Diffusion & MG Cooltone —> Condenser & MCC110

ericdan · May 15, 2019

I have been using a LPL VC enlarger for the past few years. Started with a couple of boxes of MCC110 paper but never could get it to work for me. I tried MG Cooltone and really like that. It was much more punchy and still tones nicely.
I now got myself a Focomat 1c and realized how much more contrast I get. I was printing with filter 1 or ½ with brand new under the lens filters and still had highlights that just could not be saved.
I already gave up on MCC110 but had a few sheets left and tried those. To my surprise this is now my favorite paper to use with the focomat.
It have nice deep blacks and can recover highlights where MG cooltone just gave me white.
I know I could develop my film less to lower the contrast but I wanna be able to print my older negatives as well.

Doremus Scudder · May 15, 2019

So, what's the difference between the two enlargers? I suspect that the LPL has a diffuse light source and the Focomat is a condenser enlarger. What you're likely seeing is the added contrast from the condenser source.

Doremus

ericdan · May 15, 2019

Yes that’s right. The focomat is a Condenser. It made me like a paper that I couldn’t make work with the LPL Diffusion enlarger.
Just found it interesting how different these papers are in terms of contrast

DREW WILEY · May 15, 2019

The papers are certainly different; but if you can print a particular negative on one kind of paper, you should certainly be able to print it on the other. The contrast range isn't THAT different. Learn to "split print".

ericdan · May 15, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
The papers are certainly different; but if you can print a particular negative on one kind of paper, you should certainly be able to print it on the other. The contrast range isn't THAT different. Learn to "split print".

have you tried MG Cooltone FB ?
it really is very different.

DREW WILEY · May 16, 2019

Yes, I've used plenty of it. Haven't been able to locate any more right now. They must not make it very often. In the meantime, I'm using Berrger Neutral tone with 130 developer and GP1 gold post-toning to get somewhat bolder cold images than I could with MG Cooltone; but it's more difficult to retouch (spot).

ericdan · May 16, 2019

Interesting. So the out of stock status wasn’t a coincidence.
Gold toner will probably cool down your neutral paper considerably but MG Cooltone just has such a bright white base color.

Sal Santamaura · May 17, 2019

ericdan said:
...MG Cooltone just has such a bright white base color.

I tried it once when first introduced and found it garishly, repulsively overloaded with optical brightening agent. Excessive surface gloss was another turnoff. Never again.

DREW WILEY · May 20, 2019

Garish? That's sure a bit of hyperbole. Overbright? If that's the case, use a glycin developer to add a pinch of warmth to the base. But "trying it once" pretty much sums up the problem. Kinda like saying, "I tried making an apple pie once, but it came out burnt; so apple pies are no good". It takes time to get a handle on any new paper. But there are obviously other choices. I do wish they'd improve the tendency to blotchiness in open highlights, a problem shared with MG Classic unless the paper is VERY quickly and evenly immersed in the solutions.

Patrick Robert James · May 20, 2019

I've used both enlargers you have and there shouldn't be that much difference between the two. I'm guessing the lens on the LPL was faulty. I use a 1c for 35mm these days but I miss my ol' 670 VCCE.

Sal Santamaura · May 21, 2019

ericdan said:
...MG Cooltone just has such a bright white base color.

Sal Santamaura said:
I tried it once when first introduced and found it garishly, repulsively overloaded with optical brightening agent. Excessive surface gloss was another turnoff. Never again.

DREW WILEY said:
Garish? That's sure a bit of hyperbole...

Not at all. Accurate description. Carry a Multigrade Cooltone FB print from an area where it's illuminated by incandescents toward daylight or fluorescents and watch it start to glow. Garish indeed.

DREW WILEY said:
...Overbright? If that's the case, use a glycin developer to add a pinch of warmth to the base...

Warming the base, by any means, does nothing to eliminate the optical brightener. Like all Ilford fiber-base papers except Warmtone, those brighteners are "anchored." They and their effect are there unless and until enough time / UV stimulation wears them out. Garish indeed.

DREW WILEY said:
...But "trying it once" pretty much sums up the problem...

Nice try, but denigrating me does nothing to change the paper's overbrightened nature. Printing a full package using various developers and techniques proved that the issue is inherent in the product.

Tom Kershaw · May 21, 2019

Sal,

What is your view on the ILFOBROM GALERIE papers?

Tom

Sal Santamaura · May 21, 2019

Tom Kershaw said:
Sal,

What is your view on the ILFOBROM GALERIE papers?

Tom

It was an exceedingly beautiful paper. I say "was" because as of now HARMAN has discontinued all but grade 3, and I suspect that's still available only due to a master roll remaining in stock. In other words, when that's gone, all GALERIE will probably be discontinued.

The fixed curve of graded paper is a challenge. Matching negatives to it becomes mandatory. When that was accomplished, GALERIE produced wonderful prints. While containing some optical brightener, it used less than even Multigrade Classic. Also, the glossy surface was as close to perfect as one could find in this era. Just shiny enough to support sold blacks, but not so much as to make reflections a problem in typical viewing situations. The gloss was lower than Multigrade Classic's, which is the next best glossy Ilford paper in that regard.

GALERIE's disappearance will be a great loss.

Tom Kershaw · May 21, 2019

Thanks Sal. GALERIE is one paper I have no reservations about using if the negative fits as you say. I still have some grade 2 but only in 8"X10" and 12"x16".

DREW WILEY · May 21, 2019

You must sure have some funky fluorescents, Sal, unusually high UV, or perhaps commercial grade? We had a similar "discussion" once before. I have two kinds of fluorescent tubes at my inspection and spotting station, plus other light sources to switch on or off as appropriate. And no annoying white glow. But I've been in galleries where they cooked prints under hot projector halogens that make almost any b&w baryta base glow. That's why they do it. Allegedly, Galerie doesn't use brighteners but a special paper. Other than the sheen difference, it looks no different than Cooltone under my own lights with respect to the question at hand. But I use high quality tubes intended for this kind of work or display. Galerie is just a step from the abyss; and I generally get better results with other papers anyway, like MGWT. Back in graded paper days, I used a lot more Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide than Ilfobrom Galeries. You'd probably call me an outright heretic if I told you I just finished printing some Fuji Superlgoss. Now that's nice paper! Actually, it's not a paper at all, but polyester for RA4 color.

Tom Kershaw · May 21, 2019

I've found MGWT easy to work with, particularly the paper's fairly slow speed, and excellent tone reproduction.

Sal Santamaura · May 22, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
You must sure have some funky fluorescents, Sal, unusually high UV, or perhaps commercial grade?...

Nope, just plain old residential types. Irrelevant, though. Daylight through a window excites MG Cooltone FB brighteners just as much.

Sal Santamaura said:
...Carry a Multigrade Cooltone FB print from an area where it's illuminated by incandescents toward daylight...

DREW WILEY · May 22, 2019

Bingo. "Plain ole residential types"; direct daylight. Lots of UV; and in the case of junk bulbs, off color. Not irrelevant.

Sal Santamaura · May 22, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
Bingo. "Plain ole residential types"; direct daylight. Lots of UV; and in the case of junk bulbs, off color. Not irrelevant.

Utterly irrelevant. Unless someone is willing to never show their Multigrade Cooltone FB prints in a room that receives any illumination from daylight or other source with any UV component, the large amount of incorporated optical brightening agent will be excited and the prints look garish.

HARMAN and ADOX get their base paper from Schoeller. It's all the same. The only thing they've got to make different finished products vary are the emulsion (including incorporated brighteners) and overcoat. Multigrade Cooltone FB is loaded with brightener and its overcoat provides higher gloss. By design.

Keep trying to blame me or the light, though. It's entertaining.

Lachlan Young · May 22, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
Allegedly, Galerie doesn't use brighteners but a special paper.

Not unless it changed without warning - as far as I know, the current formulation was the one that introduced the locked-in brighteners approach that subsequent Ilford papers have used.

Without going too deeply into the matter, the only way around getting a properly white paper without pigments or brighteners is probably a high/ pure linen content substrate. Anyone willing to pay for that?

DREW WILEY · May 22, 2019

Sal - have you ever seen MGWT prints displayed under gallery halogens? - same thing, given sufficient UV. But if you don't care enough about this whole issue to even specify appropriate lighting, I don't see why your gripe about Cooltone warrants attention. Even the effect of black and white post-toning is out of whack under Cheapo Depot fluorescents. Hope you don't ever apply for a job at a lighting store. Did your color temp meter land in the trashcan long ago?

Sal Santamaura · May 23, 2019

DREW WILEY said:
...have you ever seen MGWT prints displayed under gallery halogens? - same thing, given sufficient UV...

Not if Multigrade Warmtone fiber base prints have been given an extended wash to remove the brightener. It's the only Ilford fiber base paper in which optical brightening agent is not "anchored" and can be eliminated via appropriately long water immersion.

DREW WILEY said:
...I don't see why your gripe about Cooltone warrants attention...

Many readers here and elsewhere don't see why your ad hominem attacks and know-everything-about-everything posts (frequently wrong and/or irrelevant) warrant attention.

DREW WILEY · May 23, 2019

Well, then you have a solution for your own esthetic requirements. I routinely wash prints an hour, and that certainly doesn't remove the brighteners from MGWT. Allegedly, it can be washed out of other papers too; but an extremely long wash might not be a good idea for other reasons. You evidently hate gloss and sparkle. Fine. You're not alone. People have differing tastes. I happen to use quite a range of gloss versus matte, and all in between, depending on the specific subject, size of print, etc. But there is nothing inappropriate or irrelevant about stating the importance of quality lighting. That's pretty much integral to the ABC's of the whole topic.

DREW WILEY · May 23, 2019

What I like about MG Cooltone is that it has conspicuously better highlight and shadow gradation than MGIV, better DMax, can achieve a truer cold tone, and accepts toners way better. The higher gloss seems to work well making the extra highlight values apparent. Could this paper be improved? Probably. But let's give them credit for going the right direction. I've gotten quite a few wonderful prints with it. If you want something even bolder in DMax, but less glossy, try Bergger Neutral Tone MC. I wish somebody would resurrect Forte Polygrade V.

Diffusion & MG Cooltone —> Condenser & MCC110

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency