Outdated Ilford MG fiber warm salvagable?

I just discovered, to my horror, that my 1000 sheets of Ilford MG Fiber Warm paper (purchased about 4 years ago on rumors that Ilford prices were about to go up dramatically) is badly degraded. I've just read lots of threads on the subject, with recommendations for a range of chemical restrainers to add to developer (E.g., Benzotraizole, Orthazite, Potassium Bromide, etc.) Everyone calls it fogging, but is it fogged if the margin areas covered by the easel blades look fine after development and just the image area is affected (specifically, quite darkened, as if printed 2-3 times normal exposure time)? Cutting down exposure time lightens the image but loses the blacks and looks weak and muddy. Please help me heal my sick paper (replacement cost would be nearly $1000!).

Two thoughts:

1. A no longer safe safelight may be getting to it. Try working in total darkness or greatly subdued lighting to determine if my guess is right. The remedy is a new safelight filter.

2. Could there be a lot of dust or a bad smear on your enlarging lens? Could be stray light going where it should not. Do you have another lens you can try? Or see if the lens needs cleaning. I know I take my enlarging lens too much for granted.

I have my doubts it is badly aged paper.

CBG said:

Two thoughts:

1. A no longer safe safelight may be getting to it. Try working in total darkness or greatly subdued lighting to determine if my guess is right. The remedy is a new safelight filter.

2. Could there be a lot of dust or a bad smear on your enlarging lens? Could be stray light going where it should not. Do you have another lens you can try? Or see if the lens needs cleaning. I know I take my enlarging lens too much for granted.

I have my doubts it is badly aged paper.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your suggestions, but I'm absolutely certain that neither of those is the problem. None of my other paper is thus affected.

cut a piece and fix it without developing, wash, dry and compare that to your border area. It would be odd for age fogging to only affect the image area. Also, for age fogging, usually it would be blacks that are ok, with muddy highlights.

If the borders are clear it's not fogged. It maybe you've got a fogging issue with your safelight or perhaps an enlarger light leak or an unsafe red filter.

A safelight/red filter light fog can cut contrast quite appreciably, and cause what you describe. It's unlikely to be the paper as that's within Ilford's rough sfe storage time of about 7 years, but storage can make a big difference.

Ian

Thanks bdial. Yes, this appears not to be a case of normal fogging, since it only affects the printed image area. Next time I'm in the darkroom (probably tomorrow) I'll do that test--although it doesn't make sense that there would be a difference between the margin and images areas. And yes, it is the light tones that print quite dark. I tried several printing compensations (changing exposure time and contrast) to no avail. I just spoke to someone at B&H that confirmed this isn't normal fogging, and that it might simply be a bad batch of paper. I'm about to call Ilford and see if I can find out anything.
Steve

Dont us red safelight.Check Ilford co.Must be absolutely diferent safelight

Have you positively tested your safelight, specifically with the Ilford paper?

Won't take long.

borek said:

Dont us red safelight.Check Ilford co.Must be absolutely diferent safelight

Click to expand...

Red safelight is fine with Ilford papers.

After checking your safelight as recommended above, make sure you are using an active paper developer and that you are leaving the paper in long enough for full development before judging your exposure or the paper—try at least 3 minutes.

This is a Warm tone paper so don't over develop or you lose the warmth.

Ian

jmcd said:

After checking your safelight as recommended above, make sure you are using an active paper developer and that you are leaving the paper in long enough for full development before judging your exposure or the paper—try at least 3 minutes.

Click to expand...

This is a Warm tone paper so don't over develop or you lose the warmth.

Click to expand...

Good note. I was referring to testing the paper—I think the paper in question could be overexposed and underdeveloped.

Any chance that safelight distance from enlarger could be a problem? I have the same problem and am thinking that my safelight may be too close at 1 metre almost directly above enlarger.
regards
CW

I think you need to tell us in more detail exactly what you do from removing paper from the box to placing it into the developer with details of safelight distance, time of exposure to safelight etc. Without what may appear to be giving us unnecessary details it will be difficult to eliminate causes. How do you know that all 1000 sheets are degraded? This must be 10 boxes worth. Unless you have checked say 3 sheets from each box from top middle and bottom you cannot be sure that all boxes are affected.

pentaxuser

What you describe appears to be a gross contrast loss. Since this is an MG paper, could you be using a low contrast filter? If this is not the case, then one of the emulsions is not acting properly and is giving you a very low contrast, low shoulder result which results in muddy prints.

Try printing at grade #4 and see what happens.

PE

Dear Heliographersjg,

First of all, paper that is four years old and has been correctly stored should have virtually no fogging. My suggestion is that you send me the batch number and I will check it out. We hold paper samples from each batch going back 7 years so we can process a strip and see if our 'control' has any fogging. They are kept at ambient temperature ( not at low temperature ) so we will be able to find out. Also, I would absolutely follow our fellow APUG members suggestion of doing a safelight test.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

Paper goes soft (lower contrast with age). Ilford used to put a shelf life of no more than 3 years on Multigrade papers because of this loss of contrast. Don't go by your usual filter settings just dial in as much extra contrast as is needed to give you your normal level of contrast, unless you run out of available extra contrast before you get there in which case you have to throw it away or use it for contact prints! As noted above, sounds like there could be a safelight issue too.

I'm still betting on gross flare from the enlarger or on unsafe safelight.

Someone gave me an old box of Ilford Multigrade MG. No numerals at all. From the date on a Calumet tag it was from 1992. It actually worked much better then I expected. Very slight fog and some loss of contarst. I wouldn't print final prints on it but it's good for a first look. Much better shape than my Agfa Insignia from the 90's. Even frozen that has got a lot of fog. I'd think your paper should work OK. Are you getting good prints from your same setup with other papers?

jmcd got it right. A fellow at a local photo supply store suggested I leave a sheet of unexposed paper in the developer for several minutes (since it can take more than a few minutes to reveal the effects of fogging). The paper began turning darker at around three minutes, and by eight minutes was a deep gray (beyond 18%!). When I showed the photo-sore guy these results, he said I'd never get a good print from this paper, even using anti-fogging agents. For the hell of it, I tried printing with Edwal Liquid Orthazite in the developer, and the results were seemingly miraculous. Problem solved. I've been making beautiful prints in the days since.
If anyone has idea knowledge or ideas about archival or other issues resulting from working with thusly-saved paper, I'd appreciate hearing from you. Many thanks.
Steve

Simon R Galley said:

Dear Heliographersjg,

First of all, paper that is four years old and has been correctly stored should have virtually no fogging. My suggestion is that you send me the batch number and I will check it out. We hold paper samples from each batch going back 7 years so we can process a strip and see if our 'control' has any fogging. They are kept at ambient temperature ( not at low temperature ) so we will be able to find out. Also, I would absolutely follow our fellow APUG members suggestion of doing a safelight test.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

Click to expand...

Hello Simon,
I hadn't read the 2nd page of responses, including yours, until after I wrote my last note concerning Orthazite saving the day. The batch number for all four boxes of Ilford MG IV Fiber Warmtone is: 73B601T62-L, purchased from B&H. I'm quite curious to hear what you come up with. Thanks for your interest.
Steve

I should also mention that even when using the Orthazite (1.5 fluid ounces per 2 qts of developer), I had to decrease exposure by approx. one-half, and increase contrast by around one full grade (though that varied). I've thus gotten what appear to be excellent results, with no apparent darkening of highlights (I selenium-toned the prints as well). Again, I'd love to know from you, Simon, or anyone whether I should expect any problems to crop up later.
Steve Gelberg
Dead Link Removed

After reading the entire thread, and especially your last entry, I suspect the problem is not the paper. I would think (not sure) that a restrainer such as Orthozite would decrease overall speed of the paper and produce an apparent gain in contrast. What you've described indicates the opposite. Decreasing exposure indicates an increase in printing speed (and at higher contrast filtration settings, i.e., 3.5 and above, there is also a typical need to increase exposure). By decreasing the print exposure under the enlarger, you've also decreased the time the paper would be under the influence of the safelight. If the safelight was fogging the paper, less time in the enlargement stage would equate with less safelight fogging and getting better results, OTBE.

I suspect as others have indicated that the problem is the safelight. (Filters do go bad over time and require replacement.) Your test of an otherwise unexposed piece of paper being developed for an extended time supports that theory rather than refutes it, as your camera shop friend erroneously suggests. If you have a bad safelight, any otherwise non-exposed paper would darken sitting in the developer for an extended period. That does however help eliminate enlarger flare as a possible source of the problem. If you really want to test the theory, don't let the safelight hit the paper at all until the print is fixed. In complete darkness, remove the sheet from the middle of the pack and develop it in the dark for the same time you did the other test. After it is fixed, see if the fog is present.

You are not using a painted red bulb as a safelight are you? I've seen many of those that have fogged paper. Some materials would be more prone than others to fogging under such a light.

If there is any fogging due to age it most likely would also show in the area under the easel blades after processing. A slight light-fogging might give a sub-threshold exposure that would let that area turn darker than a similar area covered by the easel blades, but I don't think age or chemical fog would have the same threshold effect. The entire sheet would either be fogged or not.

Joseph, I read Steve's recent posts (today) the same way and agree it's far more likely to be a safelight issue. Adding Benzotriazole may help but it also cuts the papers warmth.

Those safe-light tests still need to be done.

Ian

You could tape a penny to the paper and develop in the standard developer to prove or dispel the safelight issue. We're all anxious to find out what the real problem is/was.