Grade 0 Emaks

[dancqu]

I've been testing four FB Graded glossy papers;
all grade 2. Three of the four test grade 2 +/- some
little. The grade 2 Emaks K-888-2 tests grade zero. Basis:
ASA Standard Paper Grades 1966. A latter standard agrees
within a small fraction of a grade. Conditions: condenser
enlarger, Beer's 1 developer.

Have any others noted this peculiarity with Emaks
Graded paper? Dan

 

[Chris Breitenstein]

Wow!!! if the grade two is actually zero, then my negs must be REALLY contrasty; seeing how "G2" needs a water bath sometimes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My box of G2 Emaks prints similarly to my box of Kentmere Bromide G2, with a slightly longer tonal scale it seems. Very strange. Perhaps another quality control issue? It seems odd. I would contact the place where you purchased the paper (Freestyle are always interested in preventing problem papers reaching the market).

- Thomas

 

[dancqu]

My box of G2 Emaks prints similarly to my box of
Kentmere Bromide G2, with a slightly longer tonal
scale it seems. Very strange. Perhaps another
quality control issue? Thomas

Kentmere Bromide, Slavich, and Arista Classic are
the three other papers and they show 6 to 7 steps
of the 0.15 step tablet used for tests. The Emaks
shows 10 +. Each paper has been tested twice
so far. Consistent results.

Beer's 1 is a metol only sulfite/carbonate low contrast
print developer. I'll test next with Beer's 7 which is long
on hydroquinone; the high contrast blend.

I may contact Freestyle. Dan

 

[Marco Buonocore]

Why are you testing with Beer´s 1?

Wouldn´t it stand to reason that a Grade 2 paper developed in Beer´s 1 would be significantly low in contrast? Maybe not two full grades, but maybe it relates to how the paper in question reacts to Metol.

Why not use Beer´s 4 - isn´t that the ´normal´developer? Wouldn´t that give the most normal results?

Just curious.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I also wonder why one should be surprised by low contrast results with a low contrast developer. It would be more sensible to test it in something standard like Dektol 1:2, if you wanted to make a general observation about it in comparison with other papers.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For the record, my tests were done using Ilford Bromophen at 1+1 dilution.
- Thomas

 

[dancqu]

I also wonder why ...

Two wonder why. First of all, as mentioned in my first
post, three of the four papers tested measured grade 2.
Give or take a fraction of a grade that was expected. The
Emaks though came in at grade 0. Exact same development
all four papers.

I'm testing for each paper's contrast response to Beer's 1
and 7. I'll also test with Beer's 5 which has a 1:1 ratio of
metol and hydroquinone. Likely Beer's 6 is nearest Dektol
for contrast.

I don't expect more than about one grade of contrast
control using Beer's 1 through 7. Dan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What you might be seeing is that Emaks is a traditional soft emulsion paper with no developer incorporated, which makes it more susceptible to traditional developer controls like Dr. Beers, amidol and water bath, toning developers, two-bath, etc. The other more modern style papers are probably just not responding to the low-contrast developer as well.

Emaks grade 2 should be a little softer than other grade 2 papers in a normal contrast developer, but more on the order of half a grade than two grades.

 

[dancqu]

What you might be seeing is that Emaks is a traditional
soft emulsion paper with no developer incorporated, which
makes it more susceptible to traditional developer controls
like Dr. Beers, amidol and water bath, toning developers,
two-bath, etc. The other more modern style papers
are probably just not responding to the
low-contrast developer as well.

Emaks grade 2 should be a little softer than other grade
2 papers in a normal contrast developer, but more on the
order of half a grade than two grades.

Good thing you reminded me. I had forgotten to first
check each of the four papers for developer incorporated
emulsions. I use a working strength carbonated only solution
for testing. I do not expect any of the papers to show
positive for DI emulsion but must be sure. I'll post
back in a couple of days with results. Dan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

More interesting would be to see how well Emaks responds to Dr. Beers in comparison with the other papers. If it has more expansion and contraction potential, that would be interesting.

 

[janjohansson]

Hello,
sorry for being slow on giving my few cents on this issue.
I did test emaks (and a few other papers) less than a year ago, in dektol 1+2.
The result for emaks is similar to yours, 10+ steps.

This is with paper that is probably 4 years old or so, bought through
swedish distributor.


-Jan

 

[dancqu]

Hello, sorry for being slow on giving my few cents on this issue.
I did test emaks (and a few other papers) less than a year ago,
in dektol 1+2. The result for emaks is similar to yours, 10+ steps.

This is with paper that is probably 4 years old or so, bought
through swedish distributor. Jan

I've had the Emaks and three other papers in my stock two
plus months. Save for a few days of 80 + degrees the papers
have been at room temperature. The Emaks prints clean with
good blacks. I suppose aging could still be a factor. With
same processing the other three papers print grade 2.

Well now, how often does one come across a clean
printing Graded grade 0 paper? Must be there are some
negatives lying around that can use a grade 0. May make
grade 1 with Beer's 7; the high contrast blend. Dan

 

[dancqu]

What you might be seeing is that Emaks is a traditional
soft emulsion paper with no developer incorporated.

Each of the four GR 2 GL FB papers, Arista Classic, Emaks,
Kentmere Bromide, and Slavich, have tested negative for
developer incorporated emulsions. For myself that is no
surprise. I've tested perhaps half dozen other papers,
VC and RC included and not yet a DI emulsion. Dan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It's still not entirely clear what's going on, but some papers respond to old style developer controls (amidol, 2-bath, toning developers, etc.), and some don't.

Galerie, which is a fine paper, is famously impervious to just about any such control and doesn't tone easily. On the one hand that makes it a very consistent product, but on the other hand, it's less flexible.

What would be interesting, since you're working with Dr Beers, would be to see how each of these papers responds to that kind of control. Maybe some of them will be grade 2 in any Beers combo, maybe one will have a range of grade 1.5 to 2.5, and maybe another will have a range of 0 to 3. My point is that the discovery that a paper has low contrast in a low contrast developer shouldn't be surprising, and it is probably a good thing rather than a bad thing, as long as the paper has normal contrast in a normal contrast developer.

 

[dancqu]

My point is that the discovery that a paper has low contrast
in a low contrast developer shouldn't be surprising, ...

So, what should be surprising? That three of the four
papers, all four developed in the same low contrast
developer, measured grade 2? Only the Emaks,
measured grade 0, behaved itself?

It could be a mistake in production, or as suggested aged
paper, or as you've suggested a very responsive emulsion.
Great blacks clean whites and Grade 0. Dan

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes. It's quite likely that most modern papers don't really do anything interesting in Beers, as most modern papers don't really do anything interesting in amidol, and most modern papers don't tone in toning developers, while Emaks behaves like an older style paper, perhaps because the emulsion isn't hardened as much (this was Steve Anchell's suggestion about amidol and Cachet Expo RF, which was Emaks) or for some other reason.

Also, PE has posted that by his tests, most modern papers seem to have developers incorporated, so unless the two of you are testing completely different papers, something is amiss here.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This is an interesting development. I'll do some additional tests with my Emaks G2 and Kentmere Bromide G2 during this week in a couple of developers. Ansco 130 and Bromophen.
- Thomas

 

[dancqu]

Also, PE has posted that by his tests, most modern
papers seem to have developers incorporated, so unless
the two of you are testing completely different papers,
something is amiss here.

Completely different methods of testing. At my last
reading PE spot tested under room lighting with NaOH.

My method duplicates the usual print processing procedure
save for the developer. The developer is carbonated only
and the amount of carbonate is that used in my usual
developer. For these tests the 'developer' is my
usual Beer's 1 minus the metol and sulfite.
The developer acts as an activator.

Prior to development the paper is given a measured
exposure using the enlarger and timer. The amount of
exposure is sufficient to yield a good black. That amount
of exposure previously determined.

After the activator and fixing the paper is examined under
white light. I can name six papers which have shown
absolutely no hint whatsoever of any image.

I'm quite sure my method is as near real world processing
as is possible. Dan