Review of Ilford MGRC V

[dkonigs]

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.

Where exactly did you see this note? I've looked at all the same documents as I think you have, and they do not list different processing times for the new paper.

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.

I noticed this in the darkroom myself. What's weird is that Ilford has not made any comments about it in their new datasheets, and still claims the image will begin to appear after 10 seconds.

So far I've mostly processed test trips to build a calibration profile for my RH Analyser Pro, and have only had the chance to make a few very quick prints on the new paper. I'm very much looking forward to using it more, and being able to buy it in more sizes.

 

[Alan9940]

Where exactly did you see this note? I've looked at all the same documents as I think you have, and they do not list different processing times for the new paper.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1954/product/745/

Near the bottom of page 2. According to Ilford and this document, development times for the new MGRC Gen 5 are the same as old MGIV RC.

 

[adelorenzo]

So far I've mostly processed test trips to build a calibration profile for my RH Analyser Pro, and have only had the chance to make a few very quick prints on the new paper. I'm very much looking forward to using it more, and being able to buy it in more sizes.

How do your calibration numbers compare to the FB Classic? I'm going to calibrate my machine for the new RC paper soon I was thinking that the classic numbers would be place to start,

 

[dkonigs]

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1954/product/745/

Near the bottom of page 2. According to Ilford and this document, development times for the new MGRC Gen 5 are the same as old MGIV RC.

I was wondering where you saw the 1:00 to 2:00 time increase.
(Unless you were doing 1:00 with PQ Universal or Bromophen... I've only used Multigrade Developer, and thus have only processed for 1 minute.)

 

[dkonigs]

How do your calibration numbers compare to the FB Classic? I'm going to calibrate my machine for the new RC paper soon I was thinking that the classic numbers would be place to start,

I've never used FB Classic, so I can't give you a comparison there.

What I can share, is the calibration numbers I've come up with and programmed into my analyser:

I did use a densitometer (albeit an old one) to figure out my exposure offsets. However, I was probably a little more consistent and practiced with my test strip and processing technique on the MGRC V paper than on the MGIV paper. Regardless, my final "sanity check" test strips had very similar variations from perfect, at least according to the densitometer.

 

[markbau]

I was wondering where you saw the 1:00 to 2:00 time increase.
(Unless you were doing 1:00 with PQ Universal or Bromophen... I've only used Multigrade Developer, and thus have only processed for 1 minute.)

I tested for max black with the new paper in D72 (1:2, 20C) and found it needed 90 secs development to reach its max black.

 

[Alan9940]

I was wondering where you saw the 1:00 to 2:00 time increase.
(Unless you were doing 1:00 with PQ Universal or Bromophen... I've only used Multigrade Developer, and thus have only processed for 1 minute.)

Sorry, I never meant to imply that I saw anything like that documented anywhere. Rather, I've always used a 1 min development time with RC papers, but then saw the development times in the linked doc. I was, in fact, using PQ Universal and didn't notice any weak blacks because of my using a 1 min development time. Going forward, though, I will use 2 mins as Ilford suggests.

 

[radiant]

I tested for max black with the new paper in D72 (1:2, 20C) and found it needed 90 secs development to reach its max black.

How much was it for IV paper with D72?

 

[radiant]

Actually, I did time test myself. Exposed single strip to desk lamp to really expose it fully. Split the strip half. Developed in fresh Ilford developer for 60 seconds and 90 seconds.

Then I did blind test myself - twice (forgot which strip was which). And on both tests I could see that the other strip was darker. So in future I will develop for 90 seconds. The difference is quite suddle but visible, but still I don't think it goes any deeper after 90 seconds, at least anything one could notice from a real print.

 

[MattKing]

Just musing here.
Exposure to room light/desk lamp might give you misleading results - severe over-exposure can lead to things like self-masking behavior and solarisation.
Better to use something like one stop more exposure than the exposure that yields a solid black.

 

[markbau]

How much was it for IV paper with D72?

To be honest, I can't recall if I did a max black test with IV. I do have some of the old paper left so will do one next time I print and report back.

 

[tezzasmall]

And my box of MG V paper is on its way!

Despite the really cold temperatures outside lately (my darkroom is at the end of the garden and is not heated), I will be making every effort to see what this paper's like.

Terry S

 

[CMoore]

Damn.....risking life and limb.
What a man.!
way to... Take One For The Team.

 

[adelorenzo]

@dkonigs Thanks for sharing that. It does look like the numbers will be closer to what I have for the Classic FB. Need to find some time to do tests now.

 

[adelorenzo]

Anyone seen large sizes available yet? I bought a small box of 8x10 to experiment with but I really need this paper in 16x20.

 

[bluechromis]

What was the purpose of (i think) 8 1/2 x 11 inches.?
Was that a better fit for metric users for some reason.?
I have bought Ilford RC Gloss in that size because it was real cheap. It works great as a contact sheet, so i have been using it for that.
Thank You

I use the 8.5 x 11 inch size paper a lot not just for contact prints but as a substitute for 8 x 10.. No it doesn't fit right into 8 x 10 frame. But I find the size increase, though modest, to visually be impactful. I usually dry mount or use a custom window mat so mismatch with 8 x 10 frames is not much of an issue. It also seems to match the proportions of a 35 mm frame a little better.

 

[markbau]

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'd just like to correct this post of mine. The statement above is not correct, I must have been using exhausted toner. Tonight I mixed up some fresh KRST 1:25 and the new paper certainly shows a sizeable DMax increase after 5 minutes. Image colour changes to a magenta/purple which I don't care for too much.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I've now printed with the new paper (gloss version) and had no problems really after getting used to it. Constrast and dmax seem strong in my test developer of ADOX MCC. 60 secs was fine, about 20ºC room temperature - tray processed. Selenium tones well, there is a sample in the gallery.

 

[tezzasmall]

I too have now made a few prints on the new RC MGV Pearl surface.

First thoughts are that it's just under a f-stop faster than MGIV and it definitely takes longer for the print to start appearing. My old development time of one minute used to give a final print with MGIV, but the new paper needs about 1 1/2 minutes, although I rounded it up to 2 full minutes in Ilford's MG developer at 1+9.

The grades of the paper do also seem different and a little bit more work with it is required I think to get the best out of it. I did find one of my negatives printed at grade 2 on the new paper, to be totally flat though, when compared at the same grade on MGIV. It printed fine though at grade 3, but it did feel like a bigger jump in grades to what I was used to.

I was happy with the end result though and I will be doing a bit more learning before I get the best out of it I think.

Terry S

 

[markbau]

I've never used FB Classic, so I can't give you a comparison there.

What I can share, is the calibration numbers I've come up with and programmed into my analyser:

I did use a densitometer (albeit an old one) to figure out my exposure offsets. However, I was probably a little more consistent and practiced with my test strip and processing technique on the MGRC V paper than on the MGIV paper. Regardless, my final "sanity check" test strips had very similar variations from perfect, at least according to the densitometer.

I've just finished my first print session with my brand new Analyser Pro. I plugged your values in for MGRC V and I can't believe how good the prints are, first go. I would need to do 2 or 3 tests, at least, to get a print as good as the first one using the analyser (with your values) so thanks for posting them. I am ultra impressed with the analyser pro.!

 

[avizzini]

I thought I'd share my results with this new Ilford paper + Eco-Pro chemicals. I made a handful of 8x10 prints on the pearl paper. I used Eco-Pro's Paper Developer (1:9 mix) and developed the prints for 90 seconds, same time I give the MG IV paper. I also use their stop, and fixer. It does take longer for an image to start appearing but, overall time seems the same.

I've not done darkroom printing long enough to give you any inteligent insight into my results but, I like the results and will switch to using this once I run out of MG IV paper and I can get it in 11x14.

I photographed the matted prints, so some of the quality/detail is lost. I tried scanning the prints and couldn't get good results (I've never really scanned photos before, so it was probably user error).

 

[markbau]

I thought I'd share my results with this new Ilford paper + Eco-Pro chemicals. I made a handful of 8x10 prints on the pearl paper. I used Eco-Pro's Paper Developer (1:9 mix) and developed the prints for 90 seconds, same time I give the MG IV paper. I also use their stop, and fixer. It does take longer for an image to start appearing but, overall time seems the same.

I've not done darkroom printing long enough to give you any inteligent insight into my results but, I like the results and will switch to using this once I run out of MG IV paper and I can get it in 11x14.

I photographed the matted prints, so some of the quality/detail is lost. I tried scanning the prints and couldn't get good results (I've never really scanned photos before, so it was probably user error).

View attachment 236540 View attachment 236541 View attachment 236542 View attachment 236544

Those prints look very nice! The new V is a great paper, as you said, it behaves quite differently to IV but I love it. I haven't really liked an RC paper since the last RC paper that Agfa made

 

[radiant]

Does anyone else have experienced curling of the new paper? My papers curl from the emulsion side while in storage (20-25 degrees celcius) and are a bit harder to get into easel because of this. Ilfords IV RC paper doesn't curl at all in same conditions.

The paper I'm using is 8x10 pearl.

 

[markbau]

Yes, I have noticed that the new paper has a lot of curl if it has a wet time of anymore than about 1 hour. It seems to be a bit thinner base than the old IV.

 

[radiant]

Yes, I have noticed that the new paper has a lot of curl if it has a wet time of anymore than about 1 hour. It seems to be a bit thinner base than the old IV.

My question was about dry paper (pre-exposure).