Old photographic paper

Anyone think the following worth buying?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/lot-of-90...352?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d7633bc8

I've printed on paper that's decades old and got some pretty reasonable results, especially with a bit of extra bromide in the developer to keep the fog down. Sometimes too the outermost sheets in a packet can be a bit foggy but the ones in the middle are ok.

The Record Rapid will be hit and miss, I had some of the last sold in the UK and it went off it was completely unusable 3 or 4 years ago.

The Lupex should be OK and the Brovir Speed may be OK as well but it's a risk.

Ian

I still have a few sheets of Brovira ( FB ) and the quality is excelent. Agfa MCC 111 is probably to old, even if it can be from their last batch. It didn't have to good keeping properties. Try instead some fresh ADOX MCC 110. It's the same emulsion on a white base compared to the slightly creamy base of MCC 111 .

Karl-Gustaf

IMHO, No.

The boxes and packets look very clean and well kept, but there's no indication of the storage conditions used for the paper. The paper may be perfectly usable,
but past its best compared with fresh stock. Would you be happy to bid on that assumption?

I'm happy to try out old film when I'm in an "experimenting" mood, but OTOH I only use fresh materials for "serious" photographic work....when hobby time is limited, I think it's best to pay a bit more and avoid wasting this time with less than optimum results.

Ian Grant said:

The Record Rapid will be hit and miss, I had some of the last sold in the UK and it went off it was completely unusable 3 or 4 years ago.

The Lupex should be OK and the Brovir Speed may be OK as well but it's a risk.

Ian

Click to expand...

Interesting what you say about RR-I've printed on 20 plus yr old stuff and it looked amazing [mind you that was the cult 70s stuff before they changed the formula]. Also my Ektalure was still good after 12 yrs

He wants a lot of money for what might be almost totally useless paper or at least paper way beyond its best and you will pay a lot of postage charges from the U.S. What always bother me about second-hand paper is that you'd imagine such paper and the amount means that the seller is a darkroom enthusiast so should have the ability to test a couple of sheets from each pack. For some reason they often seem not to have such testing ability but I'd ask the question at least. If I were asking this much money I'd want to be able to test before selling.

What do you think are your chances of a refund if most of it is beyond acceptable quality? I'd say almost zero but you pays your money and takes your choice as they say

pentaxuser

cliveh said:

Anyone think the following worth buying?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/lot-of-90...352?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item27d7633bc8

Click to expand...

Very familiar with the Agfa products, have no knowledge of the green or grey packages.

The RR paper with three white stripes is the last of the cadnium rich papers, early 80's to about 1988 when the change occured, the PRN designation is NORMAL grade paper, Agfa used a 3 as their NORMAL grades. THe newer label with three black stripes, a light blue and pink stripe is the first of the newer design papers, no cadium, early 90's and up to later 90's, a noticeable difference in micro contrast VS the cadium rich papers. The darker blue labels indicates papers from the early 70's up to around 1980. The last code after the PRN is 111 which indicates it is a glossy surface, double weight. a number of 118 would indicate double weight MATT finish paper

I have a rather extensive supply of Portriga Rapid from both the 70's and 80's which prints without the need of a strainer, it has been frozen since purchase, it has lost a bit of contrast and also warmth with advanced age, otherwise in fine shape.

Any paper with the word SPEED in the description indicates it is a RC coated paper not fiber based.

Hope this helps, BTW, the paper is all smaller sizes and therefore in my opinion worth about 1/2 of what the buyer is asking.

Cheers

Black Dog said:

I've printed on paper that's decades old and got some pretty reasonable results, especially with a bit of extra bromide in the developer to keep the fog down. Sometimes too the outermost sheets in a packet can be a bit foggy but the ones in the middle are ok.

Click to expand...

Aw crap! Really? I got a 500 pack of 8x10 Ilford paper from a local camera store a few years ago. It was several years expired. They said I could pay them if it worked. I tried a few sheets, saw spots like I had previously seen on long expired paper, and threw it all away. Maybe I should have dug into the box and tried some from the middle.

I've wasted so much money on trying to find bargain paper and it's only led to a lot of frustration and stress. Sure, you can tone down base fog with certain chemicals, but they only go so far and is that really what you're after? - spend more money on chemicals instead of buying new paper? If you're not doing exhibition prints or if you're doing alternative processes, it could work. Otherwise, save yourself some frustration. There's a reason why the seller is selling it -they either can't or won't test it because it's been in storage so long or they know it's not usable for them and they want to sell it to someone else to rip them off. Both have happened to me too many times.

It really is hit or miss. If you have lots of time to dedicate to finding a solution for how to wrestle potential fog and contrast issues, then it might be fun to try. But if you like to know what to expect in a darkroom, then it's probably a waste of time and money.
Like many others I've bought bargain paper, and spent many hours of frustration trying to use it to my advantage, only to return to a fresh box of Ilford for some peace of mind.

Then, of course, you could be using the paper for lith printing, which is something else entirely, where fog and contrast is less of an issue.

I'll second Thomas's opinion and have to add that I love to use old paper for lith prints. Old east german Orwo, some paper from Poland, old Forte, Kodak England Bromesko some even from the 1950's and they all work in lith and the color I get from the old Kodak paper is just sublime. Kodak Bromesko go go go

Still, there is a case for using old paper. Of course, old paper runs the gamut from light to heavy and dense fog but, more ominously, from inconsistencies like spots or uneven fog, mottle, etc.

But...if you have a packet that is consistent, up to medium fog, you can make prints that are virtually the same as from fresh paper. It will take more work, however.

First, you develop with either potassium bromide or benzotriazole. Use a 10% solution of the PB or a 1% solution of the BZ. Initially, add about 50ml per liter of working solution of developer. I know that that is a lot but you need a lot. For tests, make certain that you leave a portion of the paper completely unexposed by either placing a coin (hold it down during exposure) or other heavy, flat, opaque material. This is done to be able to judge whiteness in the unexposed part.

After fixation, look carefully at that unexposed part. Chances are that there STILL will be grey fog, albeit less so than if restrainer was not used. Now, the final stage: you need weak Farmers Reducer (single solution) in order to make that fog completely retreat back to whiteness. The benefit of Farmers is that it attacks the lighter parts a lot quicker than the darker parts, so your dense blacks will usually stay delightfully dense.

Much experimention and testing is needed here. You learn quickly that you have to have a denser print when you do this, so that after the reduction with Farmers you are back to normal with that slight addition to contrast that the reduction emphasis on the lighter densities achieves. - David Lyga

Isn't a bigger problem than age-fog the lack of contrast which as far as I know cannot be compensated for or can it?

If the problem is age-fogging rather than any kind of light fogging I cannot see why the top sheets would suffer any more than the middle sheets? I have seen edge light fogging on top sheets which of course will often progressively affect lower sheets to a lesser extent as they are too tightly packed for any serious light penetration.

Can anyone who has evidence that the middle of the pack is better in respect of age fogging offer an explanation?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Yes, pentaxuser, rarely do I see a difference between the top vs middle sheets. It could happen but in my experience that is not common.

The lack of contrast is the bane of age-fogged paper (and film). It is always a challenge to get the most you can get and the Farmers Reducer helps here by attacking the lowest densities more than the higher densities. - David Lyga

pentaxuser said:

Can anyone who has evidence that the middle of the pack is better in respect of age fogging offer an explanation?

Click to expand...

Not due to age fogging, but it can occur if paper is stored in a darkroom where a lot of sulphide ( "stinky" sepia) toning is done.

David Lyga said:

Yes, pentaxuser, rarely do I see a difference between the top vs middle sheets. It could happen but in my experience that is not common.

The lack of contrast is the bane of age-fogged paper (and film). It is always a challenge to get the most you can get and the Farmers Reducer helps here by attacking the lowest densities more than the higher densities. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

The mantra is:

Can old papers be used for good results? Yes.

Is it worth the extra effort, experimentation, or uncertainty? Maybe, it depends on the user and what they're willing to put up with. Repeatability is a problem, and contrast problems are not as easily overcome as the fog problems. The issue is that the contrast is less than what it once was, and degrades with time.

Hi, CliveH;

as what I know is just what Steve said: Up to the late 80ies photographic baryta paper contained some Cadmium; this was forbidden for enviromental reasons. The amazing affect concerning photographic paper was/is: Paper made before the late eighties is in general alright; paper made afterwards tends more or less to get grey fast while developing.

Personally I have some lots of early sixties Agfa Brom Paper, many of it 20x24" sheet, that works perfectly well without restrainer. - However I have - unfortunately - thrown away some packages of nineties made Agfa Record Rapid Paper.

Cernerning your question on ebay: I should say the old packages with the dark blue stickers are alright; with the nearly all white and little blue strpi's labels are post eighties packages which are definitely doubtful, as also Laba certainly is doubtful. The Tetenal Work which is a RC paper, ought to be alright.


Now - have the luck! - And have fun with enlarging!

Jan-Peter

That is way too expensive.

A wide spectrum of answers here which I am sure you expected. Let us know what you decide to do, Clive. If you do make an offer and get the stuff then it might be useful to know how it turns out

Thanks

pentaxuser

I will not be buying this.