Ilford MGV RC paper
Not ordered paper for a while and noticed this new paper Ilford MGV RC.
Anybody tried it? Would be grateful for any experiences. |
I've just done a quick search of this site for any previous reviews of Ilford's new MG V paper, but surprisingly couldn't find anything, so this is the first.
Anyway, I opened my pack of 10" x 8" RC Pearl MG V this week and processed a few prints in Ilford MG developer, at 1 + 9, in my Nova slot processor. I was quite excited to try it, having read reviews elsewhere. Most of my negatives were previously printed on grade 3, on MG IV paper, with the rest of the variables above being the same. Although I read the tech sheet with the paper, I was still quite surprised to see the image appear very quickly, at just 10 seconds in the developer, with a total time of 1 minute. My first print on MG V, when compared to the same print from the negative on MG IV, were VERY different. The new paper produced a print with MUCH more contrast, which was just a bit too much, even for me, who likes a print with good contrast. The second print, using a grade 2 filter, was much better to my eyes. It still had good contrast, as hoped, but it was just right. and the blacks, well, they were just blacker than before, if that's at all possible? So, although I have only done a little bit of testing of the new paper, my first impressions are good and I can see me enjoying using this paper. I've also read other comments from users, most of which agreed with me, but of course there are a few who say that it has too much contrast and that they would be buying up depleting stocks of MG IV. I will have to try and find a dense negative and try printing on grades 0 and 1, to see what the contrast levels are like with those filters, to see if maybe they are exaggerating a bit and could achieve a softer print if required. So, as usual the only way to find out if you like it or not, is to buy some and try it, but if you're like me, I don't think that you'll be disappointed. :) Terry S |
thanks for the response Terry. I will definitely be trying some as I sometimes struggle to get decent contrast.
Incidentally what developer did you use? |
Mgv
I posted a few months ago that I was very pleased with it. It is about 1/2 a stop faster and seems to be a 1/2 to 1 grade harder and a little cooler as well. Actually very similar to the old Kentmere FB even though it is a RC paper.
I will be using it from now on, it is actually better (My opinion) than Kentmere RC but I speak as I find, |
The post I made and comparison prints were posted on the 22nd March 2020
|
Thanks John. Can you post a link to your post. Having trouble finding it.
|
Quote:
Mike |
|
Quote:
Terry S |
Quote:
Tony |
Quote:
Can't have everything I suppose Mike |
I noticed that the paper is very thin it is the first time I have seen the shadow of my finger hold it through the paper.
|
I have tried a few sheets at 8 x 10 given to me by a fellow member on here. I found it to be faster and about 1 contrast grade harder than the previous version. Based on that I have now changed all my paper over to the new version.
|
Paper Thickness
Quote:
This was mentioned in my previous post some months ago to which there is a link on page one of this topic. I checked the boxes of both versions and I saw that both papers are stated to be 190 gsm, which is actually quite a lightweight paper. Then I used both a micrometer and an electronic Vernier calliper to check the actual physical thickness and both instruments indicated that the paper on both versions was .24mm thick and 4 sheets together gave .96mm. So unless Ilford are using a base paper which is slightly more translucent there is no difference in thickness. Whatever the case MG5 is a big step forward and it works well for me. What sort of light are you using to 'see' your fingers through? I have a 25w 6500degree Kelvin LED bulb in my darkroom as an inspection light which is far brighter than a normal tungsten bulb of that power. I found it was almost impossible to see a shadow of my fingers with the paper held 12 inches away from the bulb. |
John I suspect that there is something about the paper which suggests in some people's "minds" that the paper is thinner as I think I recall seeing such a comment on Photrio but quite what it is I have no idea and I have yet to get any MGV paper to see if I will suffer from the same perception.
I should add that I use the word "mind" to indicate perception and not to imply that they are going mad or have weak minds :D Mike |
There is now't wrong with the paper it is more akin to Kentmere RC for it's speed and contrast.
My comment about the thickness of the paper was an observation as I stood look at my results in front of the patio doors on a sunny day. I have just checked MG 4 with a 5 I can see the outline of my fingers more so than with the 4. |
Quote:
But, yes, after trying yesterday, by holding two prints up to the light coming in the window in my conservatory, I too can confirm that I can see the outline of my fingers, with both paper versions, but only in the white margins around each print. Does this bother me? Nope. I've never noticed it and now that I have, why would it bother me? Especially if mounted, it will make no difference at all. I suppose now, I should really check Ilford's FB papers, that I have used as well?... But also thinking about it, the paper has to have some translucence otherwise it would be harder to use for e.g. paper negatives. Terry S |
Translucency
I am this could affect still not convinced but if that is a significant problem the masking frame should possibly have a 37% grey background or the white may degrade the image by reflection back up from the base colour.
I wonder what Ilford would have to say about it? |
I have read on a number of occasions about baseboard reflection and started to place black card under the paper as a precaution but noticed no visible difference. I stopped using it when I replace my old masking frame . I still have not noticed any change.
|
I did measure MGIV RC once but can't remember now if it was 3 or 4 stops attenuation through the paper. Given that the light has to bounce off the baseboard, with even white giving a lot of further attenuation, before it comes back through the paper again before hitting the emulsion from the underside, I suspect the round-trip must be worth something like 10 stops. If anyone has the time, doing a flashing test to find the shortest exposure for a change in density with and without black card under the paper might give interesting results. I suspect no detectable difference, but until the test is done, who can say for sure? ;).
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:06 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.