Review of Ilford MGRC V

[kumagoro]

Thank you, pentaxuser. Yes, I contacted Ilford twice already but haven't heard back from them, yet. Once I hear from them, I will report what I have experienced so far. Thank you again and have a nice day.

 

[MattKing]

I have started a conversation here on Photrio with Harman Tech Service in order to draw their attention to this thread and the problems you are having.
As a new user, your ability to do that yourself is temporarily restricted.
Hope you get it solved.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I have started a conversation here on Photrio with Harman Tech Service in order to draw their attention to this thread and the problems you are having.
As a new user, your ability to do that yourself is temporarily restricted.
Hope you get it solved.

Or, you could just mention the @Harman Tech Service account in a post (like I did, the preceding @ is mandatory to show them an alert) and they will be notified.

 

[MattKing]

Or, you could just mention the @Harman Tech Service account in a post (like I did, the preceding @ is mandatory to show them an alert) and they will be notified.

Sounds like an excellent subject for a thread in the Ilford Partner sub-forum thhread!

 

[kumagoro]

Thank you everyone - I will purchase the Ilford multigrade developer tomorrow to see whether it works with the MGRC paper I bought. I will keep you informed after I do another test. Thank you.

 

[cowanw]

Just to be sure you might consider exposing a sheet to white room ambient light and developing.

 

[kumagoro]

Hi, cowanw. Thank you for your suggestion. Actually that was what I did as soon as I had this problem - I exposed the paper to the light and developed it - and the paper turned black as it should....

 

[cowanw]

Ah! then there is something about your enlarger process: Fstop or time or something wrong with the filter colours.

 

[R.Gould]

Hi, cowanw. Thank you for your suggestion. Actually that was what I did as soon as I had this problem - I exposed the paper to the light and developed it - and the paper turned black as it should....

Then the problem is not with the film, it is something your end,enlarger,lens,F stop,developer, exposure Ect

 

[kumagoro]

Hello, everybody. Thank you so much for giving me helpful suggestions to the problem I was having. As I said in #205, today I purchased the Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer in the city and printed on the MGRC paper I was having problems with. It just went perfect - I put the paper in the Ilford developer and the image came out nice and clean within a minute. So as many of the people here suggested to me, it was the developer. So the MGRC paper was not defective at all. I really should have tried developing the paper with a different developer from a different company as I just did today BEFORE I got panicked and started to have a doubt on a new paper. So I apologize for taking your valuable time for something I could have solved easily myself. But I really appreciate the warm kindness that the Photrio users have given me with their generous help. Thank you again.

 

[MattKing]

As I posted above, I started a Conversation with Harman Tech Service in order to draw their attention to kumagaro's problem. Neil got back to me, and has now given me his permission to share some of that conversation with the forum.
Quoting from Neil at Harman Tech Service:
"Hi Matt,
Thanks for your message. This is not the first report we have had of issues with Sprint developer and the new Multigrade RC. As a result we did quite a lot of investigation and did acquire some developer direct from Sprint to do some testing here in Mobberley. Unfortunately we weren't able to replicate the results that were being reported in the field, although at least one we know was due to too short a development time. The induction time is slower on the new paper, but full development was still achieved at least with the new Sprint Chemistry we sourced.
So I can't explain why there might be a difference, it's always difficult when it's other manufacturers chemistry as we have little or no insight into their manufacturing process or knowledge of batches / age etc..
It sounds like the paper worked perfectly with MG Developer, which is of course what we recommend, however our testing here suggests broad compatibility with other manufacturers photo chemicals too. Maybe the Sprint developer in question was partially oxidised, I don't know."

and

" I'm not sure why there are issues with Sprint developer though, the developer we acquired from them direct and tested here seemed OK and I had our R&D people look into possible causes, it was inconclusive and I'm not even sure if it's still an issue. At least one example was simply due to the customer under-developing."

One of the things that was clear from the rest of our conversation is that Harman's Tech department is extremely busy right now, not least because of the effects of COVID-19.

 

[kumagoro]

Thank you very much, Matt, for getting opinions from the Harman Tech Service about the new MGRC paper with Sprint developer. I appreciate it very much.

 

[grain elevator]

I've posted about this before, but here's an update and a better pic.
I've found the surface of some of my MGRC V a bit uneven, it showed lines in reflections of bright lights. The good people at Ilford were empathetic at first, but in the end claim that this is in spec. It sure bothers me quite a bit, even though it's invisible when there are no reflections. I can't un-see it. Too bad as I otherwise really like the paper. My boxes from batches 81D and 79A have the uneven surface. 86C is fine. I'd like to hear everyone's opinion about it.
Here's a pic, paper with (IMHO) ugly surface on the left, paper with great surface on the right. I've marked the transition zones of the reflections, where the lines are visible on the left and obviously not on the right. Please excuse the fingerprints.

 

[NB23]

Manufacturing is a COST-CUTTING game where a great product is, after all, a by-product.

Yes I’ve noticed this from the two 250 sheet 5x7 boxes I’ve tried. It’s definitely there.

 

[halfaman]

I've posted about this before, but here's an update and a better pic.
I've found the surface of some of my MGRC V a bit uneven, it showed lines in reflections of bright lights. The good people at Ilford were empathetic at first, but in the end claim that this is in spec. It sure bothers me quite a bit, even though it's invisible when there are no reflections. I can't un-see it. Too bad as I otherwise really like the paper. My boxes from batches 81D and 79A have the uneven surface. 86C is fine. I'd like to hear everyone's opinion about it.
Here's a pic, paper with (IMHO) ugly surface on the left, paper with great surface on the right. I've marked the transition zones of the reflections, where the lines are visible on the left and obviously not on the right. Please excuse the fingerprints.
View attachment 266193

It seems to me like a paper base/ issue.

 

[grain elevator]

It seems to me like a paper base/ issue.

Indeed it does. And Ilford say it is the base, they just don't see it as an issue. What I'd like to know is how acceptable others find this. Ilford tell me no-one else has ever complained about it. To me it means this paper can only ever be used for proofs, but hardly for exhibition prints, and by that I don't mean only gallery exhibition, but also framed as a present for a friend (opening up the can of worms that is the RC vs baryta discussion - to me the strongest argument here is that few have shied away from color materials that have a plastic-y base).