Ilford MG & Slavich Unibrom Paper Compatability

[Alex Hawley]

I've been printing with Slavich Unibrom graded paper and Ilford MG IV for a couple years. Yesterday, by chance, I wound up with a side-by-side comparison of both papers. (there was a url link here which no longer exists) printed on both - 11x14 on the Ilford, 8x10 on the Slavich.

Guess what? I cannot tell the difference between the papers. In other words, the image is the same, as closely as I can discern by eye. The only visual clue I have as to which print is on which paper is by the size; Ilford on the 11x14, Slavich on the 8x10.

Looking back at my printing notes I see that the exposures are the same for both. The only difference being the contrast filter used for the Ilford. In this case, the filter is a 2.5. Development time for the Slavich was 2 minutes, 3 minutes on the Ilford using PF 130 1:2. I fixed and selenium toned each print exactly the same.

"OK, Big Deal!" you say. I say that's pretty significant. It means I can use both papers interchangeably with respect to tone values; with little difference in exposure; and identical compatibility with my new film of choice, TMY-2. If I have a difficult negative, I can use split grade printing on the MGIV and the rendering is the same as if printed on the graded paper. I still like using single weight paper as much as possible and Slavich is available in single weight.

Its a startling bit of compatibility between the two manufacturers that seemingly have no ties with each other, and are physically nationally and geographically.

Since the demise of Kodak B&W papers, I've been searching for a paper(s) that I can lock in as a standard for 100% of my work. Think I just found the system that will fulfill that need.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Slavitch is fantastic !

 

[Alex Hawley]

Slavitch is fantastic !

I think so too Guillaume.

 

[reellis67]

I've been interested in trying one of their papers that says it's cold tone - something that I personally really like.

- Randy

 

[weasel]

That is useful information for sure. What grade Slavich paper matched the 2.5 filter?

 

[keithwms]

I also like the slavich very much. I've been using it in grade 2 and 3 forms, matte.

 

[Alex Hawley]

That is useful information for sure. What grade Slavich paper matched the 2.5 filter?

Forgot to mention that. Grade 2 Slavich equated with grade 2.5 on Ilford.

 

[bdial]

I've heard lots of good things about Slavich, and I've been planning to get some to try out. However your comparison makes me curious, if they are equal why use one over the other? Hopefully it's not just to be able to print on single-weight, or to split grade. I'm not saying those aren't valid reasons.

 

[dancqu]

Its a startling bit of compatibility between
the two manufacturers

Have you checked for finnish? I don't know about the
Ilford but against three other papers the Slavich had
a less marked sheen. Dan

 

[Alex Hawley]

- if they are equal why use one over the other? Hopefully it's not just to be able to print on single-weight, or to split grade. I'm not saying those aren't valid reasons.

Good question. I haven't come to favoring one over the other yet. I do like working with single weight paper (reason is not entirely obvious to me) and Slavich SW is available in 8x10 and 11x14. At present, Slavich is also a bit cheaper than Ilford. Ilford gives me the needed flexibility on the high and low ends of the contrast scale to print difficult negatives beyond the scale of the the single grades. Maybe it makes more rational sense to go entirely with MG and maybe I eventually will.

Back when Kodak still made B&W paper, I found their Polymax FineArt to be very close to Ilford MG in its response to exposure and development. Having compatible paper available from two or more manufacturers makes for a better material supply, IMO.

Most of those reasons are admittedly pretty subjective. No stone-cold logic is intended nor claimed.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Have you checked for finnish? I don't know about the
Ilford but against three other papers the Slavich had
a less marked sheen. Dan

I just looked closely at the finish again. I haven't mounted these prints yet but in their unmounted state, they are pretty darn close to each other.

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks for posting. Some have commented on the variability from sheet to sheet of some of the "foreign" papers. It would be interesting to know if your results are the same with the next few sheets of Slavich that you use.

Ed

 

[Alex Hawley]

Hi Ed. I've probably gone through a hundred sheets. Haven't seen any variations yet. Have seen some on some other brands though and know what you're talking about.

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks Alex. I tend to use graded paper, and so far Emaks seems to provide the tone I like. I have not yet procesed enough prints to comment on the variability of the paper-sheet to sheet-but I know that some have commented about the variability of virtually every paper except for Ilford.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I've gotten burned by the variability of some of the third-tier papers and films too. Learned that lesson the hard way. So, I'm staying skeptical of Slavich consistency until it proves itself one way or the other.

I didn't warm up to Ilford MG right off the bat either. Its taken me a couple years to start seeing what it can actually do. I think the biggest thing I've learned abut using it is that it needs a full two to three minutes to fully develop whereas some of the other papers I was using would develop faster.

 

[Mark Layne]

Good question. I haven't come to favoring one over the other yet. I do like working with single weight paper (reason is not entirely obvious to me) and Slavich SW is available in 8x10 and 11x14. At present, Slavich is also a bit cheaper than Ilford. Ilford gives me the needed flexibility on the high and low ends of the contrast scale to print difficult negatives beyond the scale of the the single grades. Maybe it makes more rational sense to go entirely with MG and maybe I eventually will.

Back when Kodak still made B&W paper, I found their Polymax FineArt to be very close to Ilford MG in its response to exposure and development. Having compatible paper available from two or more manufacturers makes for a better material supply, IMO.

Most of those reasons are admittedly pretty subjective. No stone-cold logic is intended nor claimed.

Ilford MG seems to keep forever, but you might be hard pressed to find unfogged Polymax FA today-beautiful as it was.
Mark

 

[Alex Hawley]

Ilford MG seems to keep forever, but you might be hard pressed to find unfogged Polymax FA today-beautiful as it was.
Mark

HAH! You're right Mark. In fact, that played a major role in this entire sundry affair. I had several sheets of 11x14 Polymax. Although its expiration date was in 2005, I had gotten decent prints from it earlier this year. So, I gave it a go in the effort to finish it off. But it just wouldn't come up in the developer. The remaining sheets of Polymax went into the trash and I opened up the Ilford. That's how this entire comparison got started.

 

[Curt]

Ilford MG seems to keep forever, but you might be hard pressed to find unfogged Polymax FA today-beautiful as it was.

That's interesting, I found a hundred sheet box that I bought some time back and never used, I'll have to open it up and see what it can do. Thanks for the comment.

Curt

 

[dancqu]

I just looked closely at the finish again.
I haven't mounted these prints yet but in
their unmounted state, they are pretty darn
close to each other.

Of the four papers I tested, three of them still on
the market, Kentmere Bromide and Emaks had
the highest and equal gloss. Ilford's MG was
not one of those tested.

Testing for fixer consumption, Slavich used the least
fixer and the Kentmere the most. I've not tested Ilford's
MG. Likely it requires about 50% more fixer than the Slavich.
I use fixer one-shot so make a point of knowing how much
fixer is needed for each paper used. Dan

 

[Mahler_one]

Dan: What an interesting post!! I am curious as to how you can test paper for fixer consumption. Do you test the fixer after a certain number of prints, or do you test a corner of the print? I use PF TF4 and tend to make up a new "batch" for each printing session. As an aside, I will reuse the TF4 on multiple sheets of film, but I tend to test the fixer with a few drops Edwal Hypo Tester (sic) once I have developed a few sheets of film.

Ed

 

[dancqu]

Dan: What an interesting post!! I am curious as to how
you can test paper for fixer consumption. Do you test
the fixer after a certain number of prints, or do you
test a corner of the print? Ed

I test 5x7 sheets. A sheet is pre-wetted then placed in
the fixer to be tested. Usually the first test is with an
amount likely to be too little. Time limit, 4 minutes.

Room lights are turned on. The amount of chemistry
being way shy the paper will very soon color. More
chemistry and a next try. And so on.

One-shot fixers are always fresh each sheet or
few sheets at same time processed.

The ST-1 test will indicate the presence of any
residual silver although a close look with room
lights on and after a few minutes of exposure
may be as good a test. Any slight departure
from best white indicates inadequate fixing.

As expected I found Kentmere BROMIDE
the most consumptive; 2/3 more fix
needed than the Slavich. Dan

 

[Mahler_one]

Thanks Dan.

Ed

 

[wilsonneal]

I notice Freestyle carries it and it's very inexpensive. Is it a paper that responds to water bath development to lower contrast? I see they have a chlorobromide version called Bromportrait. Has anyone tried that?\
Neal

 

[Peter Schrager]

Bromoportrait

have tried this paper....it has a finish akin to some of the older kodak portrait types...sort of a marble texture..best to check it out for yourself
Best, Peter

 

[Roger Pellegrini]

Slavich and Red Light

I also like Slavich and had been careful to use the dark red safelight filters as recommended. After using it for a while, however, I tested it by using my standard Thomas instrument safelight with the orange filter. This really provides a lot of light and there was no evidence of it fogging the Slavich at all.

Roger Pellegrini