Review of Ilford MGRC V

Nodda Duma said:

Just made a couple prints on some 8x10 Pearl and it looks real nice. They weren’t challenging negatives to print from, however. Tomorrow I plan to make a print from a negative that was challenging (low contrast) to print onto MG IV.

Click to expand...

That's good to know! Thanks.

Nodda Duma said:

Just made a couple prints on some 8x10 Pearl and it looks real nice. They weren’t challenging negatives to print from, however. Tomorrow I plan to make a print from a negative that was challenging (low contrast) to print onto MG IV.

Click to expand...

Considering what has been revealed from the datasheet, you'll probably find it harder to get a result as good as the previous version of the paper could give. The ISO range of the new paper for grade 5 filtration is 50, while the previous had a range of 40. The new paper also doesn't get as soft with grade 00 filtration, so overall it's contrast range isn't as wide.

Before this thread, I hadn't thought of making contact prints with paper larger than 8x10. A4 costs more than 8x10 but it works out to ~£0.16 a sheet extra. As it's only one contact print per film, it's a small enough price to pay for the added convenience imo.

Anon Ymous said:

Considering what has been revealed from the datasheet, you'll probably find it harder to get a result as good as the previous version of the paper could give. The ISO range of the new paper for grade 5 filtration is 50, while the previous had a range of 40. The new paper also doesn't get as soft with grade 00 filtration, so overall it's contrast range isn't as wide.

Click to expand...

The old stuff didn’t even cut it for the low contrast negative. I got it to work by developing the paper out fully — 5 minutes in polymaxT — rather than the usual 1 minute. We’ll see what happens with this stuff.

For all of you lith printers, unfortunately MGV behaves pretty much the same as MGIV for lith printing at least for first pass. It won't get proper black, develops extremely slowly, and is overall extremely low contrast no matter what you do. However, I did have some success with second pass lith.

I used Ansco 130 as the first developer (works great with this paper btw, cool tone and very nice blacks) and used ferri+bromide bleach. This one was bleached partially, leaving blacks mostly intact. I've found fully bleached seems to need less exposure (ie, pretty much the same amount as a final print, rather than 1/4-1/2 stop more) to get proper contrast. I used a weak LD20 dilution of around 10+15+1000 with ~200ml of old brown. The developer wasn't temperature controlled but was warm, around 90F. The negative printed was TMax 3200, so a lot of grain is expected. Developing wasn't timed, but probably around 5 minutes. There is definitely some potential for split toning. The blue colored bits are really in the print, but I'm not sure how to bring them out properly. I need to make more prints that have better highlights to really hone that in. Later prints in this developer went a lot slower, both due to decay and the temperature dropping to room temp of ~72F. One print went for 30 minutes before I just gave up.



(scan was adjusted slightly to match color of print)

I used some easylith in a heated temperature control setup, but I seem to have less success there. I'm using 30+35+5000ml and ~2L of old brown. My heated setup requires a ton of developer to work properly (sous vide setup). The temperature is set to 120F. This goes a lot quicker, but of course decays quickly and seems to bring out a completely different set of colors, with deep chocolate brown blacks and lilac highlights and midtones. Most color is lost on drydown though.

Definitely still a lot more testing to do, but seems like it won't be my favorite RC paper for second pass lith printing. Both cooltone and warmtone RC seems to have more color and significantly easier to split tone.

Edit: through further experiments (and printing and then immediately bleaching/lith developing) I've found that basically the more bleach, the bluer in color it will turn from lith printing. Fully bleached black will be a stark, but somewhat low contrast blue with cool grey blacks. Basically in order to get decent blacks in lith, you need to develop it long enough that the color shifts from peach->lilac->purple->blue. Partially bleaching allows for somewhat easily split toning to capture highlights and some midtones as a vibrant peach color which then splits into lilac and purple and finally slightly warm brownish (but very dark) blacks. The original developer used was Liquidol and I was actually pretty impressed with how much cool tone it gave for being what is known mostly as a neutral tone develop. Definitely seems like the new MGV RC paper is biased a bit toward the cool side, which I really enjoy (the MGIV "warm" greens were depressing)

Finally had a chance to play around with the new Ilford MGRC Deluxe Gen 5 paper this morning. Here are my initial impressions:

1) Since there were no instructions (?) in the box, I developed the paper the same as I always have for the prior version; that is, 1 minute. Did a quick Google search after emerging from the darkroom and found the PDF where Iford compares IV to V and therein was a note to develop for 2 mins. I try that next time.

2) Image emergence is slower than the prior version--about 30 - 35 secs, then it appears to reach completion in about the next 5 secs. This startled me a bit at first.

3) The untoned image color is very slightly warm.

4) Since I tone in selenium mostly for archival purposes, I typically use a 1:20 dilution; times vary based on image. Toning this paper for 4 - 5 mins provided a nice increase in dMax and changed to color to a very slight eggplant. Honestly, if you didn't have an untoned print to compare back to you wouldn't even notice the color. It's that subtle.

5) It is a bit faster than IV and reveals slightly more contrast (about 1/3 grade.)

Overall, a very nice upgrade to the old paper. I'm very pleased with it.

Nodda Duma said:

The old stuff didn’t even cut it for the low contrast negative. I got it to work by developing the paper out fully — 5 minutes in polymaxT — rather than the usual 1 minute. We’ll see what happens with this stuff.

Click to expand...

Hello there...

So, did you have a chance to make a comparison?

Anon Ymous said:

Hello there...

So, did you have a chance to make a comparison?

Click to expand...

I haven’t been able to get back down in the darkroom to print from the low contrast negative. My weekend and evenings have been filled with parental and leaf-blowing activities

12 Nov 2019

To All:

Does anyone have any information about whether Harman Technologies is going to transition to the MG V emulsion for the Portfolio/Postcard papers?

Regards,
Darwin

Oren Grad said:

It's apparent that a lot of people don't realize just how many different sizes of cut sheets Ilford offers. Here is the current list of sizes available for MGRC Deluxe, taken directly from Ilford's product page:

Available sizes:
8.9 x 12.7cm (3.5 x 5"), 8.9 x 14cm (3.5 x 5.5"), 9.96 x 12.5cm (4 x 5"), 10.5 x 14.8cm (4 x 6"), 10 x 15cm (4 x 6"), 12.7 x 17.8cm (5 x 7"), 16.5 x 21.6cm (6.5 x 8.5"), 17.8 x 24 cm (7 x 9.5"), 20.3 x 25.4cm (8 x 10"), 21 x 29.7cm (8.25 x 11.75"), 21.6 x 27.9cm (8.5 x 11"), 24 x 30.5cm (9.5 x 12"), 25.4 x 25.4cm (10 x 10"), 27.9 x 35.6cm (11 x 14"), 30.5 x 40.6cm (12 x 16"), 40.6 x 50.8cm (16 x 20"), 50.8 x 61cm (20 x 24")

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-rc-deluxe-glossy-sheets

Not all of these sizes are offered in all markets, and in any given market, only the largest retailers list anywhere near all of the sizes available in that market. But they're out there, and in most cases less common sizes should be available by special order even if your usual dealer doesn't normally stock them.

Click to expand...

In the US, most of the sizes are readily available from Roberts (the US distributor) in pearl, glossy and satin have a slightly smaller selection. I'm sure you could ask for the other sizes, thought it'd probably be special order and a minimum quantity.

drpsilver said:

12 Nov 2019

To All:

Does anyone have any information about whether Harman Technologies is going to transition to the MG V emulsion for the Portfolio/Postcard papers?

Regards,
Darwin

Click to expand...

This is what I want to know. The portfolio paper is a super nice heavy paper that processes and washes fast.

Anon Ymous said:

Considering what has been revealed from the datasheet, you'll probably find it harder to get a result as good as the previous version of the paper could give. The ISO range of the new paper for grade 5 filtration is 50, while the previous had a range of 40. The new paper also doesn't get as soft with grade 00 filtration, so overall it's contrast range isn't as wide.

Click to expand...

Yep, grade 1 is about the same contrast as the old grade 2. The contrast grades are a little more evenly spread out, but overall, it is not quite as high of contrast.

Just printed with the new RC for the first time. In D 72 at 22C I didn't get max black until 1 1/2 minutes of development, (using the Rudman Max Black test). Disclaimer, I don't have a reflection densitometer. It seems quite a bit nicer than the RC IV.
5 minutes in 1:20 Kodak selenium toner didn't make a bean of difference to DMax.

I did my first prints on the new V paper yesterday. I printed same negative that I had previously printed on IV paper on V paper too. Both images are printed so that the darkest part should match the paper Dmax. I scanned this image so that both papers were on scanner at same time to match the grayscale.



Also one print I made yesterday, which I believe shows the gradient separation. No comparison to IV here but for me it looks I could never achieve this kind of print with IV paper.



No need to say but I'm very happy with the new paper, makes my darkroom work much easier. No need to switch to FB papers and no immediate reason to start toning prints..

vedostuu said:

I did my first prints on the new V paper yesterday. I printed same negative that I had previously printed on IV paper on V paper too. Both images are printed so that the darkest part should match the paper Dmax. I scanned this image so that both papers were on scanner at same time to match the grayscale.

View attachment 234663

Click to expand...

Which is on the left? IV or V?

Thanks

J.

vedostuu said:

I did my first prints on the new V paper yesterday. I printed same negative that I had previously printed on IV paper on V paper too. Both images are printed so that the darkest part should match the paper Dmax. I scanned this image so that both papers were on scanner at same time to match the grayscale.

Click to expand...

Presuming the scan on the RIGHT is the new paper version V, then there seems to be quite a difference between the two prints, at least on screen.

I too hope to try some soon.

Terry S

lensman_nh said:

Which is on the left? IV or V?

Click to expand...

Ah, sorry, I thought it was obvious. V is on the right.

tezzasmall said:

Presuming the scan on the RIGHT is the new paper version V, then there seems to be quite a difference between the two prints, at least on screen.

Click to expand...

The scans aren't total reality since the paper texture (both pearl) is different. So lightning affects how the prints look quite a bit. In reality the midgray and highlights are pretty even on both prints for example but the more deep black is easily visible immediately.

vedostuu said:

Ah, sorry, I thought it was obvious. V is on the right.
The scans aren't total reality since the paper texture (both pearl) is different. So lightning affects how the prints look quite a bit. In reality the midgray and highlights are pretty even on both prints for example but the more deep black is easily visible immediately.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Scans seem to be almost always a problem when it comes to comparing things, even when it is scans of 2 prints of the same scene on MGIV and MGV.

The problem I have when looking at both is that while I prefer the MGV print it looks like the MGIV but at say one grade higher. In other words if you had shown me these two scans and had not said it was a comparison between IV and V I would have assumed that it was two scans of the same paper a grade apart.

There may be clear differences that cannot be replicated by simply increasing the grade of the IV but it is not apparent to me. My judgement might be poor in which case can you or anyone else point out where to look for the difference in these scans that would still not be there simply by increasing IV by a grade

This is not to criticise you or your attempt to demonstrate the difference which I thank you for but is me being honest about the difficulties I see in such demonstrations

pentaxuser

Tones pretty well too!

vedostuu said:

Tones pretty well too!

Click to expand...

Yes it does. Is this sepia toner and if so is it the smelly sulphide one or the thiourea or do both work equally well? I think that Ilford has been aware for some time that its RC paper does not tone well. Certainly Tim Rudman made this point in his toning book so nice to see Ilford addressing this problem

pentaxuser

I have some of this new Multigrade RC V to try when I can get around to it. I'm not a huge black & white RC paper consumer but do find it useful for certain applications.

pentaxuser said:

Yes it does. Is this sepia toner and if so is it the smelly sulphide one or the thiourea or do both work equally well? I think that Ilford has been aware for some time that its RC paper does not tone well. Certainly Tim Rudman made this point in his toning book so nice to see Ilford addressing this problem

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I tried toning it in 1:20 selenium and didn't get any DMax increase.

For clarity....
The older MGIV RC was/is singularly unresponsive to tone change in selenium toner.
A recent experiment indicates that it is also quite unresponsive in Nelson Gold toner.
I have, however, had no problem obtaining reasonably dramatic changes in tone in two bath sepia toner (the smelly kind) and Brown toner from various sources.
If you are a participant in the Photrio/APUG Postcard exchange, you will most likely have seen lots of examples from me - although a few will have been on Oriental RC paper instead.

It was done with two bath (bleach and toning) odorless sulfide toner.

I'm going to try selenium sulfide toner without bleach next. To see if it does anything for the V paper.

vedostuu said:

It was done with two bath (bleach and toning) odorless sulfide toner.

I'm going to try selenium sulfide toner without bleach next. To see if it does anything for the V paper.

Click to expand...

Thanks it sounds as if this is a sulphide toner but is odourless as opposed to a thiocarbamide sepia toner which was I thought the only odourless sepia toner . I had thought there was no such thing as odourless sulphide so I did a search to try and resolve the matter. There is nothing new under the sun as they say because this very question was raised about 7 years ago on Photrio and I was even asking questions there myself. Unfortunately Photrio did not disappoint me as I am still not clear from that thread of 7 years ago whether such sulphide toners exist . Some were saying that on close examination the chemical thiocarbamide was mentioned but no useful conclusion was reached in my opinion.

Can I ask that you give the name of this odourless sulphide toner to see if it can be examined to see if it is in fact a thiocarbamide toner?

So why am I making such a fuss about whether it is sulphide or not you may rightly ask? It is simply because I'd rather avoid a sulphide toner toner even if it is odourless as there is some risk with other paper being fogged with sulphide toners according to Tim Rudman in his toning book

It may well be that thiocarbamide toners also work as well but if I can be sure that your toner is definitely sulphide based then I may need to wait until others have toned in thiocarbamide or ask Ilford directly assuming it has the answer

I hope this explains my continuing to ask questions

Thanks

pentaxuser