NEW SILVER CHLORIDE CONTACT PRINTING PAPER

[Roger Cole]

One of these, I think the Foma stuff that Freestyle used to carry, was said to be quite fast for a "contact" paper though still slow by enlarging standards, but fast enough to expose under an enlarger if one was patient.

More curiosity than anything since I can get fine enlarging papers I'm quite satisfied with (including Adox's own MCC 110) but I wonder just how long exposures would have to be to enlarge. My D2 has an LED lamphouse that is just about exactly midway in brightness between a 75W and 150W PH211 an PH212, and lasts practically forever and generates no negative damaging or popping heat to speak of. So I COULD, I really wanted to, expose for five minutes or whatever.

Not that I really want to just trying to get an idea of just how slow "slow" is.

 

[miha]

8 times slower says ADOX: https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/58935_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

 

[Roger Cole]

8 times slower says ADOX: https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/58935_5_PDF-Datasheet.pdf

Well that's not really so slow as all that. MGWT FB is probably "two times slower" i.e. one stop.

I often have exposures with MCC 110 in the 20 - 30 second range but I aim for that with aperture. I could easily cut those in half with a stop wider aperture. So say 15 seconds. "Eight times slower" is three stops. Three stops slower is two minutes. Heck, I used to routinely expose what was then called Ilfochrome for times like that (more often around 90 seconds but 120 was far from unheard of.)

Several minutes for sure. For example Lodima is reportedly similar in speed to Azo (I've only used Lodima, not Azo) and it is MUCH slower than enlarging papers. Just to give you an idea, I believe Michael Smith initially recommended a 300 watt bulb for contact printing on Azo/Lodima.

One potential problem with extremely long enlarging times is reciprocity failure. These contact papers are valued in part for their curve shapes (tone reproduction). If you end up deep enough into reciprocity failure territory it is possible that effective curve shape could change. No idea.

I did think of the reciprocity thing. It was an idle question. I certainly don't intend to do it. I'm very glad these papers, and especially this new one, are available for people making final contact prints from large negatives or from enlarged, *coughcough* digital negatives or whatever. Choices are good, and this is about as traditional and old school (two good things in my book) as you can get. But I don't make enlarged negatives or shoot larger than 4x5 and while 4x5 contact prints can be beautiful they are a little small to display. I consider 5x7 about the minimum for that, and then only where they will be seen close up in fairly cozy quarters. If I ever do get an 8x10 camera (or a 5x7 or 5x8 I suppose, since enlargers for 5x7 are a lot easier to come by than 8x10) I may give it a try, then I might just try enlarging on to it just for fun.

The rest of y'all have fun.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Azo is generally 5 - 8 stops slower to enlarger illumination than an enlarging paper to the same light. I would assume that to be true for this paper as well.

PE

 

[Lachlan Young]

120-180s is what I recall from making a small/moderate enlargement on to fomalux from 35mm about a month ago - there are a lot of caveats to these numbers - it was with a MG500 head on a Devere 504 with a 105mm lens. The Michael A Smith recommendations apply much more to his use of Super-XX in ABC-pyro and the specifics of that process - not least of which must be age related fog of the film itself.

 

[Roger Cole]

Azo is generally 5 - 8 stops slower to enlarger illumination than an enlarging paper to the same light. I would assume that to be true for this paper as well.

PE

Yeah, that would be unworkable, but:

120-180s is what I recall from making a small/moderate enlargement on to fomalux from 35mm about a month ago - there are a lot of caveats to these numbers - it was with a MG500 head on a Devere 504 with a 105mm lens. The Michael A Smith recommendations apply much more to his use of Super-XX in ABC-pyro and the specifics of that process - not least of which must be age related fog of the film itself.

Yeah, Freestyle was saying the Fomalux was quite a bit faster than Azo and, based on that, I wondered if it could reasonably be used for enlarging by someone who was fairly patient and had an enlarger head that didn't generate much heat, like a cold light or my LED lamphouse.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Freestyle was saying the Fomalux was quite a bit faster than Azo and, based on that, I wondered if it could reasonably be used for enlarging by someone who was fairly patient and had an enlarger head that didn't generate much heat, like a cold light or my LED lamphouse.

Possibly - the MG500 is running 2x300w bulbs & has a decent cooling system - give it a go & see what you get. Is your LED head outputting white light or using an additive mix of blue & green? Either way you'll probably find it about 3-4 stops slower than filtered MGWT depending on a mixture of factors - ie whether you're able to expose without filtration & reciprocity. It's quite close contrast-wise to Gr.3 Galerie I recall.

Azo is about 2 stops slower again going by Kodak's data.

 

[Peter Schrager]

i use a 200 watt bulb for lodima; works fine
best, pter

 

[Michael Guzzi]

Yeah, that would be unworkable, but:



Yeah, Freestyle was saying the Fomalux was quite a bit faster than Azo and, based on that, I wondered if it could reasonably be used for enlarging by someone who was fairly patient and had an enlarger head that didn't generate much heat, like a cold light or my LED lamphouse.

I have enlarged several of my negatives using Fomalux, some with quite a bit of cropping (say half negative cropped away), using a 100W tungsten bulb on my Valoy II, and it takes 4-5 minutes of exposure to achieve the correct exposure on most of them. This is on 5X7" Fomalux. I should be receiving my Lupex sample in the following weeks; if it is indeed significantly slower than Fomalux, it may be impractical to enlarge it on the Valoy due to fire hazard

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Thanks Sal and Ken for the feedback. Yeah, I saw it was DHL and my past experience with them leads me to believe that this package will move along slowly. I'm only a little anxious and it's already starting to heat up here in the desert southwest and I can't print during the summer months; darkroom is simply too hot and trying to keep chemicals at some reasonable temp is impossible. No matter...if it arrives too late I'll freeze it until next winter.

Woo hoo! My sample pack arrived at my doorstep yesterday. I likely won't have time this weekend to play in the darkroom. But hopefully next weekend?

(My wife also wanted me to pass along to Mirko that she LOVED the postage stamps on the envelope...)



Ken

 

[Alan9940]

Hi Ken,

Yeah, mine arrived today...and in perfect condition, too. Funny your wife should notice the stamps...I thought they were really cool! Hope to get into the darkroom tomorrow morning to see what I get from this paper; very excited!

 

[Bob Carnie]

I would be interested in hearing about the colour of a finished print, is it cool, is it neutral, or warm - and were you able to modify the colour.

 

[Alan9940]

For anyone who may be interested, here is my brief review of this paper. Please keep in mind that my testing was limited to only a few sheets of paper as packaged in the demo pack (5 sheets.) Also, my primary interest was to see how this paper compares with Lodima. First, a little perspective as a base for my comments: negative: 8x10 HP5+ at EI 200, developed by inspection in trays (shuffle method), ABC Pyro at 2:1:1:15 at 75F, stop/fix/wash as normal. Both the Lupex and Lodima were developed in Amidol following all my standard procedures. That said, however, I did not tone (usually selenium) because I wanted to see "raw" print color and contrast. To wit,

1. Both papers feel to be of the same weight; that is, something close to a double-weight enlarging paper.

2. The print color of the Lupex is a very warm brown/yellow vs the near neutral look of Lodima. Based only on memory, I'd estimate the Lupex print color to be very close to Ilford MGWT (again, without any toning.)

3. The biggest difference and somewhat surprising result to me is the difference in contrast! I'd estimate Lupex to have 1 1/2 - 2 grades more contrast vs Lodima. An important note here is that this is based on a recent box of Lodima which, in my experience, can vary somewhat from the grade marked on the box. In the past, I've had grade 2 Lodima to be closer to grade 1 1/2 in my testing. Bottom line...let's say the Lodima print displays about grade 1 1/2, then the Lupex would be about grade 3 to, maybe, 3 1/2. Of course, Adox labels Lupex as "Gradation: Normal (3)." Perhaps the "3" means grade 3?

Anyway, to my mind this brief testing could lead one to an interesting conclusion; and that is that the choice between Lodima or Lupex could be based on the type of negative desired for one's work. For me, I'm looking for a dual-purpose negative that will print well on a sliver paper (like Lodima) as well as can be easily used to produce pt/pd prints. My past testing has revealed that a negative developed to the proper CI to print well as pt/pd (with my mix and processing methods, of course) also prints very nicely on grade 2 Lodima. Occasionally, I need to bump up to grade 3 Lodima but that's rare.

Conversely, if one were to settle on Lupex then IMO negative development would need to be reduced in order to obtain full tonal range prints (at least, what I'm looking for as "full tonal" range!) I'm suspecting that negatives with this reduced CI would print very nicely on graded or VC enlarging papers.

I hope this brief review helps and provides some basic information regarding this new paper.

Ken - I'd be very interested to read you thoughts, once you've had a chance to try your demo pack.

 

[Bob Carnie]

thanks Alan for posting- I am very happy to hear that the final print colour of Lupex is warmer than Lodima… this gives an extra selection for final printing. Bob

t

 

[Alan9940]

Bob,

I do really like the print color of Lupex, but I don't think its inherent contrast is going to fit well with my needs. But, if I ever want/need to print some of my LF negatives from the 1980's, then Lupex would probably be a perfect fit. As you said, it's nice to have choices!

Btw, I forgot to mention the speed difference... Lupex is about 20% slower than Lodima. Nothing here that would cause anyone to choose one paper vs the other.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Alan

I plan to make super size silver negatives for contact process on this paper so whatever the contrast the paper is I will calibrate the negative to print well on either Lupex or Lodima.
I like the idea of having a warm and cold contact paper . I am partial to warm prints, I am also partial to matt so I will have Art 300 as well as some Berger papers alongside my standard Ilford Warmtone.

Holy Crap - there are a lot of choices these days… who says silver is dead.


Bob

 

[Photo Engineer]

Alan, I like your review and also your comment "with my mix and processing methods, of course". This lends an extra degree of substance to your review that is quite good.

I'm also happy to hear your report on Lupex. It appears that Mirko has done it again. Bravo.

PE

 

[Alan9940]

A little more info...

After working in the darkroom this morning, I have no confirmed my suspicion that Lupex seems to be a perfect match for negatives developed to a CI typical for graded or VC silver gelatin papers. I pulled one of my favorite 8x10 negs from the 1980's--Tri-X at EI320, tray developed in HC-110(B) at 68F--that I've printed many times in the past on papers like Ilford Ilfobrom, Zone VI Brilliant, and Ilford MG Fiber (the old stuff...not Classic). The contrast of the Lupex paper seems tailor made to this style negative and the print is absolutely gorgeous!! I'm very excited by this result. I will definitely be ordering more Lupex for further experimentation.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Thank you Alan for the nice review

 

[ADOX Fotoimpex]

Limited time introductory offer: Free shipping on every 8x10 / 100 sheet box of LUPEX

 

[Rick Olson]

Limited time introductory offer: Free shipping on every 8x10 / 100 sheet box of LUPEX

Ordered a carton now. Thanks!!

 

[miha]

BIG SNIP

Both the Lupex and Lodima were developed in Amidol following all my standard procedures. That said, however, I did not tone (usually selenium) because I wanted to see "raw" print color and contrast. To wit,

2. The print color of the Lupex is a very warm brown/yellow vs the near neutral look of Lodima. Based only on memory, I'd estimate the Lupex print color to be very close to Ilford MGWT (again, without any toning.)

I have developed LUPEX in Ilford Multigrade and the colour is blue-black! Distinctively cooler than anything I have tried before. The tone seems to be heavily developer dependent.

 

[mshchem]

Never mind- I found it. It happens only from the start page where the teasers are present. This shouldn´t be there at all. Must have happened when we had the desiger put the retina ready buttons into place

Good news NO TAX at all shipping to USA.

 

[silveror0]

I queried Freestyle in early January if they're going to stock Lupex. Here's their reply:

... we have had no real interest in it but we are happy to special order it for you. The order would have to be paid in advance and then there are no changes, cancellations or exchanges allowed.
Here are prices which are good through the end of January 2017. Delivery Date would be mid April...

 

[Rick Olson]

Lupex is a very nice paper. I am using it for 5x7 contact printing and ordered the 8x10/100 sheets paper from Fotoimpex in Germany with free shipping.