• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford MGIV & Warmtone (MGWT), a discussion...

Thanks for the post Steve! Just curious, when you re-printed the split-toned MGIV prints, how did that translate over to MGWT? Did you just print them like all the other MGWT prints in your show (just selenium toned)? Or did you slightly sepia toned them as well?
 

Tom, I couldn't agree more about printing slightly soft and then hammering MGIV in selenium, plus I think it looks great that way, wonderful cold blue black. But I just don't see it with MGWT un-toned. Maybe I just haven't found the right developer with it yet. I'm going to try Evan Clarke's addition of more carbonate and benzotriazole to 130. I've heard this is great with MGWT.
 

After seeing some of my MG1V split toned prints side by side with MGWT prints in a show I had this past January in Springfield Mass. I decided I needed to reprint some of the images. While the MG1V prints had an interesting color split to them in the end the prints just didn't replicate the same tonal quality that the MGWT prints exhibited.

I chose to reprint images that would benefit from the enhanced micro contrast of MGWT in the mid to low values. The GAF 125 developer really brings out a color that is most pleasing to me with just a slight selenium toning to finish the process. I have tried sepia toning the MGWT but have yet to fine a combination I like as much as the straight MGWT in GAF 125

The Toronto show is large enough where different processes or toning schemes would be acceptable. There are several Azo prints which have been split toned with a thiourea sepia process that are quite striking. That said, Azo is a pure chloride emulsion and exhibits all the micro contrast one could hope for so the final color is the major concern.
 
Steve Sherman said:
That said, Azo is a pure chloride emulsion and exhibits all the micro contrast one could hope for so the final color is the major concern.
Click to expand...

Steve: have you tried GAF 125 on Azo?
 
GAF 125 appears to be Dektol (Kodak D-72) in all respects except for one: it contains less carbonate (65 grams as opposed to 80). This is quite interesting to me as I've always thought of Dektol as one the coldest of developers. Certainly too cold for Steve's work. I guess the reduced activity from backing off on the accelerator must also affect print color.
 
I'm searching the 'ole memory banks here, but I recall quite warm tones with Portriga Rapid developed in Dektol. That may explain why Steve likes GAF 125 with Ilford MGWT.
 

I must say I am surprised to say the least how such small differences can haver such a different look.

No Jim I have not tried Azo and 125 but will if time permits.

The whole test came about because I had been mixing and using GAF 135 for twenty years with all the Portriga that I have, had always assumed it was a warmer tone developer.

One day I am printing Azo with a slight variation on the MAS Amidol forumla, at the end of the printing session I was making plans for the next morning's printing session where I had planned on using MGWT and wanted to get the initial print times dialed in and used the Amidol to get those initial times. To my amazement the Amidol produced a noticeably warmer looking print than those I had made with the GAF 135 I had been using for years with MGWT.

This prompted me to look through Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook for some suggestions on warm tone developers. I came across the GAF 125, with two formula variations, one using Sodium Carbonate and the other Potassium Carbonate with the latter supposed to produce slightly warmer results. In my initial tests of the two developers the Pot Carb did not show me a difference in warmth while requiring a noticeable increase in printing times or reduced paper speed.

Interestingly, that first go around with the GAF 125 actually produce a warmth with MG1V that I was accustomed to with GAF 135 and MGWT.

As an aside, just to torture the souls who are fixated on print color like me, Azo, Amidol and a Thiourea sepia combination can be extraordinary, and fleeting.
 
Steve, I would love to see photos of these prints, framed up, from the show, or whatever you have. I know I won't be able to see the subtle print color on a computer monitor of course, but it would still be interesting.
 
brian steinberger said:
John, I know in the past you used cold tone developers sometimes with MGWT. Are you still doing so?
Click to expand...

I now just use the Ilford Warmtone Developer and Agfa Neutol WA. For now my taste is on the warmer side of things....but the MGWT can even get a colder look than the regular MGIV if used on the right cold tone developer. If cold tones are what you want then try Clayton Ultra Cold Tone for a real nice look. When combined with sepia toning or polytoner you can get some really cool colors out of it.
 

yeah, i use a rototrimmer as well and still have the problem, problem improved when I put in a new blade...but I did not think that trimming prints could wear the blade down.
 

John, this is so interesting to me. This is something I am definitely going to try. I like the idea of cooling MGWT down. I'm curious as to whether the paper would not jump so quickly to brownish-purple in selenium after such a cold developer.
 

Fully support this having printed, matted and framed 40 images for an exhibition last year. Ruined about 8 prints before finding the right temperature and time on the dry mounting press and discarding the ruler and knife for a roto trimmer.

About half the images were from my stock of Agfa MCC and half on Ilford WT. I wish the Agfa was still available and am currently trying out the ADOX alternatives. Initial opinion is the gloss surface finish is a bit dull.
As as others have said I think the Ilford WT would be my choice as best paper going around at the moment.
 
brian steinberger said:
Steve, I would love to see photos of these prints, framed up, from the show, or whatever you have. I know I won't be able to see the subtle print color on a computer monitor of course, but it would still be interesting.
Click to expand...

I am trying to update my website to include some newer work, some of which will be in the Toronto show. I would encourage all serious photographers to make the trip to Toronto sometime during the month of May. My understanding is the city will play host to over 200 photography shows during the month.

In addition to all that, the lineup of talent that Bob Carnie has put together for a week long symposium on alternative photographic processes is extraordinary, see here Dead Link Removed
 

Steve Sherman said:
I must say I am surprised to say the least how such small differences can haver such a different look.
Click to expand...

Looking at the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) of Ilfords Cold Tone, Multigrade, and Ilford Warmtone Developer, the first two are exactly identical, and only the Warmtone Developer shows a difference.

If we ignore the presence of different variations of EDTA (DTPA in the Coldtone and Multigrade, HEDTA in the Warmtone variant), which probably only serves to capture metal ions in tap water, than the one and only major difference between the Coldtone / Multigrade developers on one side, and the Warmtone Developer on the other side, is a reduction in the amount of Potassium Carbonate (from 5-10% in Coldtone to 1-5% in Warmtone developer), and addition of Potassium Hydroxide 1-5% in the Warmtone developer.

Since Potassium Hydroxide is strongly alkaline, it seems the major difference between the Coldtone and Warmtone developers is pH, with the warmtone developer being more alkaline.

So simple pH regulation seems the major driving force between getting cool or warm tones in print developer... and since the MSDS sheets of Multigrade and Cooltone developer are identical, yet the products marketed seperately, they must have minor differences in composition that are enough to force tones in the cooler or more neutral direction.
 

Makes sense, but I've often read that cold tone developers are more alkaline (= more active). Very strange. Maybe there are components that don't have to be listed.
 
Something might be of interest. The Australian MSDS docs often have more detail than others. If you look at the Ilford site, you'll see separate entry for English/Australian. It's not because our language is so different (though some might disagree) but the regulations are different.
 
This past Saturday I printed the same negative on Ilford MGWT (glossy) and Ilford MGIV and also on some Brilliant multigrade ( happened to have sitting around for who knows how many years ). All three are double weight fiber. All three were developed in the very last of my Zone VI which is somewhat similar to Dektol. I tried to get as close as possible the same tonal ranges. The WT took almost twice the exposure time as the MGIV and the Brilliant slightly more time than the MGIV. All were at the same f stop and enlarger height. The Brilliant had a whiter paper base as comparing the unexposed borders and seemed to have blacker blacks and was more contrasty. If my memory serves me correct, I always thought that Brilliant was made by Ilford for Calumet?

I'm just putting this out as an observation. I have been printing on MGIV since Brilliant was discontinued especially in the larger sizes and have no complaints. I will add that I like the WT and expect to use it more often.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
 
Thanks for that observation Jeff. I never heard of Calumet Brilliant. Interesting how many papers come and go. one of the reasons I decided to come back to MGIV from Oriental is that MGIV and MGWT are papers that should be around as long as Ilford is, which hopefully is a very long time.
 
jeffreyg said:
If my memory serves me correct, I always thought that Brilliant was made by Ilford for Calumet?

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
Click to expand...

My recollection tells me that Zone VI studios had the paper manufactured by an unknown paper coating company in France when the original Oriental Seagull had an emulsion change back in the nineties.

Also, had a good friend who purchased a bunch of Brilliant from ZOne VI studios just before the Calumet buyout. He believed he was getting a super deal as the price was about 1/2 normal retail. Turned out the paper was bad, severely lacked contrast and he never did get any satisfaction from Zone VI and lost hundreds in the deal.
 

Indeed Brilliant was Fred Picker's doing as he reported back in the day trying to get the French paper company to make the best possible bromide paper. Late in zone 6 history Calumet became a marketer of all the zone 6 stuff. Probably made Fred a lot of money.
 
The box of Brilliant that I have says made in England. It was definitely purchased from Calumet. Perhaps they just purchased the name. While Zone 6 was still in business we happened to be in Vermont and when passing through Newfane I stopped and asked where Zone 6 was. The response was that a number of people had done the same and there was no Zone 6 establishment. That was just used as a mail drop. I guess it lent a "local craftsman" feel to their products. My Zone 6 print washer has held up very well and has been doing the job for quite a few years.
 
john_s said:
Makes sense, but I've often read that cold tone developers are more alkaline (= more active). Very strange. Maybe there are components that don't have to be listed.
Click to expand...


That indeed seems to be the case. The Australian MSDS for the Ilford / Harman Warmtone developer additionally mentions a significant amount of 5-10% borax, and a small (<1%) amount of a substance called "1-Phenyl-4-methyl-3-pyrazolidone", which according to this page is a developing agent too. According to Wikipedia, one of borax's uses is to buffer solutions at a certain pH (usually pH 8, just mildly alkaline, but I see also a mention of pH 9.2-11 for a buffer with borax and sodium hydroxide, so that may be possible too). Anyway, the Warmtone developer may not be more alkaline after all, but buffered at a slightly lower pH, more close to neutral pH, compared to the Cooltone and normal Multigrade developer. That would be in accordance with John's remark.

Of course, with pH being a 10log of H+ ions concentration, even a 1 step difference in pH, means 10x more or less alkaline hydroxide (OH-) ions in solution to participate in the development process, so even an apparently "small" change of pH from 10 to 9, could have a significant effect on developer activity.

By the way, the MSDSs of course also mention Hydroquinone as the actual developing / reducing agent in all the variants, I just didn't list it in the previous post, as it seemed logical enough and there aren't differences in the sheets (all mention 1-5%)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love the Warmtone, but I cannot justify the very high price. It has gone up about $30 a box since I fist used it. The regular Multigrade does not do much for me. Not sure what it is about it. I like Oriental and the newer MCC 110 better, and they are cheaper here in the U.S.A. Oriental makes a Warmtone paper as well, but it is not as subtle as the Ilford. Developer additives with MCC are an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register