Ilford Multigrade V...FB?

[MurrayMinchin]

Hi there,

I've been out of the game for a while and noticed that Ilford has brought out a Multigrade V RC paper.

Is a Multigrade V Fibre Based paper in the works as well?

 

[MurrayMinchin]

They replaced MGIV FB with MG Classic and added Cooltone to the range.

Thanks a bunch.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Michael just wrote about the precise changes from MGIV to MG Classic (V): check the thread "Are there RC papers... "

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Michael just wrote about the precise changes from MGIV to MG Classic (V): check the thread "Are there RC papers... "

Found it...thanks:

Are there RC papers with contrast close to Ilford's current MGV ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

There is, in Ilford fiber-based choices, Multigrade Warmtone, Multigrade Classic, and Multigrade Cooltone, all, in my opinion, way better than past MGIV. I always found MG4 rather anemic in DMax and effective contrast range, at least compared to premium graded papers of the same era. But you can't just ask if the "contrast is the same" when VC papers are involved. They're all variable contrast!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Drew,
Are you talking about what I asked in the other thread ?
If that's the case: I wasn't asking for identical contrast papers from the point of view of science (not necessary, nor useful in my case: I'm a photographer, so my interest is human condition), but for companies that decided to make papers which require a similar use of Ilford's MG filters, as Harman's Kentmere VC papers seem to work in other members' opinion.
As I explained, with Foma papers the difference is huge, but with similar papers, students can learn photography instead of science, sensitometry, etc.
I didn't like MGIV either: I cursed my career with it, and I like their new generation of papers better too.

 

[kevs]

<snipped>
I didn't like MGIV either: I cursed my career with it, and I like their new generation of papers better too.

I came to appreciate MGIV for its unique (as far as I know) quirk of turning a subtle shade of cold blue in selenium toner. When split-toned with sulphide, it gave prints an effective 3D look, and was not too "on the nose" either. The "Classic" replacement doesn't do that. Each to their own, I guess.

 

[Bikerider]

Hi there,

I've been out of the game for a while and noticed that Ilford has brought out a Multigrade V RC paper.

Is a Multigrade V Fibre Based paper in the works as well?

I use MG5 extensively and find it to be a massive improvement over MG4. So much so I have given up using Fibre based because there is now virtually no difference in quality. If they could make a MG5 with the same surface texture as MG Classic unglazed glossy that would be perfect.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I came to appreciate MGIV for its unique (as far as I know) quirk of turning a subtle shade of cold blue in selenium toner. When split-toned with sulphide, it gave prints an effective 3D look, and was not too "on the nose" either. The "Classic" replacement doesn't do that. Each to their own, I guess.

Try MGFB Cooltone instead.

 

[Pat Erson]

Hi there,

I've been out of the game for a while and noticed that Ilford has brought out a Multigrade V RC paper.

Is a Multigrade V Fibre Based paper in the works as well?

Hope not!
Imho this new RC paper is terrible. It's basically Kentmere RC... but sold at premium Ilford price. It's very hard to get decent grays with this MGV while the "old" MGIV would deliver lovely delicate grays.

If you use the MGV to make contact prints, any picture that was overexposed will be rendered a a blank white indecipherable rectangle. With the MGIV paper you could at least see bits of details.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - subtle toning is way easier with these newer papers like MGWT, Classic, and Cooltone, not just conspicuous toning. A sledgehammer isn't necessary for every task. But I have zero experience with any recent RC products. I only use FB.

I've never even seen anything called MG5. There is a product beginning to show up labeled MG Deluxe RC. Perhaps that's the same thing. But there's no FB equivalent. I gotta run to the camera store later today to pick up a little more FP4 sheet film, so might take a closer look. But everything Ilford paper-wise seems to be running low there. They'll probably stock up after the first of the year. This time a year, it's all about selling lots of silly expensive "newest" digi cameras and lenses to people giving themselves Christmas presents. I started seeing RC Deluxe on their shelves several months ago. It's what they mostly use for their own darkroom classes these days, at least once that was possible again as covid restrictions started loosening up.

 

[MattKing]

I've never even seen anything called MG5.

For some reason Harman didn't elect to follow there previous naming convention when they went from MGIV RC to the newer paper, designated MG Deluxe.
But the internet and users are resistant - they just started calling it MG V, and continue to do so.
I predict that the internet and the users will eventually win the battle .
It is just a guess, but I wonder if the change was intended to get away from Roman Numerals, which might confuse potential new users.
I like toning, and therefore look forward to the new paper when I've finished the MG IV I still have. MG IV's (the neutral stuff) relative unresponsiveness to toning is my main complaint with it, and is one of the reasons why I like the old style Cooltone. The Cooltone goes nicely blue-black in selenium, and also looks well in sepia or brown toner.
And to Pat Eron, I wish we were neighbours, because I expect that the new version of the paper merely requires a tweak in your procedure to give you the results you want. Those lower contrast response bumps in MGIV are ones that I will be glad to be rid of.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's correct, Michael. MGWT has been around longer. And once Forte MGV FB dried up, I used Harman Fineprint MG for awhile, which was also a fine product of the "neutral" category, allowing it to be tweaked cool in the right developer and toner. Classic won't go quite that cool, but can be made relatively neutral, which I never could get the Agfa MCC product to do; it had an especially stubborn plum tone. The current Bergger Neutral Tone FB VC paper is a quite flexible "neutral" which will render a decent cool tone properly developed or toned, but with rather high or bold shadow contrast. Nothing yields a true blue-black like Forte MG5 did with certain MQ dev tweaks. Nowadays I just keep MGWT and Cooltone on hand, which cover nearly all my personal needs.

Matt- thanks for the marketing clarification. Even with prior MG4, the RC version would yield a cooler tone than the FB version. I sometimes used RC 4 for commercial projects intended for press reproduction, never for personal use.

 

[JensH]

Classic won't go quite that cool, but can be made relatively neutral, which I never could get the Agfa MCC product to do; it had an especially stubborn plum tone. .

Hi Drew,
when Agfa Record Rapid (great for split tone Se btw.) was no more I tested MCC: it's magenta cast of the base was ugly, toned or not...
Ended up using Polywarmtone and MGW instead...

 

[CMoore]

I use MG5 extensively and find it to be a massive improvement over MG4. So much so I have given up using Fibre based because there is now virtually no difference in quality. If they could make a MG5 with the same surface texture as MG Classic unglazed glossy that would be perfect.

Hope not!
Imho this new RC paper is terrible. It's basically Kentmere RC... but sold at premium Ilford price. It's very hard to get decent grays with this MGV while the "old" MGIV would deliver lovely delicate grays.

If you use the MGV to make contact prints, any picture that was overexposed will be rendered a a blank white indecipherable rectangle. With the MGIV paper you could at least see bits of details.

Always interesting, especially to a relative beginner like myself, to read conflicting comments like these.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Imho this new RC paper is terrible. It's basically Kentmere RC... but sold at premium Ilford price. It's very hard to get decent grays with this MGV while the "old" MGIV would deliver lovely delicate grays.

If you use the MGV to make contact prints, any picture that was overexposed will be rendered a a blank white indecipherable rectangle. With the MGIV paper you could at least see bits of details.

Ilford's latest RC papers, Multigrade RC Deluxe and Multigrade RC Portfolio, are, in my opinion, excellent. They do not appear to have any relation to products HARMAN sells under the Kentmere brand. They have been newly developed and introduced over the last few years.

Whereas Multigrade IV FB and RC had characteristic curves designed to cope with "hot" negatives (T-grain and core-shell "designer grain") that have rising curves, the new RC papers and their fiber based counterpart Multigrade Classic are much closer to "straight line." They work well with conventional grain negatives developed normally and designer grain negatives developed in ways that tame their rising curves, e.g. pyro, semi-stand, etc.

The new papers seem to be targeted to photographers who either use conventional grain films conventionally developed or designer grain films paired with tightly controlled darkroom processes. They're not as "forgiving" as their predecessors were. I suspect this was intentional on HARMAN's part as it evaluated how its customer base was changing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A collector might have a very different opinion of having "no qualitative difference" between RC and FB than you do, Bikerider. And RC doesn't drymount decently either. So all around, RC fails the test categorically for certain applications, especially those most important to me personally.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...RC doesn't drymount decently either...

RC papers have many shortfalls compared to fiber-based counterparts, especially life expectancy under less than optimum environmental conditions. However, given careful choice of mount board, I've had no problem dry mounting RC prints. One need only ensure the board isn't one with noticeable surface texture and then keep press temperature at 180 degrees F.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Whereas Multigrade IV FB and RC had characteristic curves designed to cope with "hot" negatives (T-grain and core-shell "designer grain") that have rising curves, the new RC papers and their fiber based counterpart Multigrade Classic are much closer to "straight line." They work well with conventional grain negatives developed normally and designer grain negatives developed in ways that tame their rising curves, e.g. pyro, semi-stand, etc.

The new papers seem to be targeted to photographers who either use conventional grain films conventionally developed or designer grain films paired with tightly controlled darkroom processes. They're not as "forgiving" as their predecessors were. I suspect this was intentional on HARMAN's part as it evaluated how its customer base was changing.

I've found Classic FB & Cooltone FB to be overall much better papers than MGIV with pretty much everything - including all forms of controlled crystal growth habit emulsions (we really need to start talking about '3D' and 'high-aspect ratio' structures when discussing most modern emulsions - rather than 'conventional' and 'designer' - they're as designed as each other, it's just that it took a long time to get process controls that allowed for highly controlled crystal growth habits at a manufacturing scale, rather than somewhat controlled monodisperse-ish grain - which didn't need such highly computerised control in making). Basic process controls, rather than eccentric developer choices/ agitation habits are all that matter in getting the materials that contain high-aspect ratio grain structures to behave just fine with these papers - ID-11/ D-76 does an excellent job. The available science seems to suggest that inhibition effects (and the encouragement thereof - which requires some solvency) rather than exhaustion produces more useful benefits in terms of balancing shadow speed, highlight density, sharpness and coverage.

All of the recently reformulated papers have characteristic curves with longer toes and shoulders than the papers they replace, especially the FB papers (Classic and Cooltone). The curves for the newer papers generally have shorter straight line sections.

What I've found is that they're more even in their behaviour than MGIV was (and it tends to get forgotten that MGIV was such a major technological/ qualitative jump that it effectively pushed many fixed grade papers off the market) - MGIV had a tendency to slam in the contrast very hard between G3.5 and G4 (not enormously surprising given the characteristic curves), while the grade spacing is considerably more useful with the current papers - and the 5K Classic FB is dramatically better than the 5K MGIV.

 

[Bikerider]

A collector might have a very different opinion of having "no qualitative difference" between RC and FB than you do, Bikerider. And RC doesn't drymount decently either. So all around, RC fails the test categorically for certain applications, especially those most important to me personally.

An objective opinion to which I do not subscribe to. It may suit your means but not mine. I gave up drymounting over 20 years ago when the materials became difficult to find and have never gone back. I am also conscious of the quantity of water needed to wash the FB prints adequately and even with RC prints they have a life that will exceed yours or mine.

 

[Pat Erson]

Ilford's latest RC papers, Multigrade RC Deluxe and Multigrade RC Portfolio, are, in my opinion, excellent. They do not appear to have any relation to products HARMAN sells under the Kentmere brand.

I really beg to differ her.
I happen to own a bo of Kentmere RC paper. When I did a session of contact sheets on MGIV and I was doing a few ones on the Kentmere (grade 2 for both) these stood out like a thumb in a tray of fingers : higher contrast (reminding me of the old Kodak RC) but also a poorer rendition of the gray scale.
Now that I've switched to MGV the Kentmere cs are virtually undistinguishable from the Ilfords (apart from the paper base which is thicker on the MGV).

My take is when Ilford bought out Kentmere around 2008 they acquired some technical "know how" which they recycled into this new MGV.

 

[radiant]

An objective opinion to which I do not subscribe to. It may suit your means but not mine. I gave up drymounting over 20 years ago when the materials became difficult to find and have never gone back. I am also conscious of the quantity of water needed to wash the FB prints adequately and even with RC prints they have a life that will exceed yours or mine.

What about the plastic waste you produce by buying resin coated papers? Do you account that at all?

I was 100% pro RC paper user before but I've slowly converted to loving fiber papers. I even think it is easier to wash fiber papers than RC in my case. RC needs constant water flow as fiber papers can be washed in still water. RC papers stick together in water so you need to wash RC separated where fiber papers can float around in a tray without interfering each other papers.

And of course I love the tactile feel of fiber paper.

 

[Bikerider]

When Ilford took over Kentmere they had to do something drastic. I have visited the factory which was, quite a small place in the North West of England was a health and safety nightmare with many quite dangerous practises being the norm. The FB Kentmere was better than the current MG4 but a bit on the cool side for me (I still have about a dozen sheets of 12x16) I also prefered the Kentmere resin coated because it gave a better black and was more sensitive. At least a full stop faster than MG4.

I do not dish wash the MG4 prints but simply rinse off the back then stick them to the tiled wall behind the bath which they do very well when they are wet and direct the spray from the shower over them for about 10 mins while I go off to do something else. When they are washed, I clear the water off the image surface and then dry them with a redundant hair drier, that way I can see the depth of the black in the darkest tones.

Other people will have their own pet methods, this one works for me.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I really beg to differ her.
I happen to own a bo of Kentmere RC paper. When I did a session of contact sheets on MGIV and I was doing a few ones on the Kentmere (grade 2 for both) these stood out like a thumb in a tray of fingers : higher contrast (reminding me of the old Kodak RC) but also a poorer rendition of the gray scale.
Now that I've switched to MGV the Kentmere cs are virtually undistinguishable from the Ilfords (apart from the paper base which is thicker on the MGV).

My take is when Ilford bought out Kentmere around 2008 they acquired some technical "know how" which they recycled into this new MGV.

This isn't a paper problem, it's an operator problem. The answer is to be found in the technical data sheets, and hinges around understanding that almost no 'G2' grades are identical in terms of ISO(R).

Kentmere exposed with a G1 filter = ISO(R) 110
Kentmere exposed with a G2 filter = ISO(R) 95

MGIV exposed with a G2 filter = ISO(R) 110
MGIV exposed with a G3 filter = ISO(R) 90

MGV(RC Deluxe) exposed with a G1 filter = ISO(R) 110
MGV(RC Deluxe) exposed with a G2 filter = ISO(R) 90

As for why Ilford did this - diffusion heads are dominant worldwide today & getting a more even spread of grades in the ISO(R) 50-100 range is more useful than in the 100+ range.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

I really beg to differ her.
I happen to own a bo of Kentmere RC paper. When I did a session of contact sheets on MGIV and I was doing a few ones on the Kentmere (grade 2 for both) these stood out like a thumb in a tray of fingers : higher contrast (reminding me of the old Kodak RC) but also a poorer rendition of the gray scale.
Now that I've switched to MGV the Kentmere cs are virtually undistinguishable from the Ilfords (apart from the paper base which is thicker on the MGV).

My take is when Ilford bought out Kentmere around 2008 they acquired some technical "know how" which they recycled into this new MGV.

Whether HARMAN "learnt" anything from what it got in its Kentmere acquisition is irrelevant. My comment related to whether current Ilford-branded RC paper is the same as RC paper it sells under the Kentmere brand. Your latest post quoted above confirms they are different. That's consistent with HARMAN's practice of not duplicating its primary products with other labeling, internal or external.