Hello all, I thought I'd resurrect this thread, as I've done a first print of MGRC V. I find the surface (glossy) to be more streaky than other papers. When I hold it so that a lamp reflects off of the print, in the periphery of the bright reflection there's some unevenness in the form of parallel lines visible, in the magnitude of around 3 ridges per millimeter. With other papers, I only see a slight unevenness, nothing directional. This is even more obvious while the paper is wet and the gelatin swollen, so I assume it's really a surface unevenness. It's not the end of the world, not very visible under normal viewing conditions, I think I can use it. Has anyone else noticed that?
Review of Ilford MGRC V
-
A
- Thread starter bluechromis
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale T-max 4x5 100 kodak ready loads. expired 2008, kept frozen
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Images in Science, excellent scientific imaging. $10
- Started by laser
-
For Sale Book: PhotoShop Restoration and Retouching. $20
- Started by laser
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24
- Format
- Sub 35mm
I think ill grab a few from freestyle this week!!
This is not a complaint that I have seen mentioned. Do you mean that in a width of a millimetre your eyes can see three ridges? Or have I misunderstood what you mean?
pentaxuser
I've been printing with this paper for the last few months, maybe a hundred prints out of two different size boxes. I just took a handful out into direct sunlight and can't see any linear texture in my samples, even in areas of unbroken black or white. I'll look again next time I have some wet, but for now, no - I don't notice this. Possibly differences in our water, and/or total wet time?
This was when it was wet, not quite so obvious any more now that it's dry. Total wet time was very long, I abandoned it in the wash water for a while. But I've done similar with other paper including MGRC IV with no such trouble. And I first noticed it out of the stop bath. And the unprocessed paper also shows the texture, but less easily visible.
Attachments
I have now processed a scrap piece of the paper with a very reasonable wet time around 10 minutes. Here's a picture of it, in dry state.
Others may see what it is you are referring to but what exactly am I looking at? Is this a print that contains part of a scene? What is the blue area
Sorry I can only see a dark area then a light brown area, then another dark area then pale blue then white etc Is this a massive enlargement of a tiny part of a print with a scene on it?
Hopefully others can make sense of what you are showing but I cannot Sorry
10 mins for RC is still a lot longer a wash than is needed but I agree that whatever you see in terms of these ridges should not arise afer as little as 10 minutes
pentaxuser
Sorry I can only see a dark area then a light brown area, then another dark area then pale blue then white etc Is this a massive enlargement of a tiny part of a print with a scene on it?
Hopefully others can make sense of what you are showing but I cannot Sorry
10 mins for RC is still a lot longer a wash than is needed but I agree that whatever you see in terms of these ridges should not arise afer as little as 10 minutes
pentaxuser
I think that if we were looking at this print normally, we'd see pretty much a solid black corner. All the brown, white, and blue is deliberate reflection, to allow us to see the surface texture. In the print of my own below, I've likewise held it an an angle to the light for emphasis of surface texture - viewed normally, all the area around the central subject (my kid in a mask) is featureless dmax black. My print just looks like "paper texture" to me, without any particular linear quality. Total wet time was probably about 5 or 6 minutes (90 sec dev, 10 sec stop, 60 sec fix, 150 to 180 sec wash)
Exactly, PFGS. I showed an all black scrap piece of paper, not that it matters because my issue is the surface. What are you showing to us? Looks like semi-matte baryta paper or even bare paper to me, not RC paper?
That's my MGRC V glossy I've been printing on, as per my post #179 in this thread; both my boxes, one 8x10, one 5x7, look like this. Both purchased this summer.
Weird, it looks so matte in the picture. Was the light very soft? I don't think these are the same circumstances in which I can see the ridges.
That's some totally harsh sunny day window light, I had to work a little to keep the sun out of my eyes and my phone's camera. But I can't see anything I'd call ridges, no mater how I light or turn it - and it's exactly the kind of thing that would bug me. I totally see them in yours. Personally I think this is a great paper; if a shorter wet time doesn't help, consider buying one more small pack before you give up on it.
MattKing
Moderator
Are these the ridges you are referring to:?
Andrew O'Neill
Moderator
The surface looks quite interesting...
No, these are fingerprints from my sloppy treatment of this scrap of paper. The ridges I mean are visible around the very rightmost bit or your red marks, or generally in the transition zones between tones of the reflection on the surface. More obvious in the first picture I posted.
I have written to Ilford about the issue. Still interested in your opinions, especially if anyone else can see this in their paper.
Hello, everybody. Hope all is well. I want to ask a couple of questions about a new MGRC please. I am a long time user (more than two decades) of MGIV RC Pearl. My last MGIV box ran out last week, so I started printing with a new MGRC. When I put the exposed MDRC paper in developer, no image came out. I know which side is emulsion side. But just 30 seconds ago, I exposed the same negative to the strip of my last MGIV in the same developer with same aperture and same time and the image on the strip of MGIV came out fine as usual in one minute, while the strip of MGRC had no image. So for the next exposure, I doubled time and now it started to show a very faint image but still almost no image. I tripled the exposure time, still a faint image, At last I opened up 2 stops of aperture and the image came out is still very faint and no black at all. It almost looks like a sepia toned. The chemicals I was using was fresh in which I just made fine prints with MGIV half an hour ago. I contacted Ilford twice via their contact page but I haven't heard back yet. I am attaching the image of what I described above. The far left is the MGIV paper and the rest were printed on a new MGRC paper with time increasing from left to right. By the way, my developer is Sprint Quick Silver Developer 1:9, which worked perfectly with MGIV paper for decades. If anybody has any ideas, I would appreciate it. Thanks so much.
Attachments
MattKing
Moderator
EDIT: Welcome to Photrio.
Have you read this post:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/review-of-ilford-mgrc-v.170874/page-3#post-2225056
How long are you developing for?
Have you read this post:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/review-of-ilford-mgrc-v.170874/page-3#post-2225056
How long are you developing for?
Thank you, MattKing. Yes, I have read the post. Initially I developed for a minute but since no image came out, I left the paper in the developer for two minutes but that didn't make a difference. I understand that various papers respond to the developer differently. Some paper quickly started to show the image in the developer as soon as it was put, while other paper takes more than 30 seconds for the image to appear gradually. But the case I was talking about was totally different level, it just seemed like the paper's sensitivity was extremely weak to respond to the exposure or something. I have been printing black and white in the darkroom in a daily basis since 1992 and I never had any such a problem with a photo paper like this before. So that was why I was asking for people's opinions or experiences.... Anyway, thank you so much, MattKing, for reading my questions and pointing out the suggested reading! Good night.
If 2 minutes made no difference i.e. there was still no image then frankly I can only see tow possible explanations. Your developer was exhausted or nearly so or you have a batch of paper with faulty emulsion
I'd try two things
1. Other paper, if you have any, with your existing developer. It that produces normal prints then I'd contact your paper stockist then Ilford itself 2. If other paper with existing developer produces faint prints then it is almost certainly your developer
pentaxuser
Kumagoro, was this print by any chance at a very high grade? I've read that MGRC V doesn't go quite as high in contrast as IV. If you were maxing out the contrast, that might explain it.
I'd also try fresh developer even if it did still work fine with other paper, maybe there is a yet unknown need for more active developer with this paper. Also try developing a bit of paper that has been exposed to room light.
Update on my issue: I've compared with the other box of MGRC V I bought, and that doesn't have the strange surface. So it seems likely that something is indeed wrong with the paper. I've heard back from Ilford, they are very keen to figure it out and to send me a replacement. Look closely before you make a lot of prints from a new box!
I'd also try fresh developer even if it did still work fine with other paper, maybe there is a yet unknown need for more active developer with this paper. Also try developing a bit of paper that has been exposed to room light.
Update on my issue: I've compared with the other box of MGRC V I bought, and that doesn't have the strange surface. So it seems likely that something is indeed wrong with the paper. I've heard back from Ilford, they are very keen to figure it out and to send me a replacement. Look closely before you make a lot of prints from a new box!
Thank you, grain elevator, for posting your thoughts - I appreciate it. It was a normal negative and I wasn't going for a high contrast filter - I test-printed with Ilford filter, first with 3, then 2 and also tried to print with no filter at all to see if it would make a difference. Unfortunately the same result. The next day, as you suggested, I began from scratch, made a new developer and tried again but the same result. Just to make sure, I use the same chemicals to print with Kentmere RC paper I had. And the Kentmere paper came out nicely with good gradations with punchy white and strong black. This makes me wonder - maybe MGRC doesn't work well with the quick silver developer?? I haven't had any developer in my stock, so maybe I should purchase Ilford paper developer to try it? Thank you again, grain elevator!
Thank you for your post, pentaxuser, I appreciate it your thoughts. As I just wrote in #198, I mixed new developer the next day and tried again. But the same result. With the same developer in the same tray, I tried Kentmere RC paper and it printed nicely as usual.... So I am very puzzled. But thanks again for taking time to give me a suggestion - that was nice of you. Best.
OK and thanks for the reply. What you now do is your business but making contact with Ilford is what I'd do after alerting whatever stockist you purchased the paper from. You might be adding to what may already be an investigation by Ilford. If there is a problem with a batch of paper then it is a lot more paper than what is contained in one box. There may be many customers affected.
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |