I really miss Kodak Polymax Fine Art!!

[SchwinnParamount]

I've recently done a really good negative of the dalia garden in my yard (See standard gallery). I made a print in the Kodak paper from the subject line and scanned it for the gallery. My *newest* box of Kodak Polymax Fine Art is several years stale. For giggles, I tried to reproduce the pop of the first print in Ilford MGF (Multigrade fiber) IV. No way. I had to get to grade 5 contrast filter before I could approach the Kodak paper.

Simon, can you explain why since you are the last man standing (serious paper manufacturer) why your company still hasn't reached the level of Kodak's best recent paper? I'll pulling for Ilford, I really am. But come one, you should be able to best Polymax Fine Art, standing on your head.

Perhaps I am unfair. I used Dektol 1:1. Would I get a better result with an Ilford paper developer?

 

[chip j]

Try Ilford Galerie!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've recently done a really good negative of the dalia garden in my yard (See standard gallery). I made a print in the Kodak paper from the subject line and scanned it for the gallery. My *newest* box of Kodak Polymax Fine Art is several years stale. For giggles, I tried to reproduce the pop of the first print in Ilford MGF (Multigrade fiber) IV. No way. I had to get to grade 5 contrast filter before I could approach the Kodak paper.

Simon, can you explain why since you are the last man standing (serious paper manufacturer) why your company still hasn't reached the level of Kodak's best recent paper? I'll pulling for Ilford, I really am. But come one, you should be able to best Polymax Fine Art, standing on your head.

Perhaps I am unfair. I used Dektol 1:1. Would I get a better result with an Ilford paper developer?

YOur negatives are probably better suited to the Kodak tone curve than Ilford MGIV. If you don't get more zing from your MGIV prints, you might want to start thinking about how you shoot and process your negatives.

That IS the system of black and white photography. If you want prints that really exhibit what you want to express, you can't just entirely rely on your materials to get there. You have to add something (you have to add a lot, actually) with your ability, technique, and craftsmanship to make the prints the way you want them. Changing papers is a major variable, where you may have to go back through the chain of how you do things and make adjustments.

 

[Neal]

Dear SchwinnParamount,

We all miss Kodak papers. They're gone. The Ilford papers are different, but are extremely high quality and you should have no trouble reaching similar contrast levels. Sometimes we just like the look of a paper. Try the Ilford Warmtone as a replacement to Polymax Fine art and Ilford Cooltone for Polymax. To my eye they are closer (respectively) than MGIV. Personally, I thought the Kentmere papers were an outstanding replacement for Kodak (again, to my eye), but it seems that I'm the only one as it has essentially disappeared as well.

Your note about the developer is important as well. A little experimentation there might provide great benefit.

Enjoy the hunt and the fine papers we have,

Neal Wydra

 

[removed account4]

i miss single weight papers, i don't care the brand ...
now i have to make my own single weight paper
and while it works out fine, it was much easier and
less effort when i just had to open a box ... of premade

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear ScwimmParamount,

KODAK make very fine products and their papers were no certainly different, AGFA as well, but even in the States we outsold them both from 1980's onwards, lots of good feedback on the thread, you should certainly be able to match or better on an ILFORD paper.

You do not state if you used a colour head, ILFORD or KODAK filters, that may also have an effect between the two products.

Optimising your negs should not really be required. Dektol works just fine, but MULTIGRADE Developer is optimised for ILFORD Multigrade papers.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...My *newest* box of Kodak Polymax Fine Art is several years stale...

Several years? Sales were discontinued in 2005, almost a decade ago. It's old.

...I tried to reproduce the pop of the first print in Ilford MGF (Multigrade fiber) IV. No way. I had to get to grade 5 contrast filter before I could approach the Kodak paper...

Polymax Fine Art had a very small toe. Also, it was absolutely loaded with optical brightening agents. The now-discontinued Multigrade IV Fiber, while also containing a substantial quantity of brighteners, had a completely different curve shape. It was designed to be compatible with "hot" designer-grain films and had a much more gradual toe. HARMAN's replacement for Multigrade IV Fiber, the new Multigrade FB Classic, exhibits even more pronounced toes with mid-grade filtration.

...why your company still hasn't reached the level of Kodak's best recent paper?...

"Best" is a rather subjective assessment, don't you think? Seriously, if you'd like to make prints that closely match the results from Polymax Fine Art using a currently-manufactured Ilford paper, use Multigrade FB Cooltone. While its mid-grade toes are slightly more pronounced than those of Polymax Fine Art's were, it can still make a nice white from average negatives. Also, you won't be wanting for brighteners.

 

[Ian Grant]

One thing to watch with Variable grade papers is they can suffer contrast loss due to the Herschel effect. A safe light that appears to be safe causes image bleaching, this is quite different to fogging as there's a decrease in the densities and contrast you'd expect.

Back around 1986 when I had to use quite a small darkroom I had problems getting a full range of contrast grades with Multigrade paper using the recommended orange/red safelight, I was using a Paterson safelight and at the time magazines carried comments about others having bsimilar problems Paterson brought out their VC (brown) safelight filter and that solved the problem completely.

Ian

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Hi all,

Thank you for the great replies. It appears that my local photo retailer was perhaps wrong when he recommended the Multigrade IV as the most direct replacement for Polymax FineArt.
Simon, I do use the Ilford multigrade filters with my Aristo cold light head. I guess the next step is to get the Multigrade developer and then try one of the other Ilford papers mentioned in this thread. Thank you for responding positively to my frustration

 

[MartinP]

You may also be limited in what you can achieve on multi-contrast papers by your enlarger light-source. Go for Ilford Galerie and forget the new-fangled stuff, or find a condenser head. Remember too, that the Multigrade filters don't last for ever and that there have been updated versions of those filters since the days of Polycontrast.

 

[37th Exposure]

Once you run out of Ilford papers to try there are still Foma, Adox, and Kentmere.

 

[eddie]

...I do use the Ilford multigrade filters with my Aristo cold light head.

Are you using the V54 bulb?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Are you using the V54 bulb?

Can you try a color enlarger?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Once you run out of Ilford papers to try there are still Foma, Adox, and Kentmere.

You can adjust your negatives to fit any quality paperand that shoul be your first course of action;blaming materials and not technique is a common fallacy.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Polymax was a great paper. Then it went away so I tried Forte Polygrade V and got hooked… then it went away. When I print in silver I use either Oriental VC or Ilford MG. The new Ilford MG is way better than MGIV, in my opinion. A very fine paper.

 

[Roger Cole]

You may also be limited in what you can achieve on multi-contrast papers by your enlarger light-source. Go for Ilford Galerie and forget the new-fangled stuff, or find a condenser head. Remember too, that the Multigrade filters don't last for ever and that there have been updated versions of those filters since the days of Polycontrast.

This - my old set of MG filters from the 90s were ok in the middle range but would not get much above grade 3. A new set solved that problem. I had an old CL head and just gave up on it. Now I use a condenser with an LED lamp house.

I love Ilford papers, and Adox MCC 110 is also excellent (basically the old Agfa on a whiter base) if you like Agfa. I never used Polymax Fine Art though so I can't comment on any as replacements. Dektol works fine with Ilford paper though I found Bromophen maybe a bit cooler and contrastier. Now I use Harman WT with Ilford WT paper and LPD with neutral to cool papers.


Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

 

[Arctic amateur]

You can adjust your negatives to fit any quality paperand that shoul be your first course of action;blaming materials and not technique is a common fallacy.

What if s/he wants to reprint an old photo?

 

[SchwinnParamount]

What if s/he wants to reprint an old photo?

Of course I want to print existing negatives... of which I have thousands. "Adjust your negatives" is sort of useless advice in my case. On the other hand, when I make new negatives, I can take the different paper behavior into account.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Polymax was a great paper. Then it went away so I tried Forte Polygrade V and got hooked… then it went away. When I print in silver I use either Oriental VC or Ilford MG. The new Ilford MG is way better than MGIV, in my opinion. A very fine paper.

Andrew, is the Oriental Seagull VC you use the latest stuff? I just finished my last of a blue box of Seagull VC Plus and thought I might just try there new Seagull VC. What are the pro's and con's of the new paper? I loved the old stuff, but that is dead and gone now. John W