Cooltone and MGIV are my preferred papers because of their cold/neutral tone characteristics. Developer, previously Dektol (1+1), is now D-72 (1+1). Aside from dilute selenium toning to increase DMax, I don't really do any other treatment. I avoid toning to the point of a noticeable color change. I stocked up on both papers when Ilford came out with their new, decidedly non-cold toned MGV. The big problem with MGIV, as everyone knows, is that it has very non-linear curves when using low contrast filtration. Cooltone has less of that. The new MGV has even better curves and DMax than Cooltone, but for me the warmer tone is way too high a price to pay.
I think the days of pronounced blue back tones are gone. I've tried many papers and most of the cold tone developers and found that you just can't squeeze blood from a turnip. I have many 16x20 prints made on Kodak Polymax Fine Art paper hanging on my walls at home, so I am reminded every day of how much I miss that paper, but Cooltone comes pretty close (and is better in some ways).
I use Ilford papers exclusively and will continue to use them as long as they keep making Cooltone. In fact, I stockpile at least a 2 year supply for the time when they stop making it. I'm hoping they don't do that until I'm too old for it to matter.
I like the old MGIV RC Cooltone as much or more than any other paper.
Yes, I like it cool with selenium.
But I also like it toned warm, in either sepia or brown.
I know that Simon Galley was very disappointed when Ilford had to discontinue their manufacture of Ilford Cool Tone developer due to extremely low sales.
This looks great on Cooltone:
View attachment 289339
He was part of the group of Ilford employees who, when Ilford Ltd. went into receivership, formed Harman Technology Ltd. and bought most of the black and white assets (including a limited license to use the Ilford name) from the receiver.I am not familiar with Simon Galley looks like an old forum member?
+1000. It's got the worst shine of HARMAN's already far too reflective glossy fiber papers. And, to make matters worse, it's massively loaded with optical brighteners, resulting in garish blue whites.I don't like the glossy surface finish...
+1000. It's got the worst shine of HARMAN's already far too reflective glossy fiber papers. And, to make matters worse, it's massively loaded with optical brighteners, resulting in garish blue whites.
Now, make it cooler by adjusting the emulsion rather than troweling on brighteners, adjust the top coat so surface shine as about like Galerie FB used to be, and it might be a product worth using.
I do. They're very inexpensive. Two years ago I bought one almost identical to this:...I don't have a UV light...
Compared to other silver halide papers, even different Ilford types, Cooltone glows like a searchlight. Completely consistent with its garishly white appearance when a print held in one's hand is viewed under indoor daylight....to test it against another piece of paper, but I would be curious of the results...
Appearance would depend on what illuminates the print. If there's not much UV striking it when unframed, the brighteners wouldn't be activated, and glass would not make a difference. Of course, the "coolness" it claims would be diminished as well under those conditions. In contemporary homes with large windows, I've found that natural daylight almost inevitably strikes prints on walls....I have a framed print on Ilford Cooltone that is behind some UV protective, anti reflective museum glass. I have not noticed any color shift or warming of the print due to UV light being filtered...
Or there's not enough UV present to activate the brighteners. Cooltone is loaded with brighteners....Based on my observations I would guess that either the paper does not use a lot of OBAs and/or the glass does not block enough UV to effect the whiteness of the paper...
I'm not aware there ever was an RC version of Cooltone
Addressed to Matt, I know but if I may add some info here. There was an RC Cooltone paper. Ilford gave all of us who attended its first factory tour in 2006, some to take away and try. It also gave us Cooltone developer as well. That combo gave an "icy " look that I found to be really impressive and the CT developer was key to the look. Just a pity that more users did not buy the CT developer. Clearly it was a "look" that not well enough likedMatt - I'm not aware there ever was an RC version of Cooltone, nor any version while Simon was still around. I remember complaining to him about the end of Harman Fineprint VC back then. Are you sure you aren't confusing this with MGIV RC, which had been around a long time?
I do. They're very inexpensive. Two years ago I bought one almost identical to this:
Compared to other silver halide papers, even different Ilford types, Cooltone glows like a searchlight. Completely consistent with its garishly white appearance when a print held in one's hand is viewed under indoor daylight.Appearance would depend on what illuminates the print. If there's not much UV striking it when unframed, the brighteners wouldn't be activated, and glass would not make a difference. Of course, the "coolness" it claims would be diminished as well under those conditions. In contemporary homes with large windows, I've found that natural daylight almost inevitably strikes prints on walls.Or there's not enough UV present to activate the brighteners. Cooltone is loaded with brighteners.
Splurge for the UV light. You'll be surprised.
I never tried the CT paper with CT developer before it disappeared. I wish I had. Or maybe I don't. If I had actually witnessed a good cold tone from it, I'd probably be just as depressed as everyone else who laments its demise. I do seem to remember that they were both available for a while. In fact, I thought the CT paper and developer hit the market about the same time. But, my memory isn't as good as it used to be. In fact, it never was.Addressed to Matt, I know but if I may add some info here. There was an RC Cooltone paper. Ilford gave all of us who attended its first factory tour in 2006, some to take away and try. It also gave us Cooltone developer as well. That combo gave an "icy " look that I found to be really impressive and the CT developer was key to the look. Just a pity that more users did not buy the CT developer. Clearly it was a "look" that not well enough liked
pentaxuser
I've tried both the DIY formulas and Moersch SE6 with Finisher Blue and didn't get a noticeable enough difference to be worth the long development times and extra cost. In fact, if there was any difference at all, you could only notice it side by side with a Dektol developed print and even then you'd probably pop an artery straining to see it.
I just took a UV light and shined it on several framed FB prints made from Polymax, Cooltone, MGIV, and MGV and the highlights all lit up bright blue like they were radio active. None were noticeably brighter of dimmer than others. I remember people complaining years ago about the brighteners washing out of FB paper if you didn't keep wash times as short as possible. Personally, I don't mind the brighteners. Under halogen lighting, the prints look fine to me. But, I prefer the coldest tone paper base and emulsion I can get.
I do not care for the surface texture and sheen of Ilford cold/neutral tone FB glossy papers compared to Kodak, but the difference is subtle and I doubt anyone walking through my house is going to ever notice the difference between papers used in the prints hanging on the walls, although it's possible they might be able to pick out the one made from MGV.
I have an envelope of 8x10 Cooltone RC. I haven't tried it, yet.
Ah, so it isn't just Ilford Cooltone with OBAs. I ordered a UV light since now I'm curious what papers I have contain OBAs and which ones don't.
I've always thought of OBAs being a generally bad thing when it comes to "fine art" since it yellows and fades with time. When I was doing inkjet work, all of the papers I bought were advertised to be OBA free. Is this still a concern with FB photographic paper?
I use quite a bit of Cooltone FB, along with MGWT. Develop both mostly in fresh 130 glycin formula, and gold tone for cold blacks afterwards, but often use other toners with MGWT too. Those two papers cover most of the bases for me. Cooltone is a far superior paper to MGIV in many respects - DMax, highlight detail, consistent cold tone in the correct forumlas. It's a bit fussier, and you need to get it completely immersed in all your respective trays quickly and evenly. Likewise, MG Classic.
Cooltone does well in amidol too; but tradtional MQ forumulas will have a bit of that greenish Dektolish tinge which I generally don't like. The most similar paper on the market is Berrger Premier Netural, a really fine product which can be coaxed the true cold direction with similar development and gold toning protocol, but drops the blacks a lot harder, faster. Ilford or Harman apparently makes this too, but not under their own label.
As per the previous question on museum glass - you're right, it doesn't cut off enough UV to make a significant difference. If it did, the image color would be all messed up too yellowish.
Matt - I'm not aware there ever was an RC version of Cooltone, nor any version while Simon was still around. I remember complaining to him about the end of Harman Fineprint VC back then. Are you sure you aren't confusing this with MGIV RC, which had been around a long time?
I'm reading more into the subject now since I find an interest in this sort of stuff. Maybe it isn't yellowing so much as the OBAs losing effectiveness with time causing the paper to start appears its more "natural" cream color due to the loss of blue reflective light from the OBAs. This is probably why it isn't desirable to permanence due to color shifting away from the intended image. Otherwise, yes acid being present I think can also have a similar effect.I always thought that the yellowing from age was due to materials not being acid free, not because of brighteners.
Here is the current version, which I haven't tried yet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-rc-cooltone-pearlMatt - I'm not aware there ever was an RC version of Cooltone, nor any version while Simon was still around. I remember complaining to him about the end of Harman Fineprint VC back then. Are you sure you aren't confusing this with MGIV RC, which had been around a long time?
On my walls are quite a few FB silver halide prints. They were made on Portriga Rapid and, as best I can determine, various Ilford papers. There's only one, a very early Yosemite Special Edition print, that does not glow when the UV light is shined on it. I have one framed inkjet print made by me that also doesn't light up bright blue. It's on a brightener-free Hahnemuhle paper that, coincidentally, works with a dye-ink-based (not pigment ink) printer to provide the perfect surface gloss. I've physically sent one of those prints to Mirko at ADOX. He says I'm the only one who's ever asked for less surface gloss. Apparently there are many people out there attracted to shiny objects....I just took a UV light and shined it on several framed FB prints made from Polymax, Cooltone, MGIV, and MGV and the highlights all lit up bright blue like they were radio active. None were noticeably brighter of dimmer than others...
Please let me know where I can purchase some new Kodak paper of that type....I do not care for the surface texture and sheen of Ilford cold/neutral tone FB glossy papers compared to Kodak...
All my prints are framed behind low-iron AR-coated (not "museum") glass:...the difference is subtle and I doubt anyone walking through my house is going to ever notice the difference between papers used in the prints hanging on the walls, although it's possible they might be able to pick out the one made from MGV.
I always thought that the yellowing from age was due to materials not being acid free, not because of brighteners.
No correction necessary. That's exactly right.I'm reading more into the subject now since I find an interest in this sort of stuff. Maybe it isn't yellowing so much as the OBAs losing effectiveness with time causing the paper to start appears its more "natural" cream color due to the loss of blue reflective light from the OBAs....Anyone feel free to correct me if this is wrong. I am no professional in this field.
All my prints are framed behind low-iron AR-coated (not "museum") glass:
Mark McCormick-Goodhart is a professional in this field. His results at Aardenburg Imaging and Archives include tests of Ilford's Galerie FB Digital Silver paper that show how it fades as brighteners are worn out from display:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?