Papers: DMax then and now

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Having in my possession some 1970s-era printed photographs, as well as the invaluable Printalyzer Densitometer, I decided to find once and for all an objective correlate to my subjective impression that the old stuff doesn't look like the new one.

I found at least one solid fact: the DMax of papers back in the day was nothing like today's. My 1970s print on Kodak Polycontrast has a DMax at best of 1.75, whereas today I can print up to 2.13 on Ilford MG FB.

That's quite a marked difference, in that such a shorter curve doesn't give the same separation of tones than today's longer ones. I know other factors matter, like the slope of the curve as influenced by development, and the total tonal quadrant between 1970s lenses+films+papers.

Still, if I look at paper densities like pots of paint going from white to black, it means that the old stuff did not have the darkest ink we can use today.

 

[xkaes]

How do you know that the old stuff was printed to achieve its DMax?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

How do you know that the old stuff was printed to achieve its DMax?

Because many areas of the image are solid black.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Guess you never used premium graded papers like Brilliant Bromide, Seagull G, Ilfobrom Galerie, or even DuPont papers. Old Polycontrast was hardly representative of the era. And were those even toned with selenium or gold chloride to achieve full DMax? And incidentally, neither silver prints nor paints involves ink. But it is refreshing to hear from someone who thinks current VC papers are better. Nearly always it's the other way around, with people constantly complaining how anemic current choices look compared to their old graded favorites, no longer available.

Overall, you're engaging an unfair boxing match, pitting one of the highest DMax papers of today - MGWT of the heavy weight division - against Polycontrast, only a bantam weight contender during its own career. But why certain skilled printers preferred Polycontrast was for its understated tonal potential. I believe both Robert Adams and Mark Citret used it for that very reason. Not everyone had the same kind of bold blacks in mind as Brett Weston, whose car license plate was, SEAGULL (Oriental Seagull paper).

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Having in my possession some 1970s-era printed photographs, as well as the invaluable Printalyzer Densitometer, I decided to find once and for all an objective correlate to my subjective impression that the old stuff doesn't look like the new one.

I found at least one solid fact: the DMax of papers back in the day was nothing like today's. My 1970s print on Kodak Polycontrast has a DMax at best of 1.75, whereas today I can print up to 2.13 on Ilford MG FB.

That's quite a marked difference, in that such a shorter curve doesn't give the same separation of tones than today's longer ones. I know other factors matter, like the slope of the curve as influenced by development, and the total tonal quadrant between 1970s lenses+films+papers.

Still, if I look at paper densities like pots of paint going from white to black, it means that the old stuff did not have the darkest ink we can use today.

a 'good' darkroom paper, RC ,FB or ink print, has a Dmax of roughly 2.15.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Digital dye printing devices can attain a higher DMax than typical inkjet, but are less popular. Among color processes, dye transfer is the champion of blacks. Among current VC papers, it's MGWT and Bergger Prestige. But no silver paper quite compares to the DMax of old Brilliant Bromide graded, especially when toned. There was a fragile almost velvety-surface silver-gelatin paper back in the 30's alleged to be deeper than them all. Few have survived.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Ok everybody seems to have just gone off their own tangent.

My point wasn't Who's Better / Who's Best. My point was simply characterization.

The photographer whose print I measured was printing on Polycontrast in the 1970s, so he's representative of himself, but also of many people who shot handheld 35 mm and had to produce a lot of prints. I've always noticed that his prints looked different from the ones he did later on. That the 1970s stuff had lower DMax just means it had a different look, different characteristics.

And because his regimen was adapted to the old stuff, it worked. But I have also understood why the look of his prints changed over time. Good printers have always made the best of what they had.

The look of a paper whose DMax tops at 1.70-1.80 is not that of a paper that can reach 2.15.

Maybe my only question now is whether it's possible to print on a 2.15 paper and achieve the look of a 1.75 ?

 

[koraks]

I doubt the measurements on one print on one particular paper says much about how things have changed over time. You'd at least have to investigate a decently selected sample and control for some factors like processing, storage etc.

Maybe my only question now is whether it's possible to print on a 2.15 paper and achieve the look of a 1.75 ?

Process it to yield a dmax of only 1.75, for starters. But even so, it'll be hard (nearly impossible) to exactly match the response of one paper to another. Curves differ, and are influenced by many factors.

I wouldn't obsess too much with what papers were in existence at some point. A more reasonable consideration is whether you can realize your artistic vision and requirements with the materials currently available. Unless perhaps you're a conservator working in a museum context. I don't think we have many of those on this forum.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Polymax was always an outlier. Some people liked its native look, many others didn't. And it didn't even have the potential of the kind of high DMax that certain graded papers of the same period did. Some people like soft quiet prints; others don't, and want boldness. I engage in both styles, so once again, am something of a photographic schizophrenic, bouncing back and forth. When I've had both styles on display together, it's fascinating how certain personalities will instantly gravitate toward one and not the other; and it's not alway the bold print which wins. Same with color prints.

There is no "right" or "wrong" to this, "better" versus "worse". Just go with your heart.

 

[MattKing]

Polymax was a good paper - a lot better than early Polycontrast.
But for a whole bunch of very practical concerns, Polycontrast was a huge step forward. It just wasn't great for exhibition quality prints.
I'm not sure why Drew referenced Polymax, because I don't think anyone else has in this thread!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Analogous; anemic. VC papers with real punch started arriving with Forte Polygrade III, or at least during that same season. Oriental's entry into VC was pretty disappointing compared to their graded product, and so was Zone VI's VC version of Brilliant, which it wasn't. I'm trying to remember what Agfa was doing at the time, but whatever it was, it didn't thrill me enough to keep track of it.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Yeah, I was measuring Polycontrast, and my purpose was historical, not trying to find a "better" tool.

 

[removedacct3]

a 'good' darkroom paper, RC ,FB or ink print, has a Dmax of roughly 2.15.

That does dismiss all non-glossy, matt papers, even the Ilford ones, doesn't it?