How are people liking the new Ilford papers?

[Rob Skeoch]

Now that they've been on the market for a while, how are people enjoying the new version of Ilford Multigrad papers. I've tried the RC for a while, mostly contact prints and work prints, and will be using the Fiberbase version in the next couple weeks... but I haven't tried it yet since I still have a bit of the old version.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In the FB category, MGWT has been a home run product for quite awhile now; one of the best darkroom papers ever. MG Cooltone is definitely a quality upgrade over the previous MGIV, but a little fussier to work with. Likewise, the parallel MG Classic, which is slightly warmer in color, or so-called "neutral tone", and more affordable than MGWT, so a relatively popular product these days. Dive in!

 

[Pieter12]

I don't think the FB has been changed since its was introduced a half-dozen years ago. The new RC paper is just catching up.

 

[GregY]

Rob, You are late to the party in some ways. Ilford is almost the only game in town. Like Drew said, WT is a wonderful paper, and Cooltone & "Classic" have their own thing going on. I've used them since the new triumvirate came out 5+ yrs ago. My Forte got used up, Oriental has started to fog & Foma is all but impossible to get on a regular basis. Thank the photogods for Ilford FB!

 

[snusmumriken]

I use the FB version and love it. I especially appreciate how consistent it is between boxes.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Not one of the glossy Ilford FB papers has a decently low level of shine when air dried. They're all excessively reflective. Between that and our ongoing drought, I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio. It's a fine product.

 

[otto.f]

I prefer Bergger CB and NB above any Ilford paper. Recently I discovered Rollei 311, which is perhaps even better than Bergger. As claimed by the manufacturer, it is very much like good old Agfa’s MCC. For contact sheets I use Fomaspeed. I’m not interested in PE papers as an end product, I’d rather scan and print digital in that case.

 

[gone]

I like both the cool tone FB and matte papers. They took a while to figure out, especially the drying part. W/ the right image I'd rate them 8 to 10. The MCC 10 papers otto.f mentioned looked better for what I do.

Also used quite a bit of the MGRC Glossy papers. A very easy paper to dial in, and they look great until you put them beside the FB prints. I now think of the those as "documentary, or street" papers, while the FB are for sure "art" papers. The blacks are beautiful, look very similar to etchings.

One day I'll turn the enlarger on sans negative, make the whole paper black, and put it on the wall just to see that deep black from corner to corner.

 

[snusmumriken]

Not one of the glossy Ilford FB papers has a decently low level of shine when air dried. They're all excessively reflective. Between that and our ongoing drought, I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio. It's a fine product.

Isn’t it the case that deep blacks and specular reflections/surface shine go hand-in-hand? You can’t have one without the other.

Ilford Classic FB seems a fair compromise in that respect. Dry mounting to really flatten the print helps a lot, but you still need well-placed lighting to show it at its best.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bergger papers are made by the same people as Ilford - Harman. Slightly different curve - drops the blacks a little faster than MGWT.
The Neutral version of Bergger Prestige can be tweaked to a look somewhat reminiscent of classic old Seagull G. I used to rely on Harman Fineprint, which was an excellent paper; perhaps these Bergger papers have inherited some of that previious Harman R&D.
They're priced toward the upper end, just like MGWT.

I don't know what all the fuss about reflections is. Yeah, all these papers are a little glossier than MGIV FB or Ilfobrom Graded. But I'm accustomed to printing and framing true high gloss media like Cibachrome and Fujiflex, so this is a non-issue for me.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Isn’t it the case that deep blacks and specular reflections/surface shine go hand-in-hand? You can’t have one without the other...

As with everything else in photography (and life generally), finding the optimum balance is key. Until darkroom paper manufacturers succumbed to the marketplace's apparent fascination with shiny objects, there were multiple products that afforded higher print dMax than anyone might possibly use, but could be viewed easily in normal room light. Look for older prints made on Kodak Elite, Polymax Fine Art, Ilford Multigtrade (before IV) and Galerie for examples. Today's "mirrors" don't make deeper blacks but demand a dark room and carefully aimed spot illumination to avoid veiling glare. Papers' top coats were changed nearly a decade ago to cause this, as confirmed by Mirko of ADOX. If anyone wants to see what the ideal surface looks like, seek out an inkjet print made on Hahnemuhle FineArt Barta Satin using a dye (not pigment) based ink. Any blacker blacks I've never found, particularly from the really shiny stuff like Cibachrome/Ilfochrome and Fujiflex.

...Ilford Classic FB seems a fair compromise in that respect. Dry mounting to really flatten the print helps a lot, but you still need well-placed lighting to show it at its best.

Confirmation of what I posted combined with a coping strategy. Not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand.

 

[snusmumriken]

Until darkroom paper manufacturers succumbed to the marketplace's apparent fascination with shiny objects

I don't think the fascination with shiny things is recent. When I was a kid in the 60s/70s, hot-glazed glossy single-weight sheets were what newspaper darkrooms turned out routinely and what many amateurs aspired to. A right pain it was too - so many ways to spoil the print. However, I never saw glazed prints in any serious exhibition, so not everyone subscribed to that fashion even then.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Smaller dye transfer prints were often ferrotyped to make them glossy. True high gloss only comes with polyester base media like Ciba or Fuji Super. No ferrotyped or glossy RC paper can duplicate that. Some people love the effect, some hate it. With me, it all depends on what best suits any particular image. I've printed on all kinds of surfaces, including flat.

 

[BMbikerider]

I did a test just after MG5 came onto the market and it is streets ahead of the old MG4. It is at least a stop faster and grade for grade especially between Gd 2 and 3.5 are more evenly spaced. Where I would have to use Gd3 for a print with decent blacks plus a bit of dodging/burning I now can use Gd1.5 with less messing about.

It takes a little longer for the full blacks and highlight details to become evident but the prints are richer and more full bodied than before. I usually give a print 1 min 15 seconds. The tone if used with MG Developer is also verging on slightly warm which I prefer.

The fibre equivalent I understand has been slightly 'tweeked' by Ilford, but is still not as fast as Mg5 and the tones are different. They are not going to designate it as MG5 Fibre.

The price of MG5 RC in UK is cheaper than most others that are on sale, especially the Fibre based and for me that is one big bonus

 

[Pieter12]

Not one of the glossy Ilford FB papers has a decently low level of shine when air dried. They're all excessively reflective. Between that and our ongoing drought, I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio. It's a fine product.

Isn't glossy supposed to shine? If anything, Ilford glossy isn't really very glossy. Maybe if you ferrotyped it. Otherwise it's not as shiny as RC glossy.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't think the fascination with shiny things is recent. When I was a kid in the 60s/70s, hot-glazed glossy single-weight sheets were what newspaper darkrooms turned out routinely and what many amateurs aspired to. A right pain it was too - so many ways to spoil the print. However, I never saw glazed prints in any serious exhibition, so not everyone subscribed to that fashion even then.

Let's underscore what we're talking about here: air-dried, fiber-base "glossy" paper. Which is what exhibition printers have used since the 1980s. I haven't ferrotyped a print since the 1960s, and then only to see what it would look like. I hated it then, and still hate it now.

Isn't glossy supposed to shine? If anything, Ilford glossy isn't really very glossy. Maybe if you ferrotyped it. Otherwise it's not as shiny as RC glossy.

"Supposed to?" Not if we're talking about a print to be viewed under any other than the most controlled lighting conditions. Ilford glossy fiber base papers are much shinier when air dried than the fiber base papers I listed above, whose elegant surfaces were just glossy enough to support solid blacks. I'd never consider an RC glossy paper. To clarify, the Multigrade RC Portfolio I've standardizd on is Pearl surface.

 

[Pieter12]

Let's underscore what we're talking about here: air-dried, fiber-base "glossy" paper. Which is what exhibition printers have used since the 1980s. I haven't ferrotyped a print since the 1960s, and then only to see what it would look like. I hated it then, and still hate it now.



"Supposed to?" Not if we're talking about a print to be viewed under any other than the most controlled lighting conditions. Ilford glossy fiber base papers are much shinier when air dried than the fiber base papers I listed above, whose elegant surfaces were just glossy enough to support solid blacks. I'd never consider an RC glossy paper. To clarify, the Multigrade RC Portfolio I've standardizd on is Pearl surface.

My experience is once under glass, Ilford FB Glossy doesn't present any more of a glare issue than the glass itself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yep, glass or plexi itself is FAR more shiny than ANY kind of FB or even RC "gloss". But there are ways to minimize that too, for the right price, that is. Otherwise, secondary reflections needs to be controlled by an intelligent display and lighting strategy, or just be ignored.

 

[pentaxuser]

I did a test just after MG5 came onto the market and it is streets ahead of the old MG4. It is at least a stop faster and grade for grade especially between Gd 2 and 3.5 are more evenly spaced. Where I would have to use Gd3 for a print with decent blacks plus a bit of dodging/burning I now can use Gd1.5 with less messing about.

It takes a little longer for the full blacks and highlight details to become evident but the prints are richer and more full bodied than before. I usually give a print 1 min 15 seconds. The tone if used with MG Developer is also verging on slightly warm which I prefer.

The fibre equivalent I understand has been slightly 'tweeked' by Ilford, but is still not as fast as Mg5 and the tones are different. They are not going to designate it as MG5 Fibre.

The price of MG5 RC in UK is cheaper than most others that are on sale, especially the Fibre based and for me that is one big bonus

The two print example prints from the same negative were an excellent illustration of your points above

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Long ago, a b&w white paper with an almost velvet texture existed, capable of an exceptionally deep black. Of course, they were also fragile to handle and exceptionally hydroscopic, so subject to rippling, mildew etc. There's a reason for serious supra-coatings.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

My experience is once under glass, Ilford FB Glossy doesn't present any more of a glare issue than the glass itself.

Not if one uses the correct glass. It must be low-iron, AR-coated and not "museum" glass (which has a plastic UV absorbing layer that adds a color cast). Here's an example:

Frame Destination

Frame Destination

www.framedestination.com

Done right, except when viewing from extremely oblique angles, that type of glass seems to disappear, leaving the print -- with all its reflective flaws -- unchanged.

Even if one uses inferior glass and has to suffer with the issue you describe, you've ignored the part of my comment that pointed out not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand, making veiling glare from room light on excessively shiny surfaces annoying. Manufacturers would do well to revert their papers' top coats to the much more reasonable ones they previously applied.

 

[brian steinberger]

Both Tru Vue AR glass and Art glass only filter about 70% UV light. Conservation clear and museum glass both filter 99% UV light. Wouldn’t you want more UV light blocking for your prints?

That said, I hate museum glass. We use mostly conservation clear glass on prints.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not if one uses the correct glass. It must be low-iron, AR-coated and not "museum" glass (which has a plastic UV absorbing layer that adds a color cast). Here's an example:

Frame Destination

Frame Destination

www.framedestination.com

Done right, except when viewing from extremely oblique angles, that type of glass seems to disappear, leaving the print -- with all its reflective flaws -- unchanged.

Even if one uses inferior glass and has to suffer with the issue you describe, you've ignored the part of my comment that pointed out not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand, making veiling glare from room light on excessively shiny surfaces annoying. Manufacturers would do well to revert their papers' top coats to the much more reasonable ones they previously applied.

In California, frame shops discourage using glass in framing pictures and photographs. They recommend plastic.

 

[BMbikerider]

The gloss quality of MG paper is not an issue for me, I always use the lustre or as Ilford call it 'Pearl'. I very much prefer the softer visual appearance whilst it still has a full black and white.

The finest gloss was always obtained on a heated a VERY clean drum and the best I ever found was Kodak Bromesko, all the others didn't even get off the starting blocks.

 

[Pieter12]

Not if one uses the correct glass. It must be low-iron, AR-coated and not "museum" glass (which has a plastic UV absorbing layer that adds a color cast). Here's an example:

Frame Destination

Frame Destination

www.framedestination.com

Done right, except when viewing from extremely oblique angles, that type of glass seems to disappear, leaving the print -- with all its reflective flaws -- unchanged.

Even if one uses inferior glass and has to suffer with the issue you describe, you've ignored the part of my comment that pointed out not all prints are framed and hung. Many are viewed held in the hand, making veiling glare from room light on excessively shiny surfaces annoying. Manufacturers would do well to revert their papers' top coats to the much more reasonable ones they previously applied.

But in the end, isn’t the ideal for the final print to be framed and displayed, and not sitting in a box or flat file somewhere?