Lith Printing Now Dead? Tim Rudman Lith Printing Newsletter Comes to an End.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've always wanted to give lith printing a go. Maybe when I finally install my enlarger...

 

[hiroh]

Thanks Hiroh for the reply. You haven't said so in as many words but as far as I know the former MG IV paper was only RC so I assume that yours is RC?

Sorry to be a nuisance but this kind of "excessive over attention"on my part to names is brought about by the fact that I was probably careless in my own use of the the word MGIV where for instance I might refer to MG IV Warmtone whereas in fact the official Ilford name was called MG RC Warmtone with no mention of IV

I looked at Bob Carnie's lith video and was expecting the paper to appear much more "pinkish" His was Ilford WT FB paper but like your examples there was barely a hint of pink He did go to say that once lithed as he had done for the video, one of his lith printers went on to tone the paper and that finishing touch made all the difference So with Ilford paper it appears that a second stage may be needed


In all the examples I have seen where Moersch lith was used there is much more of a change to the paper but as you used Moersch lith on Ilford paper with what seemed a símilar outcome it may be that what I associate with lith from Moersch examples even his lith only gives this pinkish effect with other now defunct papers

pentaxuser

All of these papers are FB—no pink tones at all. I made another print with the same papers yesterday, and the warm tone was just to my liking. I don’t like overly yellow or brown papers, and I don’t think I’d like pink either. For example, Fomatone is about as warm as I’m willing to go. MGIV is about what I'd like all my prints to be. I also tried RC paper for the first time, and it was too yellow for my taste. I didn’t like it at all. On top of that, it felt like I was holding a piece of plastic. The emulsion was very shiny and reflective, almost metallic—really yucky! I’m not sure if there are other RC papers that feel more like FB papers, but if they’re all like this one, I’m sure I’ll never touch another RC paper again

I plan to test all the expired papers I have over the next few days, using the same Moersch developer with the same dilution. I’ll report the results and we’ll see if any produce pink tones.

 

[bernard_L]

On top of that, it felt like I was holding a piece of plastic. The emulsion was very shiny and reflective, almost metallic—really yucky! I’m not sure if there are other RC papers that feel more like FB papers, but if they’re all like this one, I’m sure I’ll never touch another RC paper again

Multigrade V RC Deluxe, with the Pearl surface (previously known as 44), is a decent (if not perfect) approximation to air-dried glossy FB. Definitely not as yucky as glossy RC.

 

[hiroh]

Multigrade V RC Deluxe, with the Pearl surface (previously known as 44), is a decent (if not perfect) approximation to air-dried glossy FB. Definitely not as yucky as glossy RC.

Great! I happen to have an old unopened box of V RC Deluxe. I’ll give it a try tonight.

 

[pentaxuser]

Multigrade V RC Deluxe, with the Pearl surface (previously known as 44), is a decent (if not perfect) approximation to air-dried glossy FB. Definitely not as yucky as glossy RC.

Yes, it's the easiest make of paper to obtain if you live in the U.K. and as well as being cheaper than FB it needs less water to wash and doesn't curl. From a video I saw by Lina Bessonova it also tones better in Sepia and maybe other toners so it has a number of advantages but does it lith? I have yet to see any info on this from anyone who has tried it in lith developer and if it liths is it the same effect that hiroh demonstrates which is not what I associate with the lith look that is a very delicate beige-pink?

hiroh, if Pearl still looks too glossy there is also Satin RC which despite its name is even less glossy that Pearl In fact IMO not one bit glossy at all

pentaxuser

 

[MTGseattle]

I have some old papers, and I have a set of the Moersh "easy-lith" chemistry.

Any guidance on which negatives to try? Dense, Normal, messed up? I have some from each category

 

[bedrof]

Both MG WT prints have these blotches, which I read somewhere are called “snowballs.”

Not long ago a friend of mine did lith printing for the first time using Foma Retrobrom and had those snowballs covering the print, until he washed paper for 60 sec in a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution (got this idea somewhere here in photrio) before developing.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Not long ago a friend of mine did lith printing for the first time using Foma Retrobrom and had those snowballs covering the print, until he washed paper for 60 sec in a 3% hydrogen peroxide solution (got this idea somewhere here in photrio) before developing.

Interesting remedy. I wonder how it works to prevent the snowball effect?

 

[koraks]

Interesting remedy. I wonder how it works to prevent the snowball effect?

I think the idea is to kill any incorporated developer.

 

[bedrof]

I have some old papers, and I have a set of the Moersh "easy-lith" chemistry.

Any guidance on which negatives to try? Dense, Normal, messed up? I have some from each category

Dense and high contrast negatives work best in lith for me, though former ones with my stash of lovely WT Oriental and Forte papers make exposure time skyrocket considerably.

 

[gavinlyons]

Me too. Here is a link to a photographer who is using old photo papers for Lith printing.

Lith Process & Old Papers – Gavin Lyons Photography

gavinlyons.photography

Thanks for sharing the link. I'm never sure if anyone reads my ramblings on Lith.

 

[gavinlyons]

Dense and high contrast negatives work best in lith for me, though former ones with my stash of lovely WT Oriental and Forte papers make exposure time skyrocket considerably.

Just got a box 12x16" WT Oriental Seagull VC-FB so I'm looking forward to using it. Recent I got given 10 sheets of Forte - Fortezo Musuem Weight Glossy Tropical 11x14" Glossy FB, quite a curiosity what results will come out of this.

 

[gavinlyons]

I have some old papers, and I have a set of the Moersh "easy-lith" chemistry.

Any guidance on which negatives to try? Dense, Normal, messed up? I have some from each category

Any well balanced negative will work, just expose +2 stop over. Easy Lith is great, I recommend heating it up to 30 degs C

 

[gavinlyons]

If anyone is interested I have series on videos on Lith on my YT channel

 

[bedrof]

Just got a box 12x16" WT Oriental Seagull VC-FB so I'm looking forward to using it. Recent I got given 10 sheets of Forte - Fortezo Musuem Weight Glossy Tropical 11x14" Glossy FB, quite a curiosity what results will come out of this.

Those are very lith-capable papers, good luck!

Last week I used some Oriental New Seagull G2 WT FB in lith, here is the result (sorry for the quality of the picture, not the best lighting conditions).
Fortezo is great (I've got only two packs in 18x24 cm), and so are Polywarmtone and Polygrade.

 

[pentaxuser]

Here's a question which has sprungs to mind as someone who has never used lith but is curious

If old and presumably fogged paper can be used do you still get the grey border as you would with normal printing?


Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

If old and presumably fogged paper can be used do you still get the grey border as you would with normal printing?

Not necessarily, because you don't develop the paper to completion. It's often possible to avoid (excessive) fog when doing lith printing. Of course, at some point, the fog becomes too prominent and it'll interfere even on a lith print. But that point is much further ahead than it is with regular printing.

 

[ic-racer]

Finally made some photocopies of my prints with Fomatone MG Classic 131 Warmtone FB:

 

[ic-racer]

 

[ic-racer]

 

[pentaxuser]

Not necessarily, because you don't develop the paper to completion. It's often possible to avoid (excessive) fog when doing lith printing. Of course, at some point, the fog becomes too prominent and it'll interfere even on a lith print. But that point is much further ahead than it is with regular printing.

Thanks I suppose what counts is at what point in terms of grey a paper becomes too prominently fogged but the only way to find out for certain is to try the old paper for the exposure time needed to get the lith print you want then see what happens to the borders

If you were to take a small piece from a box of paper and test it for fogging is there a shade of grey that is likely to be OK for lith , say for example light to medium grey is likely to be OK but anything beyond that is likely to be a lith problem as well or is "suck it and see" the only way?

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

If you were to take a small piece from a box of paper and test it for fogging is there a shade of grey that is likely to be OK for lith , say for example light to medium grey is likely to be OK but anything beyond that is likely to be a lith problem as well or is "suck it and see" the only way?

Check it & see. It depends on how the print is made (exposure + development), too. There's no specific limiting value w.r.t. the level of fog. There's so many variables in lith.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

An article about Tim in the link below which may be of interest.

Tim Rudman: Darkroom master

Top darkroom printer Tim Rudman has produced a book about Iceland that’s been eight years in the making. He talks to Steve Fairclough about how the project was photographed and printed

amateurphotographer.com

 

[ic-racer]

I have not had good results with expired paper. In 2006 this Foma paper worked fine. Now it is shot.
40 sec, 120 sec and 240 sec exposures with this paper in its current state.

Of course the 40 second exposure is the one with the dense surround, which gets lighter as the expsure increased. But still pretty bad at 240 seconds.

 

[ic-racer]

Here is a lith print from the same box of Forte paper printed in 2006: