Film and Darkroom User

Film and Darkroom User (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/index.php)
-   Photography in general (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=49)
-   -   Ilford MGV RC paper (http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13335)

Mike O'Pray 3rd August 2020 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Marlow (Post 134829)
The other thing I found was that I had trouble trying to sepia tone the paper but that might be me. The selenium toning worked as it usually does.

Tony

Tony, I thought I had read somewhere that Ilford had managed to improve its sepia toning quality as well but I recall I mentioned this on FADU and this did not seem to be confirmed by anyone. If I recall Tim Rudman in his Toning Book found that Ilford MGIV RC was certainly not top of the league in sepia toning terms and it would seem that in that respect nothing much has changed from MGIV

Can't have everything I suppose

Mike

photomi7ch 4th August 2020 07:59 AM

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.

Bill 4th August 2020 09:17 AM

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.

John King 4th August 2020 09:28 AM

Paper Thickness
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by photomi7ch (Post 134835)
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.

There is absolutely no difference between the thickness of MG4 and 5!

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.

Mike O'Pray 4th August 2020 11:23 AM

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

photomi7ch 5th August 2020 11:10 AM

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.

Terry S 5th August 2020 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by photomi7ch (Post 134835)
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'd never even contemplated the thickness and the translucence of Ilford's papers up until now.

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

John King 5th August 2020 12:57 PM

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?

photomi7ch 7th August 2020 10:19 AM

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.

Bob 9th August 2020 04:39 PM

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 05:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.