MGIV designed for T-gain films, rumor?

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

I just read in Carson Graves book "The Elements of Black and White Printing" where he states that MGIV was designed by Ilford to use with modern T-grain films (Deltas, TMax).

Excerpt:

"Because these papers are geared to the tonal characteristics of of the new films, prints made from older film types can appear gray and "muddy" in highlights on this paper."

I have experienced this, but is this true? I love this book, but I'm not sure I can fully believe this statement. And if so, what about MGWT?

Photo Engineer · Mar 19, 2011

AFAIK, this is total myth!

PE

Keith Tapscott. · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
I just read in Carson Graves book "The Elements of Black and White Printing" where he states that MGIV was designed by Ilford to use with modern T-grain films (Deltas, TMax).

Excerpt:

"Because these papers are geared to the tonal characteristics of of the new films, prints made from older film types can appear gray and "muddy" in highlights on this paper."

I have experienced this, but is this true? I love this book, but I'm not sure I can fully believe this statement. And if so, what about MGWT?

I have used FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus with MG-IV for years without any problems.
As Carson Graves thinks that ID-11 is a print developer in his book, I wouldn't take what he describes in the quote you posted too seriously.

Ian Grant · Mar 19, 2011

It's true that modern papers are designed to compliment current films but that doesn't necessarily mean just Tmax/Delta films.

Part of the issue is that films were once processed to higher contrasts particularly before WWII mainly because that helped with uncoated lenses, also there were no good meters until the late 30's so there was always a touch more exposure given to give leeway.

It is true that many older negatives print less well with modern papers, that can be seen clearly with contemporary images made by Keterteszm Bresson etc compared to much later prits off the same negatives.

However that's not the same as comparing modern films like FP4/HP5/Tri-X to Tmax or Delta100/400 which is Graves point.

Papers like films evolve over time, I doubt shots taken in 1939 on Tri-X would rint anything like as well now as shots made with today's 6 or 7th generation Tri-X.

Part of the issue is having negatives exposed and processed to suit modern papers.

Ian

chriscrawfordphoto · Mar 19, 2011

The original MG-IV RC paper was made with a long toe to lower highlight contrast, because T-grain films had higher highlight contrast than regular films and printed badly on most papers. Ilford later changed the paper quietly because it was poorly received by the majority that didn't shoot t-grain films. The fiber base version of MG-IV was never made with the original MG-IV formulation. Modern T-grain films are not like the original ones either, and they print fine on most papers.

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

This is some great information. Thanks guys. Keith, yeah I read that about ID-11 too. I had to laugh, haha. I'm not knocking his book at all as I think it's a great text. One can learn alot about printing from it.

Keith Tapscott. · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
This is some great information. Thanks guys. Keith, yeah I read that about ID-11 too. I had to laugh, haha. I'm not knocking his book at all as I think it's a great text. One can learn alot about printing from it.

I agree that it's a good book to have around Brian, despite the error I pointed out.

RalphLambrecht · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
... I have experienced this, but is this true? I love this book, but I'm not sure I can fully believe this statement. ...

I have the same experience. The flat toe in MGIV works well with the straight 'shoulder' in TMax and other films. People developing their films with shouldering-off highlights do not typically like MGIV all that much. As far as I remember from conversations with Ilford Technical Staff, support for negatives with straight shoulders was the intention for MGIV, but I doubt it was meant for Delta alone or TMax specifically. I think is was more to compensate for all too common film overdeveloping errors.

Photo Engineer · Mar 19, 2011

Well, I have family negatives that date back as far as the 20s. I have printed them on the current papers and things work out just fine. Curve shapes have changed, of course, but this is due to the maturing of the technology and the understanding of how systems fit together. Curves shown in early texts match those we can achieve today with most films, except for the longer tone scale and reduced shoulder.

But, if you look back, all films and papers had a toe and shoulder.

Those of you with old old film can print them on modern papers and prove or disprove what I say but I can also make an "old style" film and paper in the darkroom and prove my point as well. It is more of a matter of taste. What do you like?

You might consider though that Azo paper and Kodabromide paper were made up to about 2005, and as far as I can determine, they were both made to pretty much the original specifications and yet could be printed with both old and new films.

PE

markbarendt · Mar 19, 2011

Photo Engineer said:
Well, I have family negatives that date back as far as the 20s. I have printed them on the current papers and things work out just fine. ...

PE

Well of course they do for you.

You're the legendary PE. You're "the guy", "the guru", the "man at the top of the mountain."

The rest of us slackers need magic bullets.

Photo Engineer · Mar 19, 2011

Thanks Mark but superman I am not! This technology is pretty much an area that I have explored though.

Look here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

and here: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4043/f4043.pdf

These are pages with the curves of TX and TMax. There is not a huge difference and I find that they print well on the same paper if developed to the same contrast! I think if we go back to Haist and Mees, you will find that the toe and shoulder were not their favorite places for placing images. They both recommended the straight line portion of the curve, and with contrasts being as equal as possible, a straight line is a straight line.

Over or under exposures are a different matter, but even there, as you see in the curves at the Kodak site, they are not all that different!

PE

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

Thanks PE, I was just getting ready to ask about Tri-x and Tmax having similar curve shapes. I'm assuming films like FP4 and Neopan are the types of films with shouldering that my not print well on MGIV. This is an interesting topic. But what about MGWT, not the same curve shape as MGIV?

Photo Engineer · Mar 19, 2011

Brian;

All of the Ilford / Harman products are on their web site. Here is an example: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201062894918374.pdf

Considering the differences in the graphics presentation, the film I looked at is remarkably similar to the Kodak data in terms of toe, shoulder and mid scale.

Remember that to a large extent, the curves of photo products are a function of physics and chemistry. Our science tweaks or fine tunes this and adjusts keeping, reciprocity and other factors as well as allowing us to make VC materials.

PE

markbarendt · Mar 19, 2011

Brian,

One thing to keep in mind is that exposure choices, at both film and paper, control what parts of the curves are used.

We don't have to use the whole film curve.

It is very possible, even desirable in some situations, to make printing choices that only print from the film's straight line or with just one the toe end or the shoulder end.

The film's toe and/or shoulder can be placed outside the papers range and printed as black or white without detail.

It is our choices that have the biggest effect, not the paper.

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

So would a good example be pushing a film with a shoulder one stop or so to keep the highlights on the straight line section of the curve?

hrst · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
So would a good example be pushing a film with a shoulder one stop or so to keep the highlights on the straight line section of the curve?

Underexposure would be a better example.

markbarendt · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
So would a good example be pushing a film with a shoulder one stop or so to keep the highlights on the straight line section of the curve?

Pushing, pushes highlights further onto the shoulder, because you are shortening the straight line portion of the curve. Pulling makes the straight line longer so it would keep more highlights on the straight line portion.

markbarendt · Mar 19, 2011

The paper "grade" (curve steepness) also has a huge effect on how much of the film curve "naturally" prints with detail.

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

hrst said:
Underexposure would be a better example.

Right, this is what I meant.

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

markbarendt said:
Pushing, pushes highlights further onto the shoulder, because you are shortening the straight line portion of the curve. Pulling makes the straight line longer so it would keep more highlights on the straight line portion.

Underexposure would keep the highlights down on the straight line part of the curve then over development to compensate would bring the highlights back up, right? This would then be better than over exposure and under development.

pentaxuser · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
Underexposure would keep the highlights down on the straight line part of the curve then over development to compensate would bring the highlights back up, right? This would then be better than over exposure and under development.

If this is the case and with my knowledge level I couldn't even begin to join the debate, it flies in the face of most of what I have read which is that most films are wrongly underexposed and overdeveloped.

The famous Barry Thornton argued that most films need their ISO downrated by users by up to a stop and their development curtailed by up to 30%.

pentaxuser

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

I understand that most film users EI's are lower than the box speed. What I'm saying is under-exposure of a film with a shoulder would keep the highlights lower on the curve, in the straight line region. Obviously loss of shadow detail would be the trade-off. Then slight over-development would bring the highlights back up to density. To me this is known as "pushing."

brian steinberger · Mar 19, 2011

markbarendt said:
Pushing, pushes highlights further onto the shoulder, because you are shortening the straight line portion of the curve. Pulling makes the straight line longer so it would keep more highlights on the straight line portion.

Mark I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't "pulling" (overexposure) push the highlights up the curve right onto the shoulder?

hrst · Mar 19, 2011

pentaxuser said:
The famous Barry Thornton argued that most films need their ISO downrated by users by up to a stop and their development curtailed by up to 30%.

Most often the "famous" people (and their fans) have huge problems in understanding that their personal taste is not the ultimate final truth .

Films are very flexible media that you can use to get different looks. There are no universal facts about what is good or what is bad or what is "needed" and whatnot.

Some people prefer low contrast with lots of shadow detail, some people prefer punchy, grainy pictures with blocked shadows. In the middle of these extremes, there also exists the choice selected most often: trust the manufacturer and get the "average" look.

markbarendt · Mar 19, 2011

brian steinberger said:
Underexposure would keep the highlights down on the straight line part of the curve then over development to compensate would bring the highlights back up, right? This would then be better than over exposure and under development.

Think about these concepts separately.

The shadow point really changes very little regardless of development.

Extra development shortens the negative's curve, mostly at the highlight end.

If a "standard" negative can hold 8-stops of detail, adding a 1-stop push shortens and steepens the film curve by 1-stop and 1-stop of detail is "lost" somewhere because there is now only room for 7-stops of detail on the new/pushed curve.

You can reduce camera exposure a full stop and maintain roughly the same highlight/shouldering point but you give away a stop of shadow detail to do that, that shadow detail simply falls to black.

Exposure placement is a compromise, what you get at one end is lost at the other.

Reduced development does the opposite, the curve becomes flatter/longer leaving more room for printable detail. A 1-stop pull gets you room for 9-stops of detail instead of 8 in this example.

You get an extra stop of highlight detail, over standard development, with a pull because again the shadow point doesn't change much.

MGIV designed for T-gain films, rumor?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency