Ilford Classic Glossy- replacement for MG4 Glossy

[Bob Carnie]

I have just finished working with this newish paper, my main paper has been Ilford Warmtone, since its inception.

Recently a projects I was commissioned to print required a more neutral tone and therefore I bought a bunch of boxes and not only finished the one project but spent some time with other negatives to see how this paper performs.

IMO this is a great paper, and a significant improvement on MG4 glossy , which I always felt was a dead paper, unless of course one was using the matt version and sepia toning and then I felt it was a rock star paper.

The new classic seems to be much faster than warmtone, it also delivers a very convincing black and most important to me the mid tone values seem to better placed than the older paper.

This may be old news for a lot of you hear, but I just wanted to put in my 2cents and congratulate Ilford on a very nice paper .
Have others had positive experiences with this paper

 

[Lachlan Young]

IMO this is a great paper, and a significant improvement on MG4 glossy , which I always felt was a dead paper, unless of course one was using the matt version and sepia toning and then I felt it was a rock star paper.

The new classic seems to be much faster than warmtone, it also delivers a very convincing black and most important to me the mid tone values seem to better placed than the older paper.

That's generally been my experience, though I've mostly worked with the 5K/ Matt versions of both MGIV and Classic. From the first sheet of Classic, I've found it to be a drastically better paper, and astoundingly good with HP5/ ID11 negs.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

Thanks for sharing, Bob. I have been wedded to MGWT for 5 years now, and since I have learned how to (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I have liked it even more than at the beginning. However, I have never fully liked how it tends to split-tone in Se—even if not a lot—especially on images exposed mainly with lower contrast (green/yellow) light. I am talking about its tendency for low contrast shadows to go browner/redder rather than the plummier higher contrast ones, on top of the more common Se issue of highlights not toning much at all.

Have you printed enough on the new Classic to have an opinion about this concern, yet? If not yet, please report on this thread when you do, I value your experience very much. Thanks.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I've never been a fan of Glossy paper by any manufacturer and stay with FB Matt. About three years ago I tried Ilford Classic Matt. I've used it exclusively since and see no reason to look elsewhere. My film is Ilford Delta 100 or 400 in Xtol 1+1. Paper developer is LPD at 1+2 or 3 depending.
I may try and Lith a few prints to see what that brings but but I don't expect to like it..... life can be so simple.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Thanks for sharing, Bob. I have been wedded to MGWT for 5 years now, and since I have learned how to (there was a url link here which no longer exists) I have liked it even more than at the beginning. However, I have never fully liked how it tends to split-tone in Se—even if not a lot—especially on images exposed mainly with lower contrast (green/yellow) light. I am talking about its tendency for low contrast shadows to go browner/redder rather than the plummier higher contrast ones, on top of the more common Se issue of highlights not toning much at all.

Have you printed enough on the new Classic to have an opinion about this concern, yet? If not yet, please report on this thread when you do, I value your experience very much. Thanks.

Hi Rafal

No I have not printed enough on this paper to address your concerns, I doubt I will as I am now convinced that toning with pigment over palladium is a much more controllable
option with hundreds of variations .
I will use this paper for projects where someone is looking for a classic neutral tone black and white with a hint of selenium.

regards

Bob