New black and white fibre-based papers from Ilford

[Tom Kershaw]

My sequence is selenium tone , hypo clear five minutes, wash 1/2 hour - 1 hour.

Or 1 hour minimum without hypo clear.

I am very hesitant to reduce these times by 50%.

That is pretty much inline with my process and I would be cautious about a reduction from those timings as well.

Tom

 

[Bruce Robbins]

I'd be inclined to stick with Ilford's recommended washing times. Art 300 is problematical if over-washed. I'd imagine the new papers might be as well. Why would Ilford recommend times that resulted in inferior prints? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

[PKM-25]

With the fast speed and reported improvement in sharpness, it sure looks like FB Classic Glossy will be my defacto 20x24 paper, just ordered a 50 sheet box of it in that size along with a pack of 25 sheets of 8x10 for test strips.

I also took a look around B&H to see what they in terms of sizes....wow Simon, 30x40-50 sheet boxes, 42" x 98' and 56" x 98' rolls, fantastic work guys!!!

 

[hansformat]

Cooltone initial impressions

I have had 2 sessions with the cooltone fiber and thought i'd pass along my impressions so far.

I approached with worry - the standard was the old Forte Polygrade which no manufacturer would want to compete with - it was superb. Could Ilford do it? Well it is Ilford - a great company - could they pull this off?

I used Edwal ultra black 1:7. Blacks are incredibly deep and cold - not blue black but black hole kind of black. Deep rich beautiful. The paper prints fast. I did 5 images and the core exposure is below 20 seconds at f11/16 on all and below 10 sec at f16 on 2 of them. If your image is super contrasty you won't have enough time to dodge - you will need to print light and burn later. Overall only a challenge in 1 of the images - that pic is so contrasty i will scan and work it digitally in lightroom.

Results were outstanding. Paper lights up with luminence - very different than mgiv which i always thought was a bit dull on the highlights. Compared to Forte they are both great but i may give edge to ilford - the highlights just really come through with this new paper. I never thought i'd see anything better than Forte - well i can't say that yet but so far it may very well be true. It definitely has that same ability to produce deep rich prints - you can get a bit carried away with this -in the 2nd session i lightened things up a bit.

Surface is a bit glossier than normal fiber glossy - still looks and feels like fiber (not rc) but a touch glossier. Probably done to match cool images - not sure. I like it. Note i have the impression the paper curls more aggressively in drying than others i have used - not scientific - but curl is strong.

I haven't toned yet with selenium - hopefully will experiment next weekend - would appreciate your input re dilution and timings.

After all the gloom and doom we may be in a golden age - Adox 110 is great, i love this new Ilford Cooltone fiber, and of course Ilford warm and now the new neutral paper which may fix the dull highlight issue with mgiv. Really - amazing choices ans quality.

 

[hansformat]

I'm sitting here watching the football game and thought of a few more things to comment on re the Cooltone Fiber ...once again these impressions are not tested or scientific, they are just impressions after 2 printing sessions-

Dry down - so far on my images i don't see much if any drydown effect.

Sharpness - the prints are sharp but i do not see any difference vs. prints on other papers. I use a Dichro colorhead which gives a very smooth image but of course won't match a condenser for sharpness

Contrast - i started at grade 2 and never had a reason to increase contrast. 1 of the 5 images i might try again with more, or maybe not. Technically it might be the right thing to do but the print works confined a bit in the grays. The others have great blacks, whites, grays at grade 2.

 

[Bruce Robbins]

Thanks for those Hans. Interesting stuff. It's obviously made a big impression on you. I've been trying both cooltone and classic and will post my initial impressions on my blog sometime this week. Like your report, not scientific but some early thoughts. It takes a while to get to know a paper and I only had four sheets of each to play with.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've already posted my initial impressions on a different thread. I don't know about this "sharpness" debate. Since I've been printing mostly
8x10 negs there's a surplus of detail anyway. But the perception of sharpness might simply be due to the fact that highlight and shadow detail is rendered better than with MGIV, for example. I wouldn't balk about what two darkroom sessions can tell a person, if they've had sufficient experience in general with VC papers. A little hands-on time can tell a person a great deal indeed, or conversely, in the hands of a klutz, send all kinds of derogatory nonsense far and wide with the help of the Web. So with that disclaimer, I'll will give my initial impression that this is a damn good paper - a little bit unlike other VC papers, but genuinely cool toned - and it's going to be a welcome addition to my arsenal.

 

[hansformat]

Ilford CoolTone Fiber Further Observations

All

I took the prints (5 images plus all the tests) out from between the 2 books and weights for flattening and spent a 1/2 hour comparing vs. other fiber prints on other papers I have printed in the past. I thought the observations might be useful so here they are.

Shadows
The blacks are really nice. The only ones that are in the same league (perhaps equal) are those of Forte Polygrade V also developed with Edwal Ultra Black. Both of these have that deep black hole kind of black.

Highlights
The Ilford Cooltone is the best. The highlights have excellent brilliance. Very different from MG IV in my experience. The Forte were good, but I prefer the Ilford Cooltone on the highlights. Really is exceptional.

Tone
The ILford CT is cooler than MGIV (developed with either Edwal or Multigrade), Adox 110 developed with Moersch SE6 (with or without finisher blue), and seems to be about as cool as the Slavich cool tone printed with Edwal. It is NOT as cool as the Forte printed with Edwal. The Blacks and Whites are similar, but the grays on the Forte take on a slight bluish cool cast. I just love the tone of the Forte best. The Ilford CT is 2nd best. The Slavich prints seem a bit dull in comparison to the Forte, Ilford CT, and Adox. The Adox 110 with Moersch is neutralish and really nice...not as cool as CT but very nice nonetheless. I will keep using that paper, but I'll use it now with a warmtone developer and use Ilford CT for cooltone.

Sharpness
The CT is sharp, certainly as sharp as any of the others, perhaps slightly sharper than some. I have a Dichro enlarger and I don't think that is the best platform to make this distinction because it puts smoothness over sharpness.

Surface
The Ilford CT is very slightly glossier than the others. It is a really nice surface. It maintains all the "fiber wave" depth that I really like. It looks nothing at all like an RC paper. All told I liked this surface the best of the papers, but I love the others as well. Never met a Fiber Glossy I didn't like.

Dry Down
If there is dry down on the CT it is very slight. On one of the 5 images (the ultra contrasty one) an area that I was pretty sure was blown out has some degree of detail...perhaps a touch of dry down. I don't see it on the other 4 images - they look as i remember in the wash.

Bottom line - I really like the paper.

From here-
1) I will selenium these in a few weeks. The comparisons above are vs. selenium toned prints on the other papers. I hope to get a slight tone change to cool with this effort. Would LOVE to hear what people are seeing with selenium and what times/dilutions you are using.
2) Would love to hear if anyone has compared the 3 developers Ilford suggested - Edwal Ultra Black, Moersch SE6, and Dokomul. Which is coolest? Has anyone achieved that slight nuance to blue in the midtones?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I deliberately went outside my normal comfort zone this past weekend - took some high-key, high-flare outdoor shots with 6x7 ACROS which I knew would
be a pain in the butt to print, then went to work with the new Cooltone. Getting good consistent silvery long-scale gradation under such circumstances is something quite difficult to achieve with VC papers, and in the past there are only a few premium graded papers I trusted the task to. So I was pleased to
see just how well Cooltone did, and how I was able to achieve some very lovely prints from negs I would have normally just thrown away or put on the
backburner of never-to-be-done projects. Interestingly, the two main emulsions of Cooltone seem to be very closely matched in hue, though it does take
full development of the paper to make either fully cool. Yet I did attempt split-toning with a few of these and was successful, but using a somewhat different strategy than with Fineprint or MGWT. In two images I had some make-or-break highs which had to dry down absolutely precisely, and it appears
I properly estimated it. I would not agree that a single drydown factor will accurately control all such circumstances, because complex toning regimens
can really fool with the final look. But in terms of simplified technique, one could probably predict such things reliably. And yeah, one of the strong points
of this paper is the ability to hold a lot of fine detail way up there in the highs. It is somewhat different from any paper I have worked with before, but
holds a lot of promise. It's good stuff.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Drew , are you suggesting that this new paper requires a different printing strategy than Ilford Warmtone?

I have never approached a VC paper with a different split printing method, maybe the starting points change but the basic workflow always remains the same.

I am all ears to hear your wisdom flow from the West Coast.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. You would have no problem with it, Bob, after a little practice. But it is different. Getting an evident gold-chloride/selenium split is disappointing. But a gold toner followed by Kodak Brown split is easy. You just need to be VERY brief in the brown if you want the split and not an overall shift that spoils the cool general effect. And in this case, it will be a neutral black versus the deep blue-black that gold produces with MGWT. Of course, the Brown can go anywhere from the tiniest hint of gold in the highlights to a downright peach color. I look at this as just
another tweak to Cooltone to be used in subtle moderation. MGWT is a better product for conspicuous splits or tris.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Thanks Varya. I'll probably end up trying both FB Classic and FB Cooltone, but it might be a while. Given that Rudman wrote the Cooltone is "much shinier" and you observe "slightly shinier," the only way to know whether I'll be happy with the finish is by printing on it myself...

I've finally printed, using a couple of different developers, on these papers. I evaluated the resulting prints both with and without selenium toning. Here's my take on them.

FB Classic is, unfortunately, much shinier than its predecessor IV. Also, like IV, it has a fairly warm image tone. Moersch SE6 Blue developer takes it close to neutral, perhaps even ever so slightly blue. Light selenium toning kills most, but not all, of the green. Curve shape is not unlike IV; negatives with "hot" high values are well handled. This will probably be a good match for 320TXP.

FB Cooltone is just as shiny as Classic, maybe a bit more. Image tone is relatively neutral in standard developers, somewhat blue in Moersch SE6 Blue. Selenium toning can't eliminate the green without taking low values purple. It split tones, something many find attractive but I don't like at all. The paper seems loaded with brighteners, almost garishly so. Its curve shape appears better matched to negatives that are straight-lined or shoulder off somewhat.

...Galerie remains my paper of choice; I mostly contact print large format negatives. Despite every effort to keep film exposure and development compatible with scene conditions, sometimes a VC paper would come in handy. Let's hope FB Cooltone turns out to be a VC paper that can approach Galerie prints' quality.

I'd say that, in extreme situations, FB Cooltone could be called upon to rescue a negative. However, I remain addicted to Galerie as the finest combination of image quality and surface finish available today. It will continue to be what almost all of my prints (from Delta 100 in XTOL 1+3 negatives) are made on.

 

[Black Dog]

I agree with you re. Galerie-it remains one of my favourites.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I still haven't tested Classic. But I've run Cooltone through the gauntlet of my favorite amidol, glycin, and cold MQ tweaks. No problem getting
completely consistent tone, or on the other hand, achieving attractive split tone when I want that. I don't personally like what selenium does
to it unless it is very delicately or slightly done. But gold toner yields a wonderful increase in DMax and shift to cool, without going blue-black
like Polygrade V sometimes did (but one of my favorite papers while it lasted). Cooltone tones quite differently from Warmtone, so it's nice to
have both papers on hand. I don't have the budget at the moment to have Galerie on hand too, and should probably use up the remains of some of my older graded papers first, if they're still any good!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...FB Classic is, unfortunately, much shinier than its predecessor IV....FB Cooltone is just as shiny as Classic, maybe a bit more...

I found the opposite. To me Classic has virtually the same sheen as MGIV, while Cooltone is more glossy.

Well, not exactly the opposite. We both think Cooltone is a bit more shiny than Classic.

It's important when comparing the surface gloss of papers to have them flat and keep areas of similar tone in each sample next to each other. I changed my mind on ranking them after initially failing to maintain that level of rigor.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...the trend seemed to be the same after development of MG Classic in SE3 (although without toning it starts off more neutral/cold in SE3 than Dektol...

FedEx just delivered some SE3 from Freestyle. I said I'd eventually get around to testing this combination; now is apparently "eventually." Recently I printed Classic in SE6, which, even at 1+15, gave distinctly blue results. Herr Moersch comments on his site (to the best of my ability to interpret Google-"translated" German) that SE6 was the only developer he tried where prints on the new Ilford papers went blue. Toning my Classic/SE6 prints reacted to selenium the same way your Classic/SE3 did, going very purple very fast.

When you performed these toning tests of MG Classic that resulted in it starting off "neutral/cold," what SE3 dilution and development time did you use? You'd previously mentioned 1+1+20 for MGWT. I'll probably start off with 1+1+40 / 2 minutes and then add more A & B concentrate to bring it up to 1+1+20. However, given that color sometimes changes after drying, knowing beforehand what combination gave you neutral/cold might save some time and paper. Thanks in advance.

 

[marcmarc]

I recently tried the FB classic and found it to be a wonderful paper. Blacks seemed deeper and the prints had an overall sparkle that I never got from other fiber papers (Adox and Kentmere.) I am however a little confused at the wash times. Ilford claims this paper needs less wash then previous fiber papers which is a good thing as we are in a drought here in CA but the data paper just lists Ilford products. I'm using a Freestyle branded fix at 1+9 dilution and I only hypo wash for five minutes following a five minute rinse. I guess the shorter wash time is only when a 1+4 dilution or stronger is used for shorter fixing times.

 

[brian steinberger]

Ok I FINALLY got around to trying both Ilford Classic and Cooltone FB glossy papers. Here are my thoughts:

Ilford Classic: I printed a negative I had previously printed on MGIV FB for comparison. I found Classic just a bit faster than MGIV. I developed in Dokumol 1:6 for 2 minutes. Image appeared strongly at 30 second mark. Paper feels a bit thinner when wet than MGIV, no big deal. Out of fixer the image tone is nice, slightly cool. The paper base is a nice bright white. I toned in selenium and gave the 4 prints the following selenium toning times: Kodak RST at 1:9 for 6 minutes, 3 minutes, and 1:19 for 5 minutes, and 2.5 minutes. Here are my observations of the dried prints.

The gloss finish of Classic is just a bit shinier than MGIV, more like MGWT. I personally really like it. The paper base appears the same white as MGIV. The previous print I had made on MGIV was developed in LPD 1:2 and selenium toned for 8 minutes at 1:9. It has a wonderful cold blue black color. I was not able to achieve this color with Classic and Dokomul, which is a colder developer than LPD (though maybe not, I'll have to run tests with Classic in LPD next). At the 1:9 dilution in KRST Classic tones very fast, neutralizing the slight green tone in about 45 seconds and then rapidly moving toward a cool purple at the 3-4 minute mark. I had more luck producing a neutral/cool tone with the 1:19 dilution. 5 minutes at this dilution produces a very subtle split tone. Beautiful! The low values were ever so slightly cool purple and the mids and high values remained neutral. I could never have achieved this with MGIV!

So my conclusion on Classic so far is that it is great paper! Hopefully I will be able to achieve cold blue blacks with it when I either find the right developer (though no developers much colder than Dokumol except maybe SE6 and that is $$$) or resorting to bleach and redevelopment with copper sulfate bleach and a metol redeveloper with selenium toning. Next is to try sepia tone with thio developers. MGIV was terrible for that! Had much better luck with indirect sulfide toning with Viradon on MGIV.

ANYWAY, onto Cooltone: I developed it in Eukobrom. I will try in Dokumol next time. I was not impressed with the cooltone, not in Eukobrom anyway. Image color seemed neutral until a dunk in selenium and it goes plummy brown. Maybe I just need to work with it more. Surface gloss seems similar to classic, maybe a bit shinier. I was hoping the cool tone would go to a cold blue black when selenium toned but was dissapointed that it did not. So far I prefer Classic.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've been developing Cooltone in amidol, then gold toning it. This gives a rich true cold black to slightly blue-black if toned long enough. Selenium will give it a tad of warmth, but also significantly deepens the DMax. It also split tones nicely if desired. But otherwise, the color is consistent. The only chuckhole in the road is that the recent batch of amidol from Formulary is quite strange - it goes into a deep orange color in solution, which I've never seen before. This washes out of the print completely; but it takes awhile. I have yet to call them and ask about it. I haven't tried Classic yet, since my strategy so far has been aim for either cold black images or leapfrog right over to MGWT for the greatest flexibility in toning, for images appropriate to that regimen. But Classic is now stocked locally, so I can casually pick it up anytime I want.

 

[Mike Crawford]

ANYWAY, onto Cooltone: I developed it in Eukobrom. I will try in Dokumol next time. I was not impressed with the cooltone, not in Eukobrom anyway. Image color seemed neutral until a dunk in selenium and it goes plummy brown. Maybe I just need to work with it more. Surface gloss seems similar to classic, maybe a bit shinier. I was hoping the cool tone would go to a cold blue black when selenium toned but was dissapointed that it did not. So far I prefer Classic.

Hi Brian

Haven't tried the Cooltone in either of Tetenal developers and felt the same as you when using it in PQ. Wasn't as cold as I was hoping for. However, Moersch SE6, especially with the addition of Finisher Blue gave very good cool, blue black. Just wish both new papers were not so responsive in Selenium. I knew where I was with my 1:20 and how long the desired effect took!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Hi Brian

Haven't tried the Cooltone in either of Tetenal developers and felt the same as you when using it in PQ. Wasn't as cold as I was hoping for. However, Moersch SE6, especially with the addition of Finisher Blue gave very good cool, blue black. Just wish both new papers were not so responsive in Selenium. I knew where I was with my 1:20 and how long the desired effect took!

I would be intrigued to know Harman's thoughts on the Cooltone paper, as without the Harman Cooltone developer achieving blue-blacks without going the WT paper and gold toner route seems somewhat mute.

Tom

 

[brian steinberger]

I would be intrigued to know Harman's thoughts on the Cooltone paper, as without the Harman Cooltone developer achieving blue-blacks without going the WT paper and gold toner route seems somewhat mute.

Tom

Tom, we do know Simon has already shot down the possibility of CT developer returning (a real shame). I plan to try both good toning and bleach and redevelopment with a copper bleach and Metol developer, on the new classic paper, the paper I'm more impressed with. It does seem to respond more to toners than MGIV. I will keep everyone updated when I find the time to run these tests. As I stated earlier in this thread classic does not go cold charcoal bluish in selenium like MGIV did, however classic does tone beautifully in more dilute selenium in its own way. But I am still after cold blue blacks.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

But I am still after cold blue blacks.

This does seem to be a dead end at the moment.

Tom