unexplained 'mottle'

[David Lyga]

I have got to get feedback on this.

A few days ago a person was moving to the West Coast and needed to get rid of some darkroom stuff for almost giveaway prices. I was interested in film and paper. Included was a pristine, still fully sealed box of 250 sheets of 8 X 10 Polycontrast III RC that 'expired' in 2006. I 'knew' it was perfect. After all, a couple of months ago I bought some Kodabromide that 'expired' in 1967 (!) and it was virtually perfect.

The 'new' paper was terrible. Let me explain: The immediate edge area, about 1/4th inch from the edge, was clean, but all the rest of each sheet was grayed with ugly mottle even though my enlarged negative's image was visible behind this mottle.

Age-fogged paper I can usually deal with, as its fog is consistent and, thus, can be usually removed with Farmer's Reducer if not too intense. I did not even think that this paper would exhibit ANY fog at all, due to my considerable experience with similar. (I tested much of the film and it was perfect.)

But the mottle baffles me. The box, itself, was as if 'new on the shelf' and, again, it had not been opened. My only thought on this is that it was stored on a hot radiator for a whole winter, but would that not reveal some change in the box appearance also? It is amazing how easily sensitized materials can go bad. Stumped. Help me! - David Lyga

 

[darkosaric]

My bet is on the heat, box is looking good maybe because it was between other boxes? Try Lith printing if you are interested in those kind of techniques (this is how I "save" bad expired papers).

 

[JW PHOTO]

My luck with well outdated RC paper is not very good. Fiber base seems to hold its own over time better I think. I won't buy anymore outdated RC paper, but if somebody gave me some.............Well?

 

[NB23]

It's extremely comon: it's severely fogged paper. The mottle is comon.

 

[NB23]

Lith is good but where fogged paper is best and ideal is when used as a paper negative for 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 pinhole photography. It's just right.

 

[winger]

I'd agree with heat damage. If the box didn't get wet at all, it might not show damage from heat.
In addition to trying lith, you can try some lumen prints.

 

[randyB]

Polycontrast III RC has the developer incorporated in the emulsion and goes bad quicker than most. Of the 250 sheets the middle of the stack might not be as fogged as the top/bottom of the stack. Try developing an unexposed sheet to see how bad the fog is, Anti-fog or Benzo might clear it enough for use as contact sheet paper.

 

[MattKing]

Old paper is always a gamble. Storage conditions are usually unknown, and will affect the results.

I would guess that any variable contrast paper would be more susceptible to "mottle" because the different emulsion components might respond differently.

The developer incorporated in general process paper (not activation process paper) is a potential source of problems, but the amount involved is very small, as it is designed more for contrast control than for speeding the development process. Polycontrast III will not develop in an activation process - there isn't enough developer there.

 

[Jim Noel]

Polycontrast wasn't considered stable when it was on the market. One of the worst products Kodak ever made.

 

[David Lyga]

Jim Noel: thank you for that pejorative statement about Polycontrast. I never dared say that although I often thought that. I always wondered why Ilford was better in the paper department than was Kodak. The somewhat lower contrast of Kodak's grade 2 (compared with other manufacturers) used to annoy me to no end. And, randyB, the incorporated developer does not help, either.

No, NB23, my experience tells me that mottle is not all that common. Out of ten boxes of fogged paper I would estimate only one would be inconsistent (ie, mottle or other deviation). (This specific discovery was very, very annoying and not at all predictable.) The rest, again, in my experience, have a consistent fog which lends itself to correction. But these are all interesting responses. Thank you. - David Lyga

 

[NB23]

David, the world out there is much bigger then your own personal single sample. But if you insist on thinking that it's not a comon form of deeply fogged paper, it's your choice. Where do you want this conversation to go? It's certainly not a magical or satanical box of papers that you got there.

 

[mopar_guy]

David,
Based on my somewhat limited experience with this paper (25 years), the chances of getting a box that has this problem are around 40%.

 

[ic-racer]

Sell it to this guy (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[David Lyga]

Well, mottle is something that I have rarely had to contend with. EVEN fog, is.

MOPAR: by 'this' paper do you mean, specifically, Polycontrast? - David Lyga

 

[mopar_guy]

Polycontrast III, or Polycontrast IV, or Polymax.