How do you like to use Ilford Cooltone paper?

[cirwin2010]

I wanted to start a thread to see who else is using Ilford Cooltone paper and how they process it to get the results they like.

I'll start by saying that I was initially disappointed in this paper expecting it to yield substantially cooler results than other "neutral" tone paper I've been using. Instead I found that it was only very subtly different with the main difference being a slightly whiter base. The "tonality" may be different, but it is hardly apples-to-apples against any other paper since the exposure and contrast are inherently different from paper to paper.

After a little bit of experimentation I found that selenium toning this paper is a must (at least for me)! It seems to cool off the print substantially giving it almost a blue/black look without actually looking blue. It also deepens the blacks like many other papers giving it a bit more brilliance. A slight reduction in exposure time and/or adjusting the contrast filter grade by -0.5 may be needed for the image to account for darkened shadows by the toner. The end result is a print with cool bluish blacks and a bit of sparkle that some of my warmer toned prints lack.

Unlike some other papers where I like to split tone with sulphide and selenium, this paper does not respond well in my eyes. I attempted a 10 second bleach bath followed by a sulphide bath to add a little warmth to the highlights. However the results just looked gross. It could have just been the image I was using, but I have not attempted that again.

Also this paper does not respond to straight lith developer very well from what I have tested.

I currently process this paper and most other neutral tone prints in PF Liquidol for about 90 seconds. I may look into mixing up a "cooltone" developer at some point to try it.

 

[Dave Krueger]

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.

 

[cirwin2010]

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.

Kodak papers are a bit before my time, though I hear there were a few that were quit special. I do have some expired Kodak paper, but much of it is fogged or struggles with highlight detail. I mostly use it for testing chemicals and equipment.

Ilford Cooltone is the only Ilford paper I have taken a liking to so far. Digressing from the original topic I would like to say that while I haven't tried Ilford Warmtone due to the cost, Fomatone MG Classic and Foma Retrobrom are pretty nice. They both lith well, though Retrobrom is probably not something I'll continue to purchase due to the lack of flexibility of only being a grade #2 paper. But, it does produce a lovely greenish warm tone which works for certain subjects (just don't tone it in selenium).

While not "cooltone," the Adorama house brand FB paper "cools off" pretty well with selenium, removing the green cast. Probably more of a "true" neutral really. But that paper is probably no longer being produced since it has only been available in 16x20" size. I also can't recommend it since much of my batch had some stains on it. That being said, it does split tone well with sulphide and selenium. However, the blacks will go slightly purple in selenium only after sulphide toning. This may or may not be to everyone's taste. I'll have to find a replacement for this paper once I go through my last sheets.

 

[MattKing]

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:

 

[cirwin2010]

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

That is a nice image and the metal would likely really sparkle on that paper.

I am not familiar with Simon Galley looks like an old forum member?

 

[MattKing]

I am not familiar with Simon Galley looks like an old forum member?

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.
He was the director of Harman who for several years had a very active role here on APUG (the former name for Photrio).
Harman is still a major supporter of Photrio, and still participate here sometimes, but they scaled back their participation when the group that formed Harman were bought out by the current owners, Pemberstone Capital.
Here is a 2007 post from Simon that references the discontinuation of the Cooltone developer: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/harman-cooltone-developer-a-reply.33425/#post-477202

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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.

 

[cirwin2010]

+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 don't know too much about optical brighteners, but based on what I do know, their presence can often be tested using a UV light. A paper with OBAs will reflect a lot blue from the UV light. I don't have a UV light to test it against another piece of paper, but I would be curious of the results.

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. I also just compared against another Ilford Cooltone print and saw no difference in the whites. 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. Please take this observation with a grain of salt since this is a limited sample size and I have no scientific way of testing the impact of OBAs.

 

[DREW WILEY]

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?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I don't have a UV light...

I do. They're very inexpensive. Two years ago I bought one almost identical to this:

https://www.amazon.com/Flashlight-V...HUI6A,B08HM78VKD,B00P599JVW&ts_id=14051749011​

...to test it against another piece of paper, but I would be curious of the results...

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.

...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...

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.

...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...

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.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm not aware there ever was an RC version of Cooltone

I have an envelope of 8x10 Cooltone RC. I haven't tried it, yet.

 

[pentaxuser]

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?

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

 

[cirwin2010]

I do. They're very inexpensive. Two years ago I bought one almost identical to this:

https://www.amazon.com/Flashlight-Vansky-Blacklight-Ultraviolet-Eliminator/dp/B0758CJDGT/ref=sr_1_21?_encoding=UTF8&c=ts&dchild=1&keywords=Pet+Urine+Detectors&qid=1635445472&qsid=135-1775902-4751905&s=pet-supplies&sr=1-21&sres=B01A5KLUG2,B07GZH8273,B07P1RR9KM,B07JQ8CW7T,B007SIR08C,B0821F9C6F,B07DD7L7S7,B08RHTN7RV,B08LZSRWD6,B01MZ0D414,B086TVBN6S,B07W45VJP8,B00C3D83DS,B07YSH2FVV,B0758CJDGT,B07VDRJ8DK,B07GYTZS12,B00JAHUI6A,B08HM78VKD,B00P599JVW&ts_id=14051749011​

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.

Ah you have a good point regarding not being struck with UV light. My print is mostly lit by indoor lighting and isn't in the direct path of sunlight so my comparison wouldn't have shown any difference. The print is still cool in tone in such conditions and I usually inspect my prints under daylight balanced LED lights which I don't think emit much UV. I'll have to do a comparison under sunlight when the weather lets up to see how the framed image is effected compared to an unframed image. I'll probably also be purchasing a UV light.

Depending on what I see this could have some implications going forward for how this prints are displayed or if Ilford Cooltone paper is up to the task.

Would some of the coolness of this paper still be derived from the emulsion? Larger silver grains in theory should result in a "cooler" tone image and may explain what I am seeing if UV light isn't a factor in my viewing conditions.

UPDATE: I just put my unframed print and framed print next to each other under window light. The difference in the whites is quite striking and the print definitely loses some of its "coolness." This is very disappointing to see since I would not be getting some of the benefits of this paper in artificial lighting nor under the anti-reflective glass I like so much.

I'm not sure where I will go from here with this information.

 

[Dave Krueger]

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.

 

[Dave Krueger]

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 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.

 

[cirwin2010]

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.

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?

 

[Dave Krueger]

I have an envelope of 8x10 Cooltone RC. I haven't tried it, yet.

I've been using Cooltone RC Pearl for years. In fact, most of what I print is RC. It gets scanned for my website and then goes into boxes. Anything intended for display is FB (and usually larger).

 

[Dave Krueger]

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 always thought that the yellowing from age was due to materials not being acid free, not because of brighteners.

 

[cirwin2010]

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?

Hi Matt, thanks for your input. I'm curious as to what you mean about "drops the blacks a lot harder, faster" in regards to the Bergger paper? Are you saying that gold toning will neutralize the blacks more easily?

Also per my update on a previous post if you didn't see it yet, comparing the framed (with UV glass) and unframed images under window light, there is a noticeable difference in the coolness of the image and the whiteness of the highlights. The whites in the framed image start to take on that more typical cream color than pure white. The framed image is still a little cooler than a "neutral" print, but the effect is much more subtle in this circumstance and thankfully doesn't look yellowish.

 

[cirwin2010]

I always thought that the yellowing from age was due to materials not being acid free, not because of brighteners.

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.

Anyone feel free to correct me if this is wrong. I am no professional in this field.

 

[MattKing]

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?

Here is the current version, which I haven't tried yet: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-rc-cooltone-pearl
I've been carefully using up the older, MGIV RC Cooltone that I have remaining.
Surprisingly, there aren't a bunch of easily accessible images of the older version found online.
If you are looking to buy the older version, it is important to be careful, because I've actually seen really old boxes with Ilford Ltd. labelling. All mine has references to the Harman Technology era.
It is usually the same or nearly the same price as the Warmtone version of RC.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, I've seen no obvious change in appearance of my several years old RC Cooltone prints.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...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...

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 do not care for the surface texture and sheen of Ilford cold/neutral tone FB glossy papers compared to Kodak...

Please let me know where I can purchase some new Kodak paper of that type.

...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.

All my prints are framed behind low-iron AR-coated (not "museum") glass:

https://www.groglass.com/product/artglass-ar-70/​

I've tried the Ilford papers. This glazing is so transparent that the paper's excessive gloss makes for annoying reflections while the glass has none.

I always thought that the yellowing from age was due to materials not being acid free, not because of brighteners.

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.

No correction necessary. That's exactly right.

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:

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/​

 

[cirwin2010]

All my prints are framed behind low-iron AR-coated (not "museum") glass:

https://www.groglass.com/product/artglass-ar-70/​

I'm pretty sure this is the exact stuff my framing shop uses. I guess "museum" glass is not the correct term.

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:

https://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/light-fade-test-results/​

I don't think my browser can display their information correctly. I signed up, but the chart is so compressed it is unreadable. Nor do I see the download .pdf option.

Does the information say about how long until there is a visible difference?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Matt and others, that is a rather unfortunate marketing coincidence of the name, Cooltone. The FB version came out slightly after Classic FB as a different flavor of that round of R&D, and obviously has no relation to the RC product, which I've never even seen. Even the RC version of MGIV had a very different look, even different image color, from the FB version. I simply assumed, and probably assumed correctly, that it was the current VC FB papers originally in mind at the start of this thread.

Cirwin - By dumping the blacks, I was referring to the characteristic curve of the Bergger product, which renders higher contrast in the shadows, and thus less detail down there compared to Cooltone. That might be either and advantage of disadvantage depending on how your specific negatives are developed and the kind of look you seek. Toning intensifies all the values.

I can't comment on yelllowing of RC papers. I don't use them and they have a largely different market. I once used MGIV RC just for temporary advertising applications. Optical brighteners respond to UV. Some galleries use high-UV lighting to really make black and white prints pop. But by doing so, they're dooming any color prints in the room to a shortened lifespan.
None of the FB prints I've ever made with any brand of paper has yellowed. With antique silver gelatin photos, that is generally due to under-fixing.

I've done a lot of actual testing of UV-inhibitive acrylic as well as glass. With color prints, you might be 5% more life, that's about it. Actual optically coated "museum" glass or acrylic is VERY expensive. Merely pink or amber tinted UV blocking acrylic sheet is just moderately more expensive than the plain version. The name of the game is to learn to identify UV sources and avoid them. Not only is direct sunlight UV rich, but also most fluorescent lighting, including all these abominable recent CFL's, and most track lighting. The hot intense projector lights once popular in galleries could fade a color print about a hundred times faster than even indirect sunlight.