Ilford Galerie vs Multigrade V

[Richard Jepsen]

I use more Ilford Multigrade V since I adjusted negative development to fit my negatives to the paper. Of course, now that I am calibrated I wish to explore better materials.

Galerie has a great name. How does it's image quality differ from Multigrade V? Can someone compare tonal scale, print color, d-max, etc?

Is Galerie grade 2 and 3 similar to Multigrade V 2 and 3?

 

[Oren Grad]

It's been a while since I last used any Galerie FB, but my recollection is that its characteristic curve had a shorter toe than that of MG IV FB, which resulted in relatively steeper highlight contrast. It was closer to the original MG FB in this respect, and as such a better match than MG IV FB to Tri-X, for example.

Also, Dmax untoned was a bit greater than what you get with MG IV FB. Print color was similar.

I'd also be interested in any observations from people using current-production Galerie FB.

 

[Ole]

I use Galerie FB, but it's difficult to say what it's "like".

It's a classic graded FB paper, and thus nothing like any MG paper. The curve seems very straight, although I haven't measured anything - just going by the look of the prints.
I like the way the midtones look, and the good dark shadows, and the clean highlights.

 

[eddym]

Galerie is my standard B&W paper, and I can't really compare it to MG because I don't use the latter. I agree with what Ole said, and would only add that I tone it 5-10 minutes in Kodak Rapid Selenium toner (1:31), which has a slight warming effect.

 

[BBarlow690]

You might be interested in downloading the pdfs of my paper/developer tests. Do it for free from www.circleofthesunproductions.com Galerie ranked consistently higher in my tests. It is rich, gorgeous stuff. That said, being graded it isn't as flexible as MG. Life's full of tradeoffs, I s'pose.

 

[Ray Heath]

It's been a while since I last used any Galerie FB, but my recollection is that its characteristic curve had a shorter toe than that of MG IV FB, which resulted in relatively steeper highlight contrast. It was closer to the original MG FB in this respect, and as such a better match than MG IV FB to Tri-X, for example.

Also, Dmax untoned was a bit greater than what you get with MG IV FB. Print color was similar.

I'd also be interested in any observations from people using current-production Galerie FB.

g'day all

Oren, what does all that actually mean? how does it look in a print? show us an example, post an image with a big toe and one with a pinky

 

[Sal Santamaura]

It's been a while since I last used any Galerie FB, but my recollection is that its characteristic curve had a shorter toe than that of MG IV FB, which resulted in relatively steeper highlight contrast...Print color was similar...

I'm currently using Galerie FB as my primary paper with FP4 Plus negatives and recently tried some MG IV FB for the first time in perhaps five years. I can corroborate that toe observation. Print color was similar, but I used Neutol WA on both papers, and Galerie might be more responsive to different developers with respect to color than MB IV FB is. In the past I got the same warm-black tone from MG IV FB irrespective of what developer it was processed in.

In terms of contrast, MG IV FB with a 2 filter has an ISO range of 100, with a 3 filter it's 80. Galerie FB grades 2 and three have ISO ranges of 110 and 90. Therefore, if one were planning to print with 2 and 3 filters only, MG IV FB would prefer a slightly less contrasty negative than Galerie FB. Of course, targeting the negatives to Galerie FB still leaves open the option of printing them on MB IV FB with slightly lower numbered filtration.

Another difference between these papers is sharpness. Regardless of what Ctein may have published, I can clearly see sharpness loss with MG IV FB. This is evident when looking at large format contact prints, so any focus shift due to lateral chromatic abberation in an enlarging lens is completely removed from the experiment. Other FB multicontrast papers I've tried exhibit the same phenomenom to varying degrees. Of those still on the market, Kentmere Fineprint VC, Fuji Rembrant and Bergger VC NB are about equal to each other in sharpness and slightly sharper than MG IV FB. Ultimate sharpness is not an important consideration to many photographers, but for those whose work relies on it, graded enlarging papers are, in my experience, sharper than their multicontrast counterparts.

Taking this to the limit, Azo is capable of greater sharpness than even graded enlarging papers. I base that statement on direct observation of contact prints made by me, not the claims of others.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

In terms of contrast, MG IV FB with a 2 filter has an ISO range of 100, with a 3 filter it's 80. Galerie FB grades 2 and three have ISO ranges of 110 and 90. Therefore, if one were planning to print with 2 and 3 filters only, MG IV FB would prefer a slightly less contrasty negative than Galerie FB. Of course, targeting the negatives to Galerie FB still leaves open the option of printing them on MB IV FB with slightly lower numbered filtration.

Sal, I'm just curious about what paper ISO range is. Could you explain it in terms of characteristic curve?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I'm just curious about what paper ISO range is. Could you explain it in terms of characteristic curve?

Very generally, it's related to the negative contrast that will print well. For R110, negatives with a density spread (which I'm sure ISO defines somewhere) of 1.1 are supposed to be appropriate matches. In practice, there's lots of variation in curve shape, which defines where good separation is distributed between highs, mids and lows, and how each printer feels about what constitutes appropriate levels of detail in those areas. I don't perform any densitometric measurement to evaluate negative/paper combinations, but do refer to manufacturers' R numbers for a rough indication of their papers' relative contrasts. Printing and critical evaluation of the results are my ultimate guide.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Very generally, it's related to the negative contrast that will print well. For R110, negatives with a density spread (which I'm sure ISO defines somewhere) of 1.1 are supposed to be appropriate matches. In practice, there's lots of variation in curve shape, which defines where good separation is distributed between highs, mids and lows, and how each printer feels about what constitutes appropriate levels of detail in those areas. I don't perform any densitometric measurement to evaluate negative/paper combinations, but do refer to manufacturers' R numbers for a rough indication of their papers' relative contrasts. Printing and critical evaluation of the results are my ultimate guide.

So does it mean that for two papers with the same straight line slope, one will accomodate a negative with a bigger density range than the other? I'm simplifying, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand the basic principle.

 

[Oren Grad]

So does it mean that for two papers with the same straight line slope, one will accomodate a negative with a bigger density range than the other? I'm simplifying, but I'm just trying to make sure I understand the basic principle.

Yes, if by "slope" you really mean "curve shape", because the slope (the steepness) is precisely what's different. The real-world complication is that no papers actually have straight-line curve shapes, but yes, you get the idea.

 

[Oren Grad]

Oren, what does all that actually mean? how does it look in a print? show us an example, post an image with a big toe and one with a pinky

Next time I have a print with a full range of tones that I need to scan, I'll whip up a set of teaching examples on this point as well and will post it back here if someone else hasn't already done so. It may be a little while, though.

 

[Ray Heath]

Next time I have a print with a full range of tones that I need to scan, I'll whip up a set of teaching examples on this point as well and will post it back here if someone else hasn't already done so. It may be a little while, though.

don't you have any good prints on hand that you could scan

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Yes, if by "slope" you really mean "curve shape", because the slope (the steepness) is precisely what's different. The real-world complication is that no papers actually have straight-line curve shapes, but yes, you get the idea.

(Sean, here's an idea: Let's have an online whiteboard for these kinds of explanations!)

Right.... But let's just say that we have a theoretically simple curve that's perfectly straight, starting at (0,0) and ending at (15,15). It accepts a negative with a density range of 15 units.

A curve with the same slope that can accomodate a lesser negative density range (i.e. a less "contrasty" negative) would be from (0,0) to (10,10). It accepts a neg with a range of 10 units.

Now let's say we have a third paper with a slope that goes from (0,0) to (10,15). This paper would only accept a negative with a density range of 10 units, like the second example. But in comparison to the latter, the paper density range would be more spread out, resulting in better tonal separation.

Am I making sense other than theoretically?

 

[Oren Grad]

Am I making sense other than theoretically?

You have the right idea, but your second example complicates things by changing the Dmax as well as the slope, and pegging everything at (0, 0) is also not realistic. But yes, the ISO range of the paper is an indication of the density range of negative that can be rendered with full information in the print.

Assuming the straight line, a paper with a curve from (0, 0) to (15, 15) can accommodate a contrastier negative than a paper with a curve from, say, (5, 0) to (10, 15). If you like, call the first one a "grade 1" and the second one a "grade 4". This is just a crude version of what you might see in the characteristic curve data that manufacturers provide for their papers. Sketch it out and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You have the right idea, but your second example complicates things by changing the Dmax as well as the slope, and pegging everything at (0, 0) is also not realistic. But yes, the ISO range of the paper is an indication of the density range of negative that can be rendered with full information in the print.

Assuming the straight line, a paper with a curve from (0, 0) to (15, 15) can accommodate a contrastier negative than a paper with a curve from, say, (5, 0) to (10, 15). If you like, call the first one a "grade 1" and the second one a "grade 4". This is just a crude version of what you might see in the characteristic curve data that manufacturers provide for their papers. Sketch it out and you'll see what I mean.

I've noticed that the characteristic curves of the various grades of an MG paper all have the same Dmax and Dmin, with only variations in the slope, thus in the range of densities from a negative they could accept, so that's coherent with your example.

What I was curious about was whether it were possible that two papers having different slope angles in the straight line portion could still accomodate the same negative because of their different Dmaxes.

 

[Oren Grad]

What I was curious about was whether it were possible that two papers having different slope angles in the straight line portion could still accomodate the same negative because of their different Dmaxes.

I think so, in principle. What matters is the span on the X axis that corresponds to the distance between Dmin and Dmax on the Y axis. However, whether the print made on the paper with lower slope and lower Dmax would look any good is a different question.

 

[Matthew Gorringe]

I think so, in principle. What matters is the span on the X axis that corresponds to the distance between Dmin and Dmax on the Y axis. However, whether the print made on the paper with lower slope and lower Dmax would look any good is a different question.

Isn't this what you do when you start using shorter development times to change to curve of graded papers for different negatives? At some point you'll end up with a less black black.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I think so, in principle. What matters is the span on the X axis that corresponds to the distance between Dmin and Dmax on the Y axis. However, whether the print made on the paper with lower slope and lower Dmax would look any good is a different question.

Thanks. The lower slope/Dmax paper would probably show less distinctive contrast or gradations. But that might also depend on a lot of other factors, since we're leaving the quantitative domain to reach the qualitative domain.

 

[kevs]

Hi Richard,

As already observed, Galerie doesn't have the flexibility of Multigrade. I've found that diffuser enlargers give a flatter result on Grade 2 Galerie as they would on Grade 2-filtered Multigrade, whilst condenser enlargers give about the same result. Galerie is fussier than Multigrade but IMO it's worth the time and trouble, especially if you intend toning the print.

Galerie will tone in selenium to a warm mauve-ish brown colour. Multigrade FB goes the opposite way in selenium, it will turn a subtle cool blue-grey if toned to completion. Multigrade is much more difficult to split-tone in selenium because of the subtlety of the change. With Galerie, the change is easier to notice.

In sodium sulphide, Galerie turns a rich chocolate brown, whilst Multigrade turns a cooler, less rich brown. If you are split-toning, selenium will alter the colour of the sulphide-toned areas to a warm pinkish-brown in Multigrade. On Galerie, selenium seems to cool it down somewhat. I can't tell you what an odourless sepia will do to either.

Selenium will increase the depth of blacks on both papers. IMO, they are both fine papers, and side-by-side you won't see much difference in untoned prints made at the same contrast. But drop them into selenium or sulphide and they are very different.

HTH,
kevs

 

[Richard Jepsen]

My take-a-way from the discussion is Galerie has a bit more contrast, may be sharper, and is more responsive to selenium toning. I am looking for a richer, just slightly warmer look than Multigrade IV. I print with Forte Polywarmtone Plus using developers and toning to cool it's color. I am happy with the rich look in Forte's dark tones. Since I have two types of light sources, I may try #3 Galerie. Thanks for your comments and any additional ones which may shine light on Galerie's unique properties.