• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Print grade vs quality

I use Galerie all the time and haven't seen Olive tones since the '80s... and I use Dektol.

You probably threw in Potassium Bromide...
 
Bill, I added nothing and this was nearly 40 years ago so things have almost certainly changed.

Now that I think about it, poorly as my thinking is these days, I should have qualified my posts with that information.
 
I disagree, or maybe just have more acute (or fussy) color vision. No MQ developer will give the same neutrality as amidol, nor will selenium totally neutralize it, even on Galerie. Since this paper might have changed a bit over the years, I did side by side comparisons on the same negative. I'm not saying the good ole way of doing it is bad, but that I had something different in mind, and got it. But Elite??? I purchased exactly one good box of that way back when... after that, the quality control drifted downhill. My favorite paper back then was Seagull G (highly versatile), followed by the idiosyncratic, expensive Brilliant Bromide, which had the best DMax I've ever seen on a silver paper and exquisite microtonality, but would dump the shadows real fast if you weren't awfully careful. My new box of Ilfobrom Galerie is handling subtle microtonality superbly itself, even way up in the highlights. But my negs and lenses are a lot better than back in the day;
so I should probably resurrect an early neg to try that, to see if the paper has changed. But that's an academic question. Going forward,
it's obviously a product I'll use more of. I have reprinted a number of early 8x10 negs on MGWT, which came out with splendidly, and were vastly easier to print than on the old graded papers. Gosh, I'm itching for this drought to end so I can routinely print again.
 
Drew... WAY back when I used the stuff, Kodak selenium toner absolutely turned the olive green tone of Ilford Galerie (grade 3) to definite plum tone.
 
I DON"T want "plum". I want cold neutral, consistent black. Not blue-black, not warm black. I know all about "plum". The current Galerie seems to shift color less than other papers in selenium, just like it was reputed to do long ago. But it's not a one-trick pony. Maybe sometime in the next few days I'll do a combination of selenium and gold toner, just to see if I can replicate the same effect I like on Fineprint VC. I already pulled a stunt that proves I can strongly split-tone Galerie - not that I intend to do that in the future. MGWT and other Ilford VC papers do that trick much better than Galerie. I was just curious, and wasting on sheet was enough to satisfy my curiosity. But what I was really after was that deep luscious look that Seagull once gave in amidol. I came damn close. I'm not anti-Dektol. Sometimes I do want that slightly greenish tinge. Depends on the specific image. I'm not a one-shoe-fits-all printer at all, when it comes
to developers and toners, or even papers. I consider single negative individually, and also regard color vision just as critical to black and
white printing and presentation as to color photography itself.
 
Michael - I still sometimes teach pro color matching. And as a photographer I've predominantly been a color printer. I know a thing or two
about this. There is a LOT of not only physiology but also psychology behind acute color recognition. There is also a lot of money in it, though I eventually got sick of the type of clients who have that kind of money to spend. My physiological vision isn't any better than the average person with normal color vision, but my training and experience certainly is! And all I care about right now is that I bagged what I wanted or expected with a particular developer/toner route and not the other. That's all I really wanted to answer - Does Ilfobrom Galerie swim in amidol. Yes!!
 
Spoken like a true moonshiner, Michael. Jes spit a lil' chaw into thet thar shine, thas all. So what is different about "PMT" and any other
restrainer like benzotriozole, it that isn't the actual ingredient to begin with?
 
Hmm. OK. Thanks for the tip. Guess I'll just have to pick some up and try it. I always thought good moonshine required authentic toxic lead solder joints to give the right flavor. Having a few dead crickets floating in the mash probably helps too. But I like my amidol black, just like my coffee, with just a hint of benzotraizole. Blue-black is a different question. For that I once used Polygrade V and a special cold-tone MQ tweak. Restrainers are funny things. With MGWT I use different combinations of KBr and benz, depending on the exact final image color I want. It's all fun. But given the price of these papers, I intend to have a specific color target for each printing session. Finding good amidol is hard these days. It must require a special species of black crickets to make.
 
I can report my experience. I had a soft negative that printed correctly in grade 3 to achieve the ideal blacks and whites. But I was non satisfied with middle tones. After, I toned the original negative with selenium so I could print it in grade 2, achieving the same blacks and whites, but far more rich in the middle tones. Assuming that selenium toning is equivalent to augmented developed, I can suggest that it is better a full scale developed negative printed in grade 2.
 
IMO, selenium toning a negative to increase contrast so it will print well on your paper grade of choice is often better than developing to that contrast. Less so with many of today's films, I suppose, but that was my modus operandi long ago and far away.
 

But that is specific to one single image in which the tonal distribution of the subject was suited to this particular negative contrast with this particular paper grade. Another subject with different tonal distribution may suited to the opposite.
There is simply IS NOT one combination fits all solution to this. There can can only be a generalisation and basing a generalisation on a single example is meaningless.
 

Yes, you're right, I made a generalisation.
But also Ansel Adams suggested that the best negatives are those that print on normal grade paper, so the zonal system is in practical a method to achieve the negative that print on normal grade paper.
 
What is "normal grade paper"? Most graded papers come in 1, 2, 3 and 4. Some come in 1-5. Most MC papers I've seen range from 1-5. So, IMO, grade 3 is "normal grade paper".
 
You're showing your age. It's hard enough to find just grade 2 & 3 of anything nowadays. And what VC papers allegedly mean by grade is all
over the map, depending on the paper. So unless someone is working with one of the few remaining actual graded papers, or learned on them
to begin with, even bringing "grades" into VC paper discussion is largely useless. Kinda like learning how many claws were on the wing of an
Archaeopteryx before going out bird watching.
 
Yeah... I'm sure that's true. Sometimes I don't know when to STFU.
 
DREW WILEY said:
... And what VC papers allegedly mean by grade is all over the map, depending on the paper...
Click to expand...

Were graded papers any better? That's a serious question, did they have the same ISO ranges for the same grade? Or did they feel free to interpret grades liberally?
 
Aleksej6 said:
Yes, you're right, I made a generalisation.
But also Ansel Adams suggested that the best negatives are those that print on normal grade paper, so the zonal system is in practical a method to achieve the negative that print on normal grade paper.
Click to expand...

Two thoughts:

Ansel had specific style; for that style and with the materials available to him back then, he was probably right. For today's materials? For your preferences? Don't know.

The principles/maths of the zone system are still reasonable and workable even if you change some of the assumptions from his to your's. You just need to make sure to balance the equations.
 
I use all kinds of papers. For many images I love the current selection of VC papers. They're especially nice for roll film, since one cannot
specifically develop each individual image for exact contrast like sheet film. But certain graded paper did other things better. For example,
it's hard to find any true cold-tone VC paper with real punch to it.
 
The whole idea of what is allegedly "normal grade" is that you develop your negatives to most often print on that, if you still needed to
shift contrast either up or down, you still had at least on grade on either side to choose from. Some people standardized on Grade 2. I personally standardized on Grade 3. But nowadays, with VC papers being dominant, I consider my "normal", or neutral of base position to
be when the neg prints well on a particular paper using just nominally white light with a colorhead, or in the case of my cold light, the straight mix of blue-green light right off the lamp. Then I shift from that position up or down in contrast, either by changing the color of the light (colorhead), or by selectively split printing thru hard filters (cold light). So all that Zone theory does transfer over smoothly. But I just don't bother thinking about it. No need. A simple test strip does more for me than hours of math.
 

That depends on how you evaluate quality.
 
Aleksej6 said:
In my opinion, 2 is the normal grade.
Click to expand...

Most photographers would agree with you. What is normal for someone may be a personal choice but that does not make it a normal grade.
 
Most photographers nowadays wouldn't even know what graded paper is! Otherwise, we fossils can argue about it. I'm Grade 3 "normal",
whatever "normal" itself means, which we can all fight about on some semantics thread.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Most photographers would agree with you. What is normal for someone may be a personal choice but that does not make it a normal grade.
Click to expand...

DREW WILEY said:
Most photographers nowadays wouldn't even know what graded paper is! Otherwise, we fossils can argue about it. I'm Grade 3 "normal",
whatever "normal" itself means, which we can all fight about on some semantics thread.
Click to expand...

I was talking about real photographers, not fauxtographers.
 
What has not been considered so far is that grades are not easily interchangeable between different manufacturers or even between different products from the same manufacturer. Foma´s grade 2 sometimes more equals Ilford´s grade 3 and I don't want to start to talk about Kentmere. Only Iso-R values can be compared! Eg. Fomatone MG grade 2 Iso-R = 90, Multigrade FB Classic grade 2, Iso-R = 95, Ilfobrom Galerie grade 2 Iso-R = 110. Fomatone MG grade 3 ("normal") is Iso-R = 75, while Ilfobrom Galerie´s grade 4 is Iso R = 70. So a Foma grade 3 behaves more like a Galerie´s grade 4. And a Galerie´s grade 2 is more like a Multigrade classic´s grade 1 (both Iso-R = 110).

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006130195422907.pdf

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2013116121925810.pdf

http://www.foma.cz/en/fomatone-MG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register