Ilford Multigrade IV vs. Kentmere Fineprint?

I have been looking at the data sheets for these papers; in particular, I
have been considering their characteristic curves.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf

http://www.kentmereusa.com/pdf/Kentmere_Fineprint.pdf

The curves are quite different, so that should help decide on which one I
should select.

The Ilford curves all seem to intersect at a density of about 0.7 but are
separate elsewhere -- in particular, in the highlights. The Kentmere curves
all seem to intersect at a density of about 0.35 and practically overlap the
rest of the way into the highlights. I.e., in the highlights, the Kentmere
paper grades are all the same, whereas the Ilford papers are more like what
I would expect from graded papers. I am not clear if this is an advantage, a
disadvantage, or just in the noise of the measurements.

Another "feature" of the Ilford paper is that the curves are not smooth in
the range of 1.0 to about 1.2 density. It is not clear if this is because
Ilford use three emulsions instead of just two (if that is the case with
Kentmere), or that Ilford plotted their curves more accurately than
Kentmere, or what. And does this "irregularity" make any practical
difference, or is it, again, in the noise level of the measurements.

Has anyone made practical tests on these two papers and, if so, can you
comment on the merits of the two papers?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:50:01 up 6 days, 12:27, 5 users, load average: 4.07, 4.09, 4.13

Originally Posted by Jean-David Beyer

I have been looking at the data sheets for these papers; in particular, I
have been considering their characteristic curves.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf

http://www.kentmereusa.com/pdf/Kentmere_Fineprint.pdf

The curves are quite different, so that should help decide on which one I
should select.

Has anyone made practical tests on these two papers and, if so, can you
comment on the merits of the two papers?

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer

I have not made any test of these papers for characteristic curves etc, but I do prefer the results of the enlargements that I have made on the Ilford R.C and F.B variable contrast papers compared to those I have made on Kentmere VC Select R.C and Fineprint F.B, but others might prefer the Kentmere V.C papers. The best way to find out if you like any particular photographic product is to try it and see.
They are both good products, but which one you like best is down to your own personal preference.

... http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf

I wouldn't put much faith in the published curves. The reality is
very different.

Darkroom Automation http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
publishes paper speed data for use with its enlarging meters and
timers:

http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivfbhd.jpg
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivrchd.jpg

I don't have data on Kentmere VC, but I doubt that the curves don't
also resemble roller-coasters.

VC paper has two problems:

o A hill-and-dale response at low contrast grades
o Highlight contrast that doesn't change much with paper grade

The problems are inherent to the principle by which VC paper works.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Originally Posted by Nicholas O. Lindan

VC paper has two problems:
o A hill-and-dale response at low contrast grades
o Highlight contrast that doesn't change much with paper grade
The problems are inherent to the principle by which VC paper works.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Some interesting products, the enlarging meter is tempting. Does it work with graded papers such as Gallerie, Ilfospeed, Kentona etc? Test strip are easy enough, but...........................

"Keith Tapscott." wrote

Some interesting products, the enlarging meter is tempting. Does it work
with graded papers such as Gallerie, Ilfospeed, Kentona etc?

Certainly, it works with any paper.

Test strips are easy enough.............

And even easier with an f-stop timer.............

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
... http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf

I wouldn't put much faith in the published curves. The reality is
very different.

I think I would trust published curves by the manufacturers; I have found
them usually accurate. The main problem I find is they are not precise
enough; i.e., they are too small to be read meaningfully. Also, with these
VC papers, the manufacturers plot them differently. Some let the curves
intersect at density 0.2 to 0.4, which could be useful (e.g., Kentmere) and
others let them intersect at a density of about 0.7 (around Zone V), which
is useful in a different way. But doing this makes comparison's very difficult.

Darkroom Automation http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
publishes paper speed data for use with its enlarging meters and
timers:

http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivfbhd.jpg
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivrchd.jpg

I don't have data on Kentmere VC, but I doubt that the curves don't
also resemble roller-coasters.

VC paper has two problems:

o A hill-and-dale response at low contrast grades

I do not know how important that is. I have recently bought a box of the
Ilford paper (since I liked their graded Galerie paper in the past). I put a
Kodak T-14 step wedge in my enlarger and then made prints with a lot of
different settings on my cold light head (two tubes with one green and one
purplish blue. I did not plot points close enough to see hill-and-dale
response (I am not saying it is not there, just that I did not notice it).
I think I see what you mean on the Ilford curves between densities 1.0 to
about 1.3. I have made only a few "real" prints and do not notice it.

o Highlight contrast that doesn't change much with paper grade

This is clearly shown in the Kentmere curves where they plot them to
intersect in the very high zones (VIII and IX), but less clearly in the
Ilford curves where they intersect at about zone V.

The problems are inherent to the principle by which VC paper works.



--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 16:35:01 up 19 days, 1:55, 5 users, load average: 4.10, 4.31, 4.26

"Jean-David Beyer" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
...
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf

I wouldn't put much faith in the published curves. The reality is
very different.

I think I would trust published curves by the manufacturers; I have found
them usually accurate.

Have you compared them with measurements? Ilford's published
curves are honest in shape though so scrunched up they conceal
more than they reveal.

At one paper maker they used single 3rd order polynomials for
the curves: Smooth as a baby's backside and twice as full of
poop. The dead giveaway is that the toes are all identical with
the shoulders.

The main problem I find is they are not precise enough
i.e., they are too small to be read meaningfully.

"If I can't read it, I trust it." Jean, please, tell me
you didn't say that.

The curves and tables on the Darkroom Automation web site
are designed to let you place tones exactly where you want them.
For this reason they have to show the paper's real response -
warts, crooked toes, swayed backs, gimp shoulders and all.

As an example, say you have a hankering for a sky with a density
of 1.6 (Zone II) on grade 2.5 MGIV FB - you look at the curve and
see that 1.6 OD requires 8.2 stops of exposure.
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivfbhd.jpg

You then meter the sky and the meter shows 3.5 stops of light
intensity, the base exposure is 3 stops (2^3 = 8 seconds) so
you set the timer for a burn of 1.7 stops to give a total
exposure of 8.2 (3.5 + 3 + 1.7 = 8.2) to the sky. When dry
the burned in sky will measure 1.6 (or very close to) OD on
the densitometer.

The principle is much like the EV system:

Total Exposure = Stops of light + Stops of time

If you know the exposure required for the tone you want then
precision printing without test strips is a snap.

And, for this sort of work the published curves are useless.

The manufacturers plot them differently. Some let the curves
intersect at density 0.2 to 0.4, which could be useful (e.g., Kentmere)
and others let them intersect at a density of about 0.7 (around Zone V)

No. It's not the plots that are different. It's the papers.
Ilford MGIV's lower-grades locus is different in the RC and FB papers.

I do not know how important that is. I have recently bought a box of the
Ilford paper

Well, if you have detail where the paper curve hits a flat spot then
suddenly you don't have any detail anymore. MGIV FB WT has a real
ledge in the 00 curve. OTOH, I have never used the 00 filter except
for occasional forays into split-filter land. 99.99% of my printing
is at grades 1.5 and higher, where curves for VC papers are better
behaved. I find that to control highlight contrast with VC paper
I need to flash and bleach (along with a great dollop of luck).

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Jean-David Beyer" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
...
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/download....2013402375.pdf
I wouldn't put much faith in the published curves. The reality is
very different.

I think I would trust published curves by the manufacturers; I have found
them usually accurate.

Have you compared them with measurements? Ilford's published
curves are honest in shape though so scrunched up they conceal
more than they reveal.

I have looked at the curves and decided to test Ilford's paper first. I do
not really like testing, though I do it. I have then tested Ilford's
Multigrade IV and figured out how much of blue and how much of green to get
each of the even contrast grades. I did this by placing a Kodak T-14 step
wedge in my enlarger and printing a test strip from it. I first determined
the exposure time required so I could use f/11 on my 180mm Componon-S to
make and 11x14 enlargement with the density 0.9 step giving Zone V on the
paper (I use a little more density than most people so I get deep enough
blacks with Zone 0 and Zone I). I did this first with equal amounts of blue
and green, assuming that that would come out with about grade 2, and that
seems to be the case.

I then changed reduced the green to get grade 3, 4, and 5 (had to turn the
green completely off for that one). I had to increase the aperture as I
reduced the green, as expected. Then I went the other way, to get grades 1,
0, and 00. Here, too, I had to increase the aperture to preserve the 0.9
step to get Zone V on the paper. So now I have a little chart for that.

I have a Beseler PM-?? enlarging meter (meant for color) that speeded up
this testing a lot. But I did not actually plot the curves, since I do not
have a reflection densitometer, and even if I did, the steps are only 0.15
apart on the step wedge. On the 00 grade, I can see the most steps, and the
paper is good enough that no two steps look the same. Of course, the harder
the grade, the fewer steps appear.

ILFORD Multigrade IV; D-72 1+2 2 Minutes 75°F; 22 Sec Exp; 180mm lens; max
height. D-72 1+2
GRADE SOFT HARD F/ Low step High step Difference
00 MAX OFF 8 1 13 12
0 MAX B- 10 1 12 11
1 MAX F 10 2 12 10
2 MAX MAX 11 2 11 9
3 E MAX 10 3 11 8
4 MIN MAX 9 4 11 7
5 OFF MAX 8 4 10 7

The dials for the green and blue light are labeled OFF, A to H.

So if I expose my negatives correctly, I should be able to print without
test strips. I normally came out very close with Kodak's Elite paper which
was the one I spent the most time with.

At one paper maker they used single 3rd order polynomials for
the curves: Smooth as a baby's backside and twice as full of
poop. The dead giveaway is that the toes are all identical with
the shoulders.

That would certainly be an unlikely result. ;-)

The main problem I find is they are not precise enough
i.e., they are too small to be read meaningfully.

"If I can't read it, I trust it." Jean, please, tell me
you didn't say that.

Sorry, I said that, but there is some interpretation required. I thought I
implied that they were correct as closely as I could read them. I am more
inclined to believe the Ilford curves than the Kentmere ones just because of
the irregularities in the curve in the density range of about 1.0 to 1.3. If
I drew made-up curves, I would never have put the lump in there. For all I
know, that might be a valuable feature, though my intuition militates
against it.

The curves and tables on the Darkroom Automation web site
are designed to let you place tones exactly where you want them.
For this reason they have to show the paper's real response -
warts, crooked toes, swayed backs, gimp shoulders and all.

I think the curves on that site represent actual measurements, and they are
probably good enough to use. Certainly better than the published curves for
the papers I have seen. Too bad they did not do any other papers. And I
assume they did it for papers all in one batch, not over several years of
production.

As an example, say you have a hankering for a sky with a density
of 1.6 (Zone II) on grade 2.5 MGIV FB - you look at the curve and
see that 1.6 OD requires 8.2 stops of exposure.
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/support/mgivfbhd.jpg

You then meter the sky and the meter shows 3.5 stops of light
intensity, the base exposure is 3 stops (2^3 = 8 seconds) so
you set the timer for a burn of 1.7 stops to give a total
exposure of 8.2 (3.5 + 3 + 1.7 = 8.2) to the sky. When dry
the burned in sky will measure 1.6 (or very close to) OD on
the densitometer.

The principle is much like the EV system:

Total Exposure = Stops of light + Stops of time

I am not totally clear what you are doing here.

What I do is look at the scene and see what exposures I need to get the
various parts of the scene on the film, and I usually expose so that what I
want on Zone V of the print comes out with a net density of 0.9 on the film.
I check to make sure that the darkest stuff where I want detail is between
Zone II or III, and the lightest stuff where I want detail is between Zone
VII or not much more than VIII.

Then when I go to print it, I make sure that the Zone V thing on the
negative prints about 18% grey, which is easy enough because my enlarging
meter will tell me what aperture I need.

Now sometimes the first print is good enough, but I usually have to make 1/2
stop or even 1-stop adjustment just because it looks better. Because when
originally exposing the negative, I think I want something on Zone IV, and
then, when printing, I change my mind. I guess I am saying that my technique
is better than my vision. ;-)

If you know the exposure required for the tone you want then
precision printing without test strips is a snap.

Sure.

And, for this sort of work the published curves are useless.

I agree. That is why I plot the stuff myself. I certainly can meter when
exposing the film and put any particular Zone where I want it, and when I
process the film, things generally come out within about 1/2 stop of where I
want them. And if they do, I suppose I could make a print without test strips.

As a practical matter, I make test strips only when calibrating film or
paper. I do have a Macbeth TD-901 transmission densitometer for negative
calibrations, but I never came up with the money for a reflection
densitometer. I did make a reflection step wedge with 10 steps, where the
lightest step is as white as the paper gets, and the darkest step is as dark
as I can get it from a clear negative, and the steps in between seem about
equally spaced to my eye, and the step that should be Zone V pretty much
matches my 18% gray card.

The manufacturers plot them differently. Some let the curves
intersect at density 0.2 to 0.4, which could be useful (e.g., Kentmere)
and others let them intersect at a density of about 0.7 (around Zone V)

No. It's not the plots that are different. It's the papers.

In thinking about it recently, I have come to the same conclusion. I wonder
if they make the papers that way intentionally, or if it just happens that
way and there is little they can do about it with the processes they use to
make the stuff.

Ilford MGIV's lower-grades locus is different in the RC and FB papers.

Strange, but I do not care what their RC papers do.

I do not know how important that is. I have recently bought a box of the
Ilford paper

Well, if you have detail where the paper curve hits a flat spot then
suddenly you don't have any detail anymore. MGIV FB WT has a real
ledge in the 00 curve.

I have never even used 0 grade. By the time I need that, I must have really
screwed up in making the negative. If a scene needs that much contraction,
either in developing the negative, or selection of paper grade, it is my
experience that the local contrast is too low and I better revisualize the
whole thing and make a completely different negative; e.g., letting shadows
go completely black on purpose, or letting the highlights burn out on
purpose. But usually, I need to change the concept entirely so that I do not
have to deal with this.

OTOH, I have never used the 00 filter except
for occasional forays into split-filter land. 99.99% of my printing
is at grades 1.5 and higher, where curves for VC papers are better
behaved. I find that to control highlight contrast with VC paper
I need to flash and bleach (along with a great dollop of luck).

I noticed with graded papers, I mostly used grade 2 and grade 3, and that my
grade 4 paper tended to fog and die before I used it all up. I try to make
everything print on grade 2, but I am not as fanatic about that as some
people think Ansel Adams was. I know his darkroom in Yosemite had many
brands and grades of paper in it.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 06:25:01 up 19 days, 15:45, 4 users, load average: 4.45, 4.27, 4.08

Originally Posted by Nicholas O. Lindan

Test strips are easy enough.............[/i][/color]

And even easier with an f-stop timer.............
--
Nicholas O. Lindan

(And even easier with an f-stop timer) Perhaps, but I already have a good enlarger timer.

"Keith Tapscott." wrote

(And even easier with an f-stop timer) Perhaps, but I already have a
good enlarger timer.

If you set it in seconds then it is the wrong sort of timer.

Just because one grew up with a concept doesn't mean a bloody
thing if the concept is wrong: The Earth is flat and the
center of the universe - the planets are in orbit about it;
Tossing virgins into the volcano keeps it from erupting;
Smelly air causes yellow fever; Grain spontaneously generates
mice; Violets keep away the plague; Enlargers are
controlled in seconds.

ASA dial: 1 click = 1 stop (well, 1/3 of a stop)
Shutter speed dial: 1 click = 1 stop
Camera apertu 1 click = 1 stop
Enlarger apertu 1 click = 1 stop
Enlarger timer: 1 click = fill in the blank with the logical answer

People buy f-Stop timers and they never go back. There
is a reason, and it isn't hard to figure out: the timer
is designed for controlling _exposure_. Gralabs were designed
to control bread ovens and tire vulcanizers.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index2.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com