate Kodak's long range film discontinuation plans...

 

[Eric Rose]

from the tests I have seen there doesn't seem to be much difference between the old stuff and the new. Not enought for me to begin liking it anyway.

Seems every film I standardize on gets disco'd within months. How many of you want to pay me NOT to latch onto TMX??!!

 

[DKT]

from the tests I have seen there doesn't seem to be much difference between the old stuff and the new. Not enough for me to begin liking it anyway.

trust me--it's different.

 

[Eric Rose]

I saw the same analysis. The curves compared the old and new and the difference was extremely slight. Almost to the point of not being able to decern it in the real world.

I would enjoy hearing a more detailed analysis showing how it is truely different.

 

[DKT]

I saw the same analysis. The curves compared the old and new and the difference was extremely slight. Almost to the point of not being able to decern it in the real world.

I would enjoy hearing a more detailed analysis showing how it is truely different.

Our processor just got fixed after a week down, so I'll give it a run through with a stepwedge next time I get a chance. I pretty sure I have some of both earlier papers to compare against. I'm sorry I'm too lazy to go back to college and refresh my memory on paper sensitometry...silly me, I just buy a pack of paper and try it out.

 

[Shesh]

DKT,
I am interested in your test results especially if you are comparing it to polymax II. It's been my paper of choice when I want to use RC, Semi Matt. I hope the migration to this one will be "seamless". I will probably be testing it after my current stock of PolyMax II runs out.

 

[BBarlow690]

I'm testing Polycontrast IV now for part of an upcoming View Camera article, and comparing it to my other paper tests. Short answer in advance: it looks really good. RC keeps shaming me into admitting that it can look good!

Bruce Barlow

 

[titrisol]

It is on the latest PT magazine JUL/AUG 04

How does his paper tone? Selenium? Viradon?

I read a review of the paper somewhere, and the author did a good job of describing the differences in curve shapes and which kinds of film curves will best suit the new paper. It was very objective and avoided the better/worse kinds of conclusions that I see too often. I wish I could remember where I read it, and the author, so I could recommend it and compliment the author, but, there it is.

 

[Tom Duffy]

As promised in my previous post, I did some printing last night of medium format TMY negs developed in Acufine. First the disclaimers, I dislike Tmax pretty intensely, I a Tri-x 320 guy myself. I gave up on Kodak enlarging papers long ago, preferring Bergger VCCB and Ilford Multigrade warmtone, so I can't compare to the existing Kodak papers.

Initial impressions of the paper are very favorable. It's about 1 stop faster than the Ilford warmtone and much more contrasty. When using the Kodak paper, I had to subtract 30 units of magenta from the filtration (color head) to get equivalence between the papers. The best prints of my negs required no filtration so the negs were pretty good. The paper showed a good range tones from black to white. The highlights were very impressive in that fine gradations were evident in the highlights. Shadow detail was excellent, as well. The paper seemed to work very well with the TMY.
Will this become a standard paper for me? No. First off, it's RC only. The look of the blacks don't come close to either my Bergger or Ilford standards. Secondly, it's a neutral to cold paper. I prefer warm tone paper.
The Kodak paper would be ideal if you had to produce a good number of prints from Tmax negatives.
I'm going to try to print some txp (320) and TX (400) negs tonight. I'll post results if anyone is interested.
Take care,
Tom

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I'll post results if anyone is interested.
Take care,
Tom

Please post, I've been using the RC for 8x10s and the VC for 11x14 with the new TMAX X and am favorably impressed. I would like to hear you impressions.
Thanks,

 

[DKT]

DKT,
I am interested in your test results especially if you are comparing it to polymax II. It's been my paper of choice when I want to use RC, Semi Matt. I hope the migration to this one will be "seamless". I will probably be testing it after my current stock of PolyMax II runs out.

okay--I'll see what i can do--nothing fancy. I'm going to do a ringaround of grades (settings on a dichro head) using a stoufer stepwedge. I have some polycontrast III and MGIV to compare against--but I used up the last of the polymaxII we had last week actually...Anyways--I found what little I used to similar to Tom's experience. The highlight contrast was real punchy--for lack of a better word--and it handled the shadow type detail in a similar way to Polymax II. It reminds me of Polymax II with better highlight contrast actually. There's no comparison to polycontrast III though.

 

[Tom Duffy]

Following up on my previous posting, I managed to print some txp 320 negs which were developed in Pyrocat on the new Kodak paper and compare to the same negs printed on Ilford warm tone fiber.

Short answer, the txp on the polycontrast IV looked better, ie., better shadow differentiation and better blacks that with the Tmax 400 negs, but the whites looked weak, a lighter gray rather than the strong white I prefer. the Ilford printed the txp far better than the PC IV did. Tri-x looked better on the PC IV than the tmax did. PC IV is not a bad paper but as an RC only paper is not worth the time. better to print on Ilford or Bergger and get deep, rich blacks.

Some of this may be that my tmax negs were developed in acufine, although the negs have adequate shadow detail. My real conclusion, that I've come to time and time again is, "why would anyone use tmax when they have txp available?"

your results may vary...

 

[DKT]

. My real conclusion, that I've come to time and time again is, "why would anyone use tmax when they have txp available?"

your results may vary...

I haven't done the stepwedge yet--but I'll get to it sooner or later-- I went ahead and plunged right into a box of it for a job I'm printing at work. I shot over 350 4x5 negs (TMX and mostly Ilford ortho) on some 100-110 yr old photos, postcards and cyanotypes. I shot grayscales as well, and developed two ways. A normal run for a CI to get me into a grade 2, and push & pull runs as well. Now--the majority of these had to be cross polarized as well--so it's a real mix of contrasts.

I have found though, that when printed onto MGIV Deluxe, my highlights suffer in comparison to Poly IV. I really like using Polymax II for these types of negatives, and it would appear that Poly IV will be a pefect match. I have to make prints for this project--I'm going to start on the Poly IV and see how it does. Could be I wind up using both Poly IV and MGIV.

I haven't gotten to print any of our object studio shots. It will be interesting to see how the paper handles the mahogany furniture we shoot on white keys, being on the other end of the tonal scale--but for copywork, the highlights are often compressed--so this paper really shines for that.

In a perfect world, you can fine tune your negs for the material you print on--but that world doesn't exist with historical negatives. This is why I always liked having more than brand of paper on hand....polymaxII would always work for where MGIV failed and vice-versa.

I don't think I'll find one better than the other--just different. But, I can get a killer deal on Poly IV on contract....much cheaper than the ilford, and it gets delivered on time. YMMV as they say.