Transition to Ilford MGFB!

[mporter012]

I've been comparing some identical prints I made on RC Pearl last year and Fiber Matt this weekend. The matt prints seem to have a warmer tone and dimensionality, but the RC prints appear sharper and the blacks are blacker and the whites whiter. I think I prefer the fiber, although when side by side, the RC holds its own. I was wondering if the warmer tone in the fiber prints come from the hypo-clear? I find with fiber that once the prints are dry, they appear to be less contrasty than when first pulled out of the final wash. I imagine this is just a perception issue I'm having and will have to get used to.

 

[Jon Shiu]

The reduced contrast is due to the matte surface which cannot produce a good deep black tone. I prefer the glossy fiber, which is worth trying out to see if you like it. The fiber glossy is not as glossy as RC glossy and is close to the Pearl RC in tonality.

Jon

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer glossy.
I prefer fiber to RC. RC is not as archival. If I am going to put in the work to make a print, I want it to last.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Before you get too used to MGIV fiber, please be advised that Ilford doesn't make it anymore. They have replaced it with Multigrade Classic, which is quite different.

 

[mporter012]

Before you get too used to MGIV fiber, please be advised that Ilford doesn't make it anymore. They have replaced it with Multigrade Classic, which is quite different.

Yea the classic is what I'm using. What are the differences between the two?

 

[Roger Cole]

The reduced contrast is due to the matte surface which cannot produce a good deep black tone. I prefer the glossy fiber, which is worth trying out to see if you like it. The fiber glossy is not as glossy as RC glossy and is close to the Pearl RC in tonality.

Jon

This.

FB glossy was ferrotyped in the old days. I've done it. The print is squeegeed face down on a shiny chrome ferrotype plate. When it dries and releases from the plate you have an extremely glossy, shiny finish, great for detail and d-max but subject to distracting reflections (and also air bells if not done carefully.) When I was starting photography in the 70s and early 80s this was already no longer common and air drying FB glossy paper was usually referred to as "fiber base glossy dried matt" or the like, meaning not-ferrotyped. This is the usual way now and you get something in between, not as shiny as a ferrotyped fiber print or an RC glossy, and not as dull and unreflective as a matte surface paper. Matte can look very good for many images but d-max will be better on the glossy (blacker blacks.) RC Pearl and similar variants were developed to try to mimic this look, which some get fairly close to. I remember when pearl came out and it caused quite a sensation. Until then your choices in RC were glossy, which was like modern RC glossy, and matte and the RC matte of the day was usually pretty awful, especially with regard to blacks. I recall one Pop Photo editor saying the Kodak N surface "has all the aesthetic appeal of a dead fish" and after trying it I thought he was being generous. RC mattes are much better now but pearl is still closer to FB glossy.

 

[JackRosa]

Response to bleach

Thomas is correct. They are quite different. The primary differences are:

-MG Classic has lower contrast than MGIV in shadows and highlights
-MG Classic has smoother/more even mid tone gradation than MGIV at the very low contrast grades
-MG Classic has a slightly different print colour than MGIV
-MG Classic responds differently than MGIV to toners
-MG Classic emulsion speed is a little faster than MGIV
-MG Classic apparently washes faster than MGIV

Michael: I also detect a different response to bleaching (with potassium ferricyanide). My impression is that MG Classic responds better to bleaching. Is this also your experience?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Michael: I also detect a different response to bleaching (with potassium ferricyanide). My impression is that MG Classic responds better to bleaching. Is this also your experience?

I'm not Michael, obviously, but I agree with this. I use thiourea toners quite a bit, and bleaching time is significantly shorter with Classic than IV. The colors obtained with selenium toner is also entirely different. With IV I get this dark earthy brown, but with Classic it is a lighter color, like maroon. When I toned the old MGIV in just selenium it went almost pure black first and then acquired this dark chocolate quality that was visible but not in your face perceptible. The Classic gains a lot more color, and I'm not sure I like it as much.

But Ilford Classic will probably continue to be my staple paper, unless I end up liking Fomabrom Variant 123 a lot more than I expect.

 

[Ben 4]

The matt prints seem to have a warmer tone and dimensionality

As you've observed, the fiber papers (both the older MGIV and new Classic) have a base that is not as bright white as the RC. That's part of the warmer look you're seeing.

--Ben

 

[MattKrull]

I prefer glossy.
I prefer fiber to RC. RC is not as archival. If I am going to put in the work to make a print, I want it to last.

Can someone confirm that? I though I read in Larry Bartlett's "Black & White: Photographic Printing Workshop" that when toned RC paper was just as archival as FB? His comments were that the only real reason to chose FB over RC was the texture or individual paper characteristics. I can't check that right now as I'm at work and my copy is at home.

My understanding is that the image is kept in the emulsion layer, and toning turns that silver into something more stable, regardless of whether or not emulsion has penetrated the fibers or sat on top of the resin coat.

The possible issue with RC is that if the paper is soaked too long the edges can go wavy (I forget the exact term used), and if not washed enough, fixer that seeps into the edges can cause discolouration. The proposed solution for that is to just leave larger borders when printing and trip the edges when all the processing/toning is said and done.

 

[JackRosa]

Thanks Thpmas

I'm not Michael, obviously, but I agree with this. I use thiourea toners quite a bit, and bleaching time is significantly shorter with Classic than IV. The colors obtained with selenium toner is also entirely different. With IV I get this dark earthy brown, but with Classic it is a lighter color, like maroon. When I toned the old MGIV in just selenium it went almost pure black first and then acquired this dark chocolate quality that was visible but not in your face perceptible. The Classic gains a lot more color, and I'm not sure I like it as much.

But Ilford Classic will probably continue to be my staple paper, unless I end up liking Fomabrom Variant 123 a lot more than I expect.

THANK you Thomas for sharing your insight and experience with MG Classic. I use bleaching quite often and always thought "old" MG resisted it. I find it much easier to bleach the Classic.

 

[JackRosa]

PS (re: toning)

THANK you Thomas for sharing your insight and experience with MG Classic. I use bleaching quite often and always thought "old" MG resisted it. I find it much easier to bleach the Classic.

PS - I also find Classic's reaction to selenium toning to be quite different from what I used to get with Multigrade. My experience (with toning) parallels yours.

 

[Bob Carnie]

That is not what I observed.. my selenium dilution and time gave me the same expected shift on classic as the older MG4... but I have not really explored this as I prefer the warmtone paper and rarely use it.

PS - I also find Classic's reaction to selenium toning to be quite different from what I used to get with Multigrade. My experience (with toning) parallels yours.

 

[brian steinberger]

That is not what I observed.. my selenium dilution and time gave me the same expected shift on classic as the older MG4... but I have not really explored this as I prefer the warmtone paper and rarely use it.

That's suprising Bob. What developer are you using?

Brian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That is not what I observed.. my selenium dilution and time gave me the same expected shift on classic as the older MG4... but I have not really explored this as I prefer the warmtone paper and rarely use it.

That's really odd, Bob. I wonder if it has to do with what paper developer was used?

I used Ethol LPD, and I replenish it, so it is a bit soft working due to the restrainers. Maybe that has something to do with it.

For me MGIV turns dark brown in the shadows with MGIV, and a lighter more intense maroon with Classic. And with Classic it tones in about 2 minutes while MGIV I have to go 5-6 minutes to get what I want.
I use Harman selenium at about 1:15 dilution, so pretty strong.

Then when I use selenium after sulfide/thiourea toner Classic just explodes with color while MGIV continues to shift subtly.

 

[brian steinberger]

That's really odd, Bob. I wonder if it has to do with what paper developer was used?

I used Ethol LPD, and I replenish it, so it is a bit soft working due to the restrainers. Maybe that has something to do with it.

For me MGIV turns dark brown in the shadows with MGIV, and a lighter more intense maroon with Classic. And with Classic it tones in about 2 minutes while MGIV I have to go 5-6 minutes to get what I want.
I use Harman selenium at about 1:15 dilution, so pretty strong.

Then when I use selenium after sulfide/thiourea toner Classic just explodes with color while MGIV continues to shift subtly.

Thomas, try Kodak selenium toner. In my experience it doesn't go a warm brown as the ilford selenium. With MGIV I got a cold charcoal color. On the new classic I iust get a neutralizing of the greenish cast, but a nice tone none the less. With MGIV I could hammer it for 6-8 minutes at 1:9 whereas with classic I go 5 minutes at 1:19.

As for selenium after sepia how are you doing subtle split toning now? I had no problem doing so on MGIV but haven't tried with classic yet. Seems the new classic tones too aggressive much like the warmtone paper. I may have to resort to oriental paper for those subtle splits. That paper is quite like MGIV.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas, try Kodak selenium toner. In my experience it doesn't go a warm brown as the ilford selenium. With MGIV I got a cold charcoal color. On the new classic I iust get a neutralizing of the greenish cast, but a nice tone none the less. With MGIV I could hammer it for 6-8 minutes at 1:9 whereas with classic I go 5 minutes at 1:19.

As for selenium after sepia how are you doing subtle split toning now? I had no problem doing so on MGIV but haven't tried with classic yet. Seems the new classic tones too aggressive much like the warmtone paper. I may have to resort to oriental paper for those subtle splits. That paper is quite like MGIV.

Ha, that's not going to happen any time soon. I just ordered 5 liters of Harman selenium toner. I'm afraid I'm stuck with that for a goodly long time.

I overcome the Classic toner sensitivity by diluting the bleach more. I use Moersch concentrated bleach at 1:100 for about 15 seconds. Then MT-3 toner at the second lightest mix. That gives just a hint of warmth in the highlights. Then I have to really be careful and dilute the selenium for the second bath.

 

[cliveh]

I prefer glossy.
I prefer fiber to RC. RC is not as archival. If I am going to put in the work to make a print, I want it to last.

Can you please explain why?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Can someone confirm that? I though I read in Larry Bartlett's "Black & White: Photographic Printing Workshop" that when toned RC paper was just as archival as FB?

It just is not so. Many have scientifically tested RC and FB for being archival and RC comes two places after last place.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It just is not so. Many have scientifically tested RC and FB for being archival and RC comes two places after last place.

Some of the subjects I print don't warrant first place! John W

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some of the subjects I print don't warrant first place! John W

Agreed

 

[cliveh]

It just is not so. Many have scientifically tested RC and FB for being archival and RC comes two places after last place.

How are these tests conducted without the use of a time machine?

 

[Sirius Glass]

How are these tests conducted without the use of a time machine?

Search the APUG thread. Look it up in Tim Rudman's Toning for starters.

 

[cliveh]

http://www.hbutz.com/portfolio/hbbuy2.htm

A debate rages on about the archival properties of resin-coated versus fiber-based papers. The debate is not easily resolved, since archival times are measured in hundreds of years. Over the course of centuries (hundreds of years), it has been claimed that the plastic resin emits a corrosive gas which will degrade or destroy the emulsion. The opposing side debates that resins produced in modern photographic papers will not emit this gas. (A similar debate rages on about the archival properties of Compact Discs.) However, by eliminating the resin coating completely in fiber-based papers, the cotton fibers can be saturated with trace amounts of fixer chemicals, which, if present, will degrade the image much quicker than plastic resin gases.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In post #25 you stated

How are these tests conducted without the use of a time machine?

and in post #28 you clearly posted that you knew the answer all along.

http://www.hbutz.com/portfolio/hbbuy2.htm

A debate rages on about the archival properties of resin-coated versus fiber-based papers. The debate is not easily resolved, since archival times are measured in hundreds of years. Over the course of centuries (hundreds of years), it has been claimed that the plastic resin emits a corrosive gas which will degrade or destroy the emulsion. The opposing side debates that resins produced in modern photographic papers will not emit this gas. (A similar debate rages on about the archival properties of Compact Discs.) However, by eliminating the resin coating completely in fiber-based papers, the cotton fibers can be saturated with trace amounts of fixer chemicals, which, if present, will degrade the image much quicker than plastic resin gases.

Trolling, trolling, trolling down the river. Jus' sayin'