Review of Ilford MGRC V

[miha]

..
It seems to be a bit thinner base than the old IV.

A real shame if true. Someone should ask Harman and hope for a sincere reply from them.

 

[grainyvision]

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.

I've noticed minimal curling with the preprocessed paper, at least not enough to cause any problems getting it into my easel. Once processed and dried, the paper does tend to have some curl though, definitely a measurable amount more than MGIV/warmtone/cooltone RC.

 

[M Carter]

What's the finish like when dry? I've always been put off by Ilford's RC papers, they do look like the image is fixed in plastic to me. I still have some old Forte PWT RC, and it's really a nice finish for an RC paper, and liths like nobody's business.

 

[grainyvision]

On the topic of lith printing, I’ve gotten great results on MGV with a custom lith developer formula. Still doesn’t work with any tested commercial mix, but is much easier to work with than MGIV in every test developer I’ve tried. Full post is here: https://grainy.vision/blog/modernlith and my favorite example I can publish is attached

 

[BSP]

A real shame if true. Someone should ask Harman and hope for a sincere reply from them.

So much for using it for postcards then...;(

 

[Tom Kershaw]

So much for using it for postcards then...;(

The 'Portfolio' RC paper is still available last time I checked.

 

[BSP]

The 'Portfolio' RC paper is still available last time I checked.

Indeed it is as MG IV. I wonder if it will be replaced by MG V any time soon.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Indeed it is as MG IV. I wonder if it will be replaced by MG V any time soon.

I have some packs of MGIV Portfolio sitting in a draw, possibly 12"x16". I tend to use fibre base for the most part.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The 'Portfolio' RC paper is still available last time I checked.

Indeed it is as MG IV. I wonder if it will be replaced by MG V any time soon.

I'd bet both will be as soon as stocks already in the distribution/retail pipeline are depleted.

 

[MattKing]

Portfolio has always been the only double weight choice in Ilford RC. As a distinct product, it has always been an adjunct to the line.
The Ilford publication about the differences between the old and the new versions of the standard MG RC papers indicate that it is on exactly the same base material - see here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1954/product/743/
If people are having trouble with how the paper handles, they should bring it to the attention of Harman,

 

[radiant]

The Ilford publication about the differences between the old and the new versions of the standard MG RC papers indicate that it is on exactly the same base material - see here: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1954/product/743/
If people are having trouble with how the paper handles, they should bring it to the attention of Harman,

Strange, I think V paper feels a bit thinner than IV - certainly there is a difference between these papers in the handling feeling.

 

[dkonigs]

Can't speak for thickness, but I can say that the V paper takes noticably longer to start showing an image during development than the older IV paper. This is the exact opposite of what that datasheet claims, so I wonder if they goofed something there.

 

[BSP]

Hmmmm.....I wonder...as I am about to place a rather large order for Ilford MG V paper, should I opt for MG IV now it is still available, wait for a little longer untill we know for sure MG V is really fine or just bite bulltet and go all in om MG V?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

My one box so far of Multigrade V has been of very good quality.

 

[radiant]

Hmmmm.....I wonder...as I am about to place a rather large order for Ilford MG V paper, should I opt for MG IV now it is still available, wait for a little longer untill we know for sure MG V is really fine or just bite bulltet and go all in om MG V?

The V paper is so much better than IV in many ways so I wouldn't even think about ordering IV anymore. Maybe for contact sheets or some other "quick proofing" but even for that I would buy IV only from discounts.

The curling is not a biggie really. Just need to be more careful when inserting the paper on the easel and that's it.

 

[BSP]

The V paper is so much better than IV in many ways so I wouldn't even think about ordering IV anymore.

Thanks @vedostuu, I couldn't imagne that Ilford would mess up their papers in any way - but you never really know until you have tried them yourself or get advice from trusted sources.

 

[radiant]

I sent question to Harman this morning and got a really detailed answer already.

Harman has no single evidence of curling, they have extensively tested the paper. They opened 5 boxes today just to confirm that the papers are absolutely flat. They are really interested / keen to solve this. They are suspecting that low storage humidity issue would be the case (combination of Finnish winter & warm storage, maybe?). I'm sending them more details.

So just let you know that this is not a "global" issue and that Harman seem to take this kind of things really seriously AND that this is probably something related to my storage conditions.

TL;DR: no need to suspect / worry about the V paper quality at all (so far).

 

[tezzasmall]

A month on, what are peoples views on the development times of the new MG V paper.

Just browsing various Ilford info sheets online, they all now seem to say 60 seconds, the same as previously with MG IV paper, where as I'm sure they previous quoted 90 seconds. I'm going to have to check the info sheet again that comes in the box of paper.

BUT, I'm sure that I read previously by Ilford somewhere online, in the recent past, that the new paper requires 90 seconds in the developer? I have found this to be true my end, with the first appearance of any image being a bit longer than previously as well, with it being approximately between 20 and 30 seconds and full blacks coming in at 90 seconds now?

Thoughts and actual reports from others who have now used this paper?

Terry S

 

[Alan9940]

Thoughts and actual reports from others who have now used this paper?

In the instructions for this paper, Ilford recommends development times from 1 - 2 mins, depending on developer. Since I mix my own, I split the difference and went with 90 secs; seems to be working out just fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

For those who wish to try and use MG V for postcards they might want to try sticking sheets that are or certainly were available with a postcard template for short notes of "having a lovely time, wish you were here" variety and the other side for address

This will stiffen the paper. Those who use these sheets seem to suggest that this works fine. I cannot say as i have never used such sheets

It seems to me that Ilford could not be expected to make the equivalent of Postcard paper as part of its improvements for MG V for a paper that is of the same type as MG IV

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It seems to me that Ilford could not be expected to make the equivalent of Postcard paper as part of its improvements for MG V for a paper that is of the same type as MG IV

The Postcard paper is on the heavier weight Portfolio paper, which is used for other sizes as well.
I expect you will see it transition to the new emulsion in due time.
I put three small address labels on the back of my regular weight RC postcards - two for the info and one for the name and address. That seems to work well.

 

[dkonigs]

Just browsing various Ilford info sheets online, they all now seem to say 60 seconds, the same as previously with MG IV paper, where as I'm sure they previous quoted 90 seconds. I'm going to have to check the info sheet again that comes in the box of paper.

They never said 90 seconds for Ilford Multigrade Developer. The datasheets have always said 60 seconds. However, the datasheets also say the image appears faster, whereas it actually appears slower.

In any case, I've stuck with 60 seconds and the results have been fine. Main difference is that the image starts to appear around the 30-second mark, rather than the 15-second mark (give or take).

I still have this nagging feeling that someone screwed up when updating those datasheets, but I'm still waiting for anyone from Ilford to comment on the topic.

 

[Mick Fagan]

The processing times are always variable, to a point. Also, they are mainly reliant on temperature and dilution of the chosen developer.

I had a print run this last week with a friend coming over with a few sheets of the new paper; I'm still using my stock of the IV version. Running the paper through a Durst Printo roller transport machine at 30ºC ± 0.5ºC all paper is given 45 seconds of development, then 45 seconds of fixer; very nice paper with subtle differences between IV and V.

At the end of the session we dropped the bath placing some of it into a tray, temperature was probably around 29ºC by then, an image popped up seemingly immediately, but was actually 8-9 seconds, full development was around 30-35 seconds. We pulled two sheets, one at 30 seconds the other at 45 seconds. We could see no difference between either sheet.

Generally Ilford technical data suggests paper developer temperature is best when it is between 20ºC and 30ºC. I agree with this, however I have regularly done their paper around 34ºC with no discernible change. You will always get quicker development with a higher temperature, up to a point. Ilford's B&W papers are no exception to that rule.

Mick.

 

[markbau]

I have noticed that if the paper is wet for much more than about an hour it curls quite a lot when dry, shorter wet times result in a flatter print.

 

[markbau]

They never said 90 seconds for Ilford Multigrade Developer. The datasheets have always said 60 seconds. However, the datasheets also say the image appears faster, whereas it actually appears slower.

In any case, I've stuck with 60 seconds and the results have been fine. Main difference is that the image starts to appear around the 30-second mark, rather than the 15-second mark (give or take).

I still have this nagging feeling that someone screwed up when updating those datasheets, but I'm still waiting for anyone from Ilford to comment on the topic.

Yes, I totally agree, it takes a lot longer to first see an image than IV. How Ilford can say it comes up faster on V is beyond me. I developed in bog-standard Dektol, homebrew D72 and Ansco 130. Same for all developers.