How to judge a paper's highlight seperation?

[KOG]

I'm trying to evaluate some FB papers to see which has better highlight seperation. I think there are to many variables to use a regular negative, so I'm enlarging a Stouffer TP 4x5 31 step wedge.

The papers under comparison are Efke Varycon Kg and Fomabrom Variant 111. As a check I'm also looking at Ilford MGIV Rc and Forte Polygrade V.

The prints for each paper are within one step (1/3 f stop) of each other looking at contrast and overall exposure. I don't think I can get much closer than this.

Without a densitometer, what is the best way to evaluate highlight seperation? Does the paper that has the most density in the lighter steps have the better highlight seperation?

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Mk. 1 eyeball can see more separation (D=0,005) than most densitometers. Trying to analyze highlight separation with a densitometer is a complete waste of time. WHICH PAPER GIVES YOU NICER PICS? That's the only question that matters. Honest. And I have a densitometer...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ian Grant]

Roger's right.

From my own experience Ilford Gallerie has by far the the best highlight details, but it's not a RC paper.

Personally I'm more interested in the shadow details but thats another story.

Ian

 

[KOG]

Roger, I am trying to eyeball the differences, but only for highlight seperation. Since I don't consider myself a master printer, I look at the step tablet as providing a quantatative way to evaluate the papers, without interference from qualitative judgements such as matching a negative to each paper, or minute differences due to paper constrast and exposure time.

Ian, I'm evaluating the fibre based papers, not the RC.

The goal is to select a new paper (Efke or Foma) and not base the decision on whim or a one or two sample prints.

Kevin.

 

[Peter Schrager]

highlites

I have to agree with Roger on this that you must simply learn to use your visual acuity. The best exercise one can do to learn how to print properly is to go and see some prints by the masters. Only then are you going to really have an idea of what you are looking for. Why stop with two papers? Why not test 5 or 6 and then make a decision...you might be very suprised that the "feel" you are looking for exists on some other paper....
Best, Peter

 

[KOG]

This is where I stand:

• I've been printing B&W since 1974
• I don't consider myself a master printer
• I don't have the time to test every paper on the market
• I don't have the money to test every paper on the market
• Currently I use two papers, one of which isn't made anymore
• I've used many other papers that no longer exist
• I do have fine prints from other photographers to look at

I would like someone to answer my question: "Without a densitometer, what is the best way to evaluate highlight seperation? Does the paper that has the most density in the lighter steps have the better highlight seperation?"

 

[aldevo]

KOG,

There was an article in Photo Techniques perhaps a year ago that compared the various readily-available VC FB papers still on the market at that time. The Photo Techniques web site allows you to purchase back issues, but it appears they are sold out of the issue in which this article was printed.

From my memory (which could be flawed....)

- Oriental and Forte (RIP...for now, at least) had the longest toes
- Ilford Multigrade, Kodak Polymax FA (also RIP) had medium toes
- Kentmere Fineprint had a somewhat short toe
- Agfa MCC (RIP) had the shortest toe

The length of the toe influences the characteristic of highlights. The greatest highlight separation is generally to be had with short-toe papers as these will show the most rapid transition from lighter to darker tones when the paper is given additional exposure. In contrasty light, this is not necessarily desirable.

I print in contrasty light a great deal and Forte Polygrade V (long-toe) was my Holy Grail. Hopefully the new Foma/Moresch/Bergger/Fotohuis group can resurrect something like it.

My other paper, Agfa MCC, was used when the lighting was flat. A nice system, because if the negative could not be printed satsifactorily on one paper it was almost certain to be ideally suited for the other.

I do have to disagree with Roger a bit...any methodolgy that attempts to objectively assess gradation would require a densitometer. This is because you would need to match the lightest highlights (still above B+F on the paper, of course) and darkest shadows that still reveal texture (i.e. are usefully below DMAX) when printing a test negative on different papers. While the eye is, as Roger states, an excellent discriminator of highlight densities, it will not be accurate in assessing the shadow density. Moreover, the eye can be fooled rather easily by differences in the tint of the paper base.

If you do wish to conduct paper testing, Phil Davis has an section on the subject in Ch 10 of "Beyond the Zone System", 4th edition.

If you don't have that sort of time on your hands (few of us do!) then hopefully somebody can confirm my recollection of the Photo Techniques article.

 

[KOG]

Aldevo,

I do have the Photo Techniques article, but it is not handy. You are right about the Forte paper, which is why I'm using the Forte Polygrade V as a check against the Efke and Foma papers. But without a densitometer I can't plot paper curves

Looking at the step wedge prints, Forte still looks to have the best seperation in the highlights, but that could be due to slightly lower contrast. The Foma paper looks to have a little bit more highlight density than the Efke paper, but once again that could be due to contrast, or exposure differences, or paper base brightness, etc.

Kevin.

 

[dancqu]

From my own experience Ilford Gallerie has by
far thethe best highlight details, but it's not a
RC paper. Ian

More significantly Gallerie is a Graded paper. Dan

 

[juan]

Bruce Barlow wrote articles on paper that you can download from Dead Link Removed

I think the answer to your question is that the paper showing the most steps with the step wedge shows the most highlight separation for exposures of step wedges. I'm not sure that will translate to your negatives - for instance, stained negatives would probably print differently than the step wedge.

If I were in your position, I think I would test the papers with the step wedge, see which gave the most steps, then try that paper with negatives for awhile and see if I could learn to make satisfying prints on it. I don't think any test will answer your question - prints will tell the story.
juan

 

[KOG]

The more steps you can see, means you have a lower contrast.

Kevin

 

[Oren Grad]

Kevin, printing a step wedge is a terrific way to get an initial sense of the paper curve if you don't have a densitometer handy, and I think is an excellent strategy given your situation. Of course it doesn't tell you the whole story about a paper, and of course you will make a final decision based on how your pictures look, but a step wedge will quickly get you in the ballpark as far as choosing a paper that's likely to be a good match to your negatives. Then you can fine tune based on printing pictures, with a much better understanding of why the prints look the way they do.

Your observation about how many steps you can see is part of the story. You can evaluate curve shape by comparing two papers printed with contrast filters selected so that both end up showing the same number of steps overall. Then you can compare the abruptness of the tonal transitions and the relative separation in the highlights, midtones and shadows.