Three contemporary papers compared

Yesterday I printed one negative onto three currently available fibre papers, The papers were:
Ilford MG classic
Adox MCC
Bergger Prestige warmtone.

All were developed in Ilford Multigrade developer 1:9 at 20C for 2 minutes.

I found that the Ilford paper is about 1/2 a grade more contrasty than the other two. To match the Ilford print that was printed with a grade 2 1/2 filter the other two papers needed a grade 3 filter. Once contrast matched, I could not see any difference at all between the 3 papers except that the Ilford papers seemed to have slightly better local contrast.

All papers were then toned in KRST at 1:30 (20C, 5 mins) The Ilford paper had a good DMAX shadow increase, the ADOX less so but still noticeable, the Bergger had no visual DMAX increase. (I have never come across a paper that didn't have some increase at 1:30)

Interestingly the Bergeer warmtone and the ADOX did not seem to have any "warmth" on the paperbase untoned but did warm (slightly) on the print that was selenium toned.

In summary, they are all outstanding papers IMHO. I do not think that the ADOX is much like the old Agfa MCC which was quite different to the old Ilford MG IV. It is not at all different to the newer Ilford MG classic.

I will do some bleach and thio re-develop tests on these prints and report back.

I'd love to hear others users experiences with these papers.

Thanks, good to know.

Thanks for the comparison. I currently use Ilford MG Classic and was thinking about trying some Adox MCC. But the Adox paper is more expensive than the Ilford paper and, given your results, now I'm not sure it's worth it.

Edit: I haven't been Selenium toning my prints (I keep hearing how nasty the stuff is) but it would be interesting to see before and after photos of your prints on MG Classic. Wondering how much of a visible difference the increased DMAX makes.

logan2z said:

Thanks for the comparison. I currently use Ilford MG Classic and was thinking about trying some Adox MCC. But the Adox paper is more expensive than the Ilford paper and, given your results, now I'm not sure it's worth it.

Edit: I haven't been Selenium toning my prints (I keep hearing how nasty the stuff is) but it would be interesting to see before and after photos of your prints on MG Classic. Wondering how much of a visible difference the increased DMAX makes.

Click to expand...

Selenium is also for permanence
Selenium is diluted heavily for use...wear gloves and have fresh air or do it outside
Papers used to be much more responsive to toning but as the cadmium went so did the effect
I tone because it's part of the process

logan2z said:

Edit: I haven't been Selenium toning my prints (I keep hearing how nasty the stuff is)

Click to expand...

What Peter said and use tongs.

You should try Bergger CB Warmtone Semi-Gloss as it has a really beautiful ivory base. It's quite a unique paper these days, I think. I use it for pretty much all my current work as it's got a beautiful subtlety to it, although you have to nail the print so it doesn't get muddy with the more muted / warmer white point. I've never toned this paper though, as like others above aren't really keen on getting into selenium again even if it does help permanence.

Was your image High or low in contrast? Repeat your experiment with different contrasts images and maybe try other developers/dilutions. You can bring out differences between these papers with little effort.

Peter Schrager said:

Selenium is also for permanence

Click to expand...

Understood. If I were selling my work I would be more concerned with its longevity but for now it's just for myself. But the increased DMAX might be enough justification for me to start toning with Selenium.

A long time ago when darkroom workers were conversing via usenet there was a long discussion about selenium. I knew a chemical engineer for a major international brewery and gave her all the info I could on Selenium. She came back to me and said short of drinking the stuff it is safer to use than many common household chemicals that are probably living under your sink. She actually said acetic acid was a more dangerous chemical because of what it can do to your mucous membrane. I always use gloves by habit when selenium toning. In short, I think we can relax our fears about selenium toner. Sadly though, it seems some of the modern papers just don't respond to it in the same way the older toners did. At least Ilford MG classic still gives a nice DMax increase!

esearing said:

Was your image High or low in contrast? Repeat your experiment with different contrasts images and maybe try other developers/dilutions. You can bring out differences between these papers with little effort.

Click to expand...

It was a full contrast neg. (not what I would call high contrast) I plan on some more testing with D 72 and Ansco 130 very soon, I'll report back.