• 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...

As much as I like Ilford papers, the cost has made me consider alternatives. Based on Silverprint's prices for 50 sheets of 12"x16" papers, Ilford MG-IV FB cost £95.94 and MG-WT FB cost £116.14.

I have just ordered a box of Kentmere Fineprint VC FB which cost me £52.34 and is the cheapest paper they sell in 50 sheet boxes of that size.
 
Reading MSDS data tells you almost nothing about the differences at all.

It's quite simple, Warmtone developers contain NO organic anti-foggants, instead rely on a higher than normal level of Potassium Bromide.

Cold tone developers use a bit of Bromide and some organic anti-foggants.

Ilford Cool tone developer used a proprietary anti-foggant, there's nothing in the Ilford Patents etc to indicate the exact compound but the chemical they used has a greater cooling effect than Benzotriazole.

Ian


 
I don't think too much about it in detailed terms. For general printing purposes, such as landscape, pinhole, abstractions, etc I really enjoy the abyss deep and saturated black of MGIV (matte). Toned I can get all sorts of pleasant hues in the highlights and mid-tones that warms it up considerably.
For portrait, figure, and more intimate printing, I like MGWT due to its warmer base, warmer tones, and shadow separation. I don't feel I get enough weight from the shadows for visually striking work, like architecture for example, from MGWT. That is probably because my negatives are targeted to fit MGIV and MGWT has a longer tone scale. MGWT is, overall, a much more subtle paper.
I also enjoy MGWT for its lith printing capabilities, but I don't think it's really necessary to discuss here or part of the scope of the original poster.

My approach is more of a practical application, where I have felt my way over the years with how to process my negatives to fit the Ilford papers, particularly MGIV matte. It's hard for me to quantify my findings, but to me MGIV is the more complete paper, more allround applicable to various types of subject matter. I feel I can use MGIV for portraiture as well, but I don't like the results I get from MGWT for landscape work, if that makes any sense. MGWT is, to me, a more specialized paper.
With that said, if I had targeted my negatives to fit the MGWT paper, the reverse might be true.

The difference in color is fairly substantial, especially toned. MGIV has to be coaxed into giving colors of various types (and that is good for me), while MGWT almost explodes in color with various treatments. It's wonderful that two such different papers can be had from the same company.

The absolute print quality, from either paper, I think is second to none. In the past I have used Agfa MCC, Adox MCC, Foma Variant, Foma Fomatone, Forte Polywarmtone, Forte Polygrade, Bergger VCCP (I think it was), Fotokemika Emaks, Fotokemika Varycon, and Fotospeed Lith. The Ilford papers are, to my eyes, the best I've ever used.

With all that said, I still print on Foma Fomabrom, because as much as I would love to use Ilford for everything, I simply can't afford it. It's something that I'm not happy about, but understand that the owners at Harman have to make financial sense.

It's interesting to read everybody else' experiences, advice, and expertise with these two wonderful papers.

Brian, are you trying to go from two papers to one?

- Thomas
 
Steve Sherman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guillemot made Zone VI, after they closed some of the staff formed Bergger. At that point Zone VI switched to Kentmere for their papers.. Bergger started selling rebranded Forte with a lot of hype

Ian
 
Thomas Bertilsson said:
Brian, are you trying to go from two papers to one?

- Thomas
Click to expand...

Thomas, thanks for the post. No I'm not. I like what each of these papers have to offer, so I'm sticking with both. I don't think I could live with printing on just one or the other. Like you said, they are both so different. For everything I need to do I can do it with these two papers. Now to start playing around, I ordered some Clayton and Arista cold tone developer from Freestyle and plan to run tests on MGWT along with Evan Clarke's variation on 130 (omitting bromide, and adding BZT and carbonate). I will print step wedges and post results.
 
I've enjoyed this thread very much. I'm a callow novice when it comes to printing and particularly on MGWT, but the portraits I did on it several months ago made the subjects look like they had jaundice or something! I found the warm/yellowish tone (I suppose it was the base) very unpleasant for skin tones. I used Dektol. The high praise for this paper by you experts has made me reconsider.

What the heck did I do wrong? Do I just need to go back and tone the buggers in selenium?

Thanks for any suggestions.
 
Jeff, were you printing on a neutral tone paper for some time before you tried MGWT? I remember the first time I tried MGWT I hated it. I was used to printing on MGIV and I remember the "yellowish" impression you indicate. I'm glad I didn't give up on it. As I said before, I don't like it un-toned. I selenium tone for atleast 3 minutes at 1:9. I never used dektol with MGWT but maybe that's the problem Jeff? Or maybe that you're not selenium toning. I'd try that first before trying a different developer.
 
Ilford Warmtone use to have a warm, kind of antique base. Worked well for many of my pictures. Then they changed to a much whiter base, and I find I can't print those images with the same warmth any more. Wish they didn't change it to the whiter base. Now, from hearing some of the comments, did they recently change it again to a warmer base?

Jon
 
Jon, the base hasn't changed since they made it whiter. It's still brighter than it used to be. But it is a still a tad warm compared to Ilford MGIV. However, I find almost anything else is warmer than Ilford MGIV...
 
brian steinberger said:
Jeff, were you printing on a neutral tone paper for some time before you tried MGWT?
Click to expand...

Yes, MGWT is the only warm tone paper I've tried. I now use LPD (at home) as well as Dektol (community darkroom). Does LPD give a different look than Dektol with this paper. I'll be trying it and I'll be trying selenium toning as well.
thanks for the help.
 
I'm personally glad of the whiter base. It makes is a brilliant all rounder. There are tonnes of warm papers about even just in the Foma stable, but very few strong middle ground papers. I think it was essential for Ilford to bring this paper into the mainstream and I bet they are selling a lot more of it as a result. If any of you are in London, drop in to see Robin Bell and have a look at some of his prints on this paper. I've printed almost all my Afghanistan project on this and those prints not on this are slowly being reprinted. I printed some on Adox MCC and they are very nice when the paper rebate is hidden by the mount, bec the base is so much brighter. When hidden they look very close however - just warm of neutral.

For anyone missing the old MGWT, look no further than Foma. You'll get warm, antique, matt, semi matt, stippled and just about all you could wish for within their line. The only thing you wont get is the same top end contrast at the higher end.
 
Tom brings up an interesting point about MCC 110 from Adox. I find that using this paper in more dilute LPD gives a nice warm tone. Because LPD is so versatile and MCC is receptive to that flexibility, I had decided to just stick with those two unless I want a really warm tone. I guess I'll be testing this theory against MGWT due to this thread.

I would like to hear from those of you who have used MGWT with LPD, if any.

Jeff
 
Has anyone noticed the paper speed or characteristics of Warmtone changing over the last year or two?
Has anyone noticed an explosion of contrast or increase of contrast when the paper hits the fix?

Inquiring minds need to know.

Just been given a project where I need to go through 10 - 50 sheet boxes of 20 x24 inch Warmtone so its back to the darkroom and Buddy Guy, a bit of Madonna when I have to pull out the sensitive side of the negative. I will stink of fix for the next month.
 
Madonna? Sensitive? Yipes...

I feel as though MGWT requires more exposure, but I haven't compared directly to prints from years ago. I do notice, as you say, that the blacks get stronger when it hits the fix. Like the picture 'clears'. I didn't think much of it, since I develop the print by time anyway.

Sounds like a rather large project, Bob! Lots of paper. Both you and Ilford must be happy.

- Thomas
 
Warmtone papers get colder over time, they didn't before the Cadmium was removed from them. Some shift more than others but I noticed a very significant shift in the Ilford Warmtone I used last November compared to a year or so earlier.

The increase in contrast (apparent) in fixing is the clearing of the emulsion as the silver halides are dissolved, try it with some film processed in a white tray, switch the light on as soon as it's in the fixer, it'll look flat & milky then as it fixes the contrast increases.

Ian
 
The speed can sure be an issue for big prints off 35mm. Enter Adox MCC...

The only trouble I have had with MCC is that when I have a flat neg and need to get the highest contrast possible, it hits the ceiling before the MGWT, which has close to a grade more contrast I would say. Not often necessary, but when it is, its everything. Both have closely matched surface sheens too - handy.
 
I have not noticed this effect with other papers, or at least not as strong. But the bulk of what I use is Ilford Warmtone.
I must be getting better seeing in the darkroom. or

come to think of it the last couple of years I have spent considerable time looking at the print during the development process, somewhat a result of lith printing and my greater desire to see the print appear and figure out dodge burn routines. So in the past I could have been lazy and not noticed this contrast increase in the fixer.
 

That's an interesting observation. I can't remember exactly now, since it's been a few years since I printed on Agfa MCC, but I can't really remember having problems reaching maximum contrast with it.
Would you say that is a correct observation? If so, the MCC emulsion that ADOX uses is not the same as the old Agfa.

Anyway, I also agree with your notion that larger prints on MGWT can take a ridiculously long time, entering reciprocity failure territory. My new (to me) Leitz Focomat V35 enlarger only has a 75W bulb in it. Making a 16x20" print the other day I had a main exposure of 120 seconds at f/2.8 on the Focotar lens, and the burning exercises were several minutes long. Fortunately the Focotar is a good lens, which holds up well at f/2.8 even at 16x magnification, but it was definitely a test of my patience.
 
jglass said:
I would like to hear from those of you who have used MGWT with LPD, if any.

Jeff
Click to expand...

Jeff, before I started using 130 all I used was LPD with MGWT. I have much experience with this combo. I used LPD 1:4 and developed for 2 minutes. It's all I used to know, but now that I have more experience I don't like that combo much anymore. It was too warm. The image is very green coming out of the fixer. Once selenium toned it was ok. When split sepia toned it would take on just a beautiful color though. But if you're going to selenium tone after sepia watch out, the color will run away on you going a reddish-orange-brown color, very nice for certain things! What I do like LPD and MGWT for is split selenium toning. Since the image is very greenish, I selenium tone at 1:9 for about 6-8 minutes, each print deserves its own time depending on when the split takes place, but the results are wonderful, rich brownish-purple shadows splitting against cold green gray highlights. Check out my gallery on here, I have quite a few uploads of prints using LPD and MGWT.

I much prefer 130 now though. Un-toned prints have a nicer, more neutral tone to them and when selenium toning after sepia the shadows don't change right to brown. I have some cold tone developers coming tomorrow. I'm excited to try these with MGWT hoping to cool the paper even more. I'll let everyone know the details.
 
If you didn't like LPD at 1+4 - the developer changes as you alter dilution. Try LPD at 1+1 or replenished for something completely different. Both color wise as well as contrast. It gets colder as you decrease dilution and contrast increases. It's why I love LPD so much - it's easy to adjust to get what you want. Although I mostly use it replenished, I also usually have a gallon of fresh stock to mix single shot from if I need something different.

- Thomas
 

That's interesting. I have recently decided to use some MGWT for a project. I bought some, and found that I already had bought a box to try some time previously. I use ID-78 which is to some degree a warm tone developer. (Actually I use potassium carbonate instead of the sodium carbonate, adjusted for MW) which should make it a bit warmer.

I found the warm tone very subtle indeed. Warm enough for me, but I was surprised that it wasn't anything like the old Agfa Record Rapid (I'm showing my age) of the 1960s, or like a toned print.

One explanation might be that here, almost the end of the Earth (only New Zealand is further away) the age of stock is often problematical.
 
I certainly notice Ilford's Warmtone paper tones much quicker and more noticeably than MGIV-FB. I mostly selenium tone and I didn't see much difference at all (even in the darker midtones and shadows) on MGIV-FB...not so with the Warmtone.

Warmtone is probably my favorite paper, and one I'm most familiar with. That said, I sometimes find it almost greenish, in a very subtle way, without toning - be it mild sepia and/or selenium afterwards.

I love playing around with other papers (notably Oriental) but Ilford's my mainstay.
 
Dear Thomas....

120 seconds.....!!!! In an earlier life, long ago doing Cibachrome ( now ILFOCHROME ) mural prints on a horizontal enlarger it was not unusual to open the lens, go for lunch, then come back and put the lens cap back on, I'm not kidding, I tell you what you rarely did more than one test print!

Simon. ILFORD Photo HARMAN technology LImited :
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register