View Full Version : What fibre-base paper has the highest black density?
I gave my photo work a rest for a couple of years, and find that a few new papers have appeared.
In the past I've used a variety of papers, preferring graded Oriental Seagull and similar, but those are NLA.
I use Fuji Acros, which can achieve a density above 4.0.
I'd like a paper that will come close to that range.
Any recommendations as to max black / best tonal scale?
TIA
- Leigh
Most DWFB papers of today have an excellent Dmax, so there are many choices, but developer choice/dilution/and dev time will be key, as well as choice of cold/warm/neutral tone and choice of surface (glossy for max black), etc...
Cold tone papers will tend to go to that hard/contrasty look, and more difficult to fan out delicate midtones, and the blacks block up fast before the highlights have had time to develop out fully...
Warmtones developed warm usually have the weakest blacks, but a full long scale (and a funny color too)...
I prefer printing neutral tone by printing with a cooler looking warmtone (like Seagull MG warmtone) and developing it in the old Agfa 100 neutral tone formula (1:1 or 1:2) that has a good black (looks a little green wet, but drys to a nice, open black with many steps down to max black), fans out to a brilliant wide scale, has a very detailed fine paper grain with a nice edge, excellent detailed highlights, and you can trim the contrast with a colorhead on the lamphouse, and not so fast so you have time to manipulate/dodge/burn and blend it well (but often it can print with little to no alterations, so very forgiving)... So good for printing a brilliant longer scale effect... (But the MG range is shorter than other MG papers...) So that's a possibility... (But the Ilford WT will usually have a strong color cast, and the shadow/Dmax areas can be a little severe, so more difficult to evenly fan out the tones...)
Hope this helps, and good luck/happy printing,
Steve K
Michael R
25-Sep-2016, 05:32
I gave my photo work a rest for a couple of years, and find that a few new papers have appeared.
In the past I've used a variety of papers, preferring graded Oriental Seagull and similar, but those are NLA.
I use Fuji Acros, which can achieve a density above 4.0.
I'd like a paper that will come close to that range.
Any recommendations as to max black / best tonal scale?
TIA
- Leigh
Depending on how you measure reflection density, most current glossy FB papers will top out in the 2-2.2 range, with warmer toned papers being on the higher end and cold toned papers on the lower end. Selenium toning can increase max black slightly. Note our ability to discern density differences decreases as reflection density increases, so it really isn't worth worrying about say 2.1 vs 2.15. In practice these are trivial differences at best.
With respect to tonal scale, many enlarging papers are similar. The new Ilford papers (MG Classic and MG Cooltone) are a little different, having a longer toe and shoulder. There are still a few graded papers, and of course there are a few nice contact/chloride options too.
My current preferred papers are Adox MCC 110 and Ilford MG Classic.
Not sure if you are into cooler or warmer tones, enlarging vs contact printing. Welcome back to the darkroom!
Are you using an enlarger or making contact prints?
ic-racer
25-Sep-2016, 06:09
One of the rather striking conclusions drawn from a study of the data presented is that the maximum print density is on the average considerably below the available density of the positive material. Control of Photographic Printing by Measured Characteristics of the Negative. LA Jones and CN Nelson, October 1942 J.O.S.A. Vol 32
Analysis of 200 negatives on which prints were made at different exposure levels and contrast grades. Prints judged by a panel of observers.
Bill Burk
25-Sep-2016, 07:04
I'm not sure how you get a DMax of 4.0 with reflection measurement.
If you are taking a transmission measure of print to establish density, well you are including the paper base which may be irrelevant... you could just as well mount the print to get a higher reading...
I certainly understand your wish to use the best, and judge the look you want from your paper by the rich, dark blacks...
The glossy ones...
I remember a test someone wrote up years ago (20-25 yrs?) -- measuring the black vs. the silver content of the papers' emulsions. No correlation, which I found interesting.
David Karp
25-Sep-2016, 10:09
I don't use any fancy measuring devices. I just print. My favorite paper right now is Adox MCC 110. I have not tried the MG Classic or Cooltone.
Bruce Barlow
25-Sep-2016, 10:18
It ain't about only D-max. Different papers look...different. Try a few, make matching prints of the same negative, and look at them. It is entirely subjective, which it should be.
Been there, done that, long ago. Of all the papers I tested, Ilford Galerie is the only survivor that scored consistently near teh top of all comparisons.
Mostly, though, have some fun with it!
I'm not sure how you get a DMax of 4.0 with reflection measurement.
Hi Bill,
The 4.0 is transmission density of the Acros negative.
The goal is to compress that into a paper with a max tonal range so I can hold both shadow and highlight detail.
Thanks.
- Leigh
Peter De Smidt
25-Sep-2016, 10:40
Why would you expose and develop Acros to that high of density? Grade 2 papers are intended for use with max density of about 1.35, including film base plus fog.
Why would you expose and develop Acros to that high of density?
Grade 2 papers are intended for use with max density of about 1.35, including film base plus fog.
I develop to that range to resolve subject detail over a range of luminance values.
Shooting often in woods, there can be a huge difference between highlights and shadows, all of which
have detail that should be captured and resolved.
Acros is an amazing film. Its density curve does not flattop. It just keeps going.
I have no idea what its true Dmax would be if developed to terminus.
I develop in either Rodinal (1:50 or 1:100) or Diafine with minimal agitation.
Both are compensating developers, so the highlight detail is excellent.
A 1.35 Dmax is a yellow highlighter on a bread wrapper.
- Leigh
Peter De Smidt
25-Sep-2016, 11:16
Yeah, why would anyone try to produce negatives that are generally matched to the printing process, while leaving some room to both increase and decrease contrast using standard methods in the printing stage?
Bill Burk
25-Sep-2016, 15:34
Hi Bill,
The 4.0 is transmission density of the Acros negative.
The goal is to compress that into a paper with a max tonal range so I can hold both shadow and highlight detail.
Thanks.
- Leigh
I'm so sorry.... I totally misread your original post.
Talking about film that can reach a DMax of 4.0
No, even though the film can reach DMax of 4.0, you never really want to have negatives that use that 4.0 density. Maybe once in a rare while in a few spectral highlights that you want paper white (or for graphic arts, line-art and other lithographic purposes). But most of the time you want your important white to match the contrast grade of the paper.
This is where the idea of controlling your development so that the density of your important part of the picture falls within a reasonable range...
You want to make really flat negatives so that the difference in shadow to highlight falls roughly around...
Grade 4 ~ 0.73
Grade 3 ~ 0.88
Grade 2 ~ 1.05
Grade 1 ~ 1.28
So if you are careful and your shadows are falling around 0.20, then you would want your important highlight to fall around 1.25 if you are aiming for Grade 2.
Artistic sensibility tells you what grade of paper to really use for a particular negative, I wouldn't want to tell you to print that example negative on Grade 2... it might look better at Grade 1 or Grade 3... You will find almost every write-up weasels out of trying to nail down the paper grade for a negative... I'll weasel out the same.
But the main thing is - don't go for the 4.0 on your negative...
Bill Burk
25-Sep-2016, 16:01
Yeah, why would anyone try to produce negatives that are generally matched to the printing process, while leaving some room to both increase and decrease contrast using standard methods in the printing stage?
I think you're being cynical here?
Look, even the greats mess up here. The thought of matching subject to density of negative and then to scale of paper which is then black to white... gets everyone a little looped. Even when they are pointing out that the topic is often confusing.
Here. I'll quote from Ansel Adams, Making a Photograph. 1935 (1948 edition):
"Contrast in development is often confused with contrast in exposure. Relative densities are produced by exposure, and are revealed by development as relative opacities. The opacity ratio of the image should be in relation to intensities of the subject as the opacities are translated into the brilliancies of the print."
I really think his phrase should be "Relative intensities are produced by exposure," I don't know why nobody ever caught that. Unless someone can explain to me how Ansel Adams could be correct saying that exposure produces densities....
Bill Burk
25-Sep-2016, 16:20
Now, if you really have a stockpile of negatives with density ranges so great that the prints you make enlarged using grade 0 or 1 filter seem too contrasty and you can't reduce the contrast enough to make the print look good.
Then you could look into alternative processes for those negatives. For example platinum/palladium. Those will make fine prints from negatives that have impossible density ranges for enlarging.
Then you could look into alternative processes for those negatives. For example platinum/palladium.
Those will make fine prints from negatives that have impossible density ranges for enlarging.
I had been considering that for a while.
Perhaps I should pursue it. Thanks.
- Leigh
Perhaps I misstated my original question.
I want to use a paper that will give me the widest achievable range of densities.
This will provide the most vibrant visual presentation when properly lit (tungsten).
This is totally divorced from the negative being used for the print.
- Leigh
Maybe Lodima with contact printing? Azo had an excellent tonal range.
"Shooting often in woods, there can be a huge difference between highlights and shadows, all of which
have detail that should be captured and resolved."
Why "should" all if it be captured and resolved? Brett Weston had no problem with blacks and lack of detail in some areas of his images. So do others. Your idea is similar to thinking all 88 keys on the piano should be used for each piece of music. It just isn't so with either one.
Why "should" all if it be captured and resolved? Brett Weston had no problem with blacks and lack of detail in some areas of his images. So do others. Your idea is similar to thinking all 88 keys on the piano should be used for each piece of music. It just isn't so with either one.
Willie,
You're mistaking your personal aesthetic opinion for a universal truth.
It just isn't so.
While it might be of significance to you, it's of no interest to me.
- Leigh
Bill Burk
25-Sep-2016, 21:15
One thing that totally sucks is...
A ferrotyped print gives the greatest density range from white to black.
So I am sure you would want to add the additional requirement for what you are looking for... "without ferrotyping".
Maybe the question could be thus:
What's your favorite paper and what kind of DMax do you get from it?
My favorite is Ilford Galerie developed in Dektol 1:2 for 3 minutes toned in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1:20 and I just read a typical print of mine and got a density range from 0.05 to 2.12
One thing that totally sucks is...
A ferrotyped print gives the greatest density range from white to black.
So I am sure you would want to add the additional requirement for what you are looking for... "without ferrotyping".
Maybe the question could be thus:
What's your favorite paper and what kind of DMax do you get from it?
My favorite is Ilford Galerie developed in Dektol 1:2 for 3 minutes toned in Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner 1:20 and I just read a typical print of mine and got a density range from 0.05 to 2.12
Hi Bill,
Thanks for the comments.
True, I have not ferrotyped a print in over 50 years. I used a ferrotype print dryer back then.
I too like Ilford Galerie. I still have a bunch of it.
I think it's only available graded, not variable contrast.
Probably everyone agrees that photography is a (sometimes uncomfortable) marriage of art and science.
As a retired engineer, I tend to err mostly to the technical side rather than the artistic.
- Leigh
Jerry Bodine
25-Sep-2016, 21:43
I too like Ilford Galerie. I still have a bunch of it.
I think it's only available graded, not variable contrast.
That's right, Leigh. Here's Ilford's availability list for Galerie:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/productlist.asp?n=20&t=Photographic+Papers
Thanks, Jerry. I appreciate the link.
- Leigh
To put this in perspective...
A few years ago I did a series shooting fire engines on a sunny day in direct sunlight.
Do you have any idea how many specular highlights you get from that much chrome?
Those regularly hit 4.0 density in the negative, and belong there.
In that situation I can expose to resolve brush marks in the white lettering on the door.
On the same negative I can read the lettering on the black tires shaded in the tire wells.
I want this information to be present in the print.
Of course I'm not going to expose a concrete sidewalk so that it hits 4.0 density on the negative.
That would be insane (perhaps I quality).
- Leigh
Where the specular highlight is density-wise doesn't matter, if you want it paper-white. Where the slightest amount of grey, almost-white is, density-wise, would be the question, no? If it's at a density of 3, I think it's clear you are overdeveloping your negatives and no paper in the world will let you silver print that (with proper tonal scale for the rest of the image).
A long time ago when I first started shooting 4x5 I shot a ton of T-Max 100 and developed it per the normal Kodak recommendations. The trick was I was using BTZS tubes and constant agitation which made the negative's density scale go through the roof. I could wrangle an okay scan (just really grainy) but when I tried printing them traditionally I couldn't get a single decent print. Everything was blown to hell. Finally I did some proper ZS testing and found my "normal" development to be like 30% less time. I then read about rotary development and how that agitation method can make the contrast go up and push the density, so I had discovered the problem.
This applies regardless of your "personal aesthetic opinion." Meter for what you want clearly visible as a shadow and place it at Zone III, or what you want as "black" in Zone I/II, then check the highlights (just less than white) and develop accordingly to place them at the top of the scale, as can be recorded on your paper - a.k.a. Zone VII or VIII.
Personally I am a lot more lax these days on the ZS stuff but I still think about all of this. I couldn't care less what my "DMax" is for the film I'm shooting but I know I can't let the highlights push much past Zone VIII. Once I started at least thinking about this stuff and developing N-whatever (sometimes N-3 or 4 depending on the situation) I got negatives that were much easier to both scan and print. If you already shot a bunch of negatives and developed them to crazy densities I think you aren't going to be able to silver print them properly. Possibly you can by burning the heck out of the highlights. Perhaps get a high-quality scan from a scanner that can push through that density and send it out for either lightjet printing or reprint directly to a new negative for you to print.
There's no magic bullet paper to fix wildly mismanaged negatives.
Doremus Scudder
26-Sep-2016, 02:02
To put this in perspective...
A few years ago I did a series shooting fire engines on a sunny day in direct sunlight. ... In that situation I can expose to resolve brush marks in the white lettering on the door. On the same negative I can read the lettering on the black tires shaded in the tire wells.
I want this information to be present in the print. ...
- Leigh
Leigh,
I've been waiting to answer for a while, wanting to read what others have suggested and see your responses. Now I'm ready to comment.
First, the negative and the print are a closed system: at a given print exposure, density x on the negative will produce density y on the print. In order to effectively use the available density range of a paper (say Galerie with a range from ~0.2 - 2.15) in a straight print at optimum print exposure, the range of densities in the negative cannot exceed the exposure range of the paper. Since most projection papers have a maximum exposure range of less than 1.3 (and that's for the lowest contrast grades/settings!), it only stands to reason that information outside this range on a negative will simply NOT get translated into print densities without manipulations of some sort.
Of course, dodging and burning allow just this to some extent by giving different areas of the print different exposures. Masking is a further step in attenuating negative density range to match the print exposure range.
Still, if you plan on working with a negative with a density range approaching 4.0 that you want to squeeze into the paper exposure range, you're going to have some problems. First, the separation between adjacent tones on the negative will be much larger than the usual desired visual separation on the print. Low midtones will render black and high midtones render white with an intermediate print exposure. All the other tones will be past the limits of tonal resolution, i.e., either black or white with no separation. Or you could favor one end or the other, letting the other extreme disappear. This isn't what you want if I understand you correctly.
While I sympathize with your desire to retain all the detail in your negatives, you should know this: You don't have to have a huge density range on your negative to get a lot of information on it. If you had developed one of your 4.0-density-range negatives less, all that info would still be there, just not as separated in density range (and maybe a whole lot easier to translate to a print). I have negatives that print well on grade 2+ paper (with a bit of work) that captured scenes with a subject luminescence range from Zone II through Zone XII (a 10-stop range). The prints show detail in the lowest shadows and the brightest highlights.
Bottom line: If you really want all the information available in a high-contrast scene to be visible in the print, you should be striving to achieve a density range for the important information in your negative that corresponds (roughly at least) to the density range of the printing paper you wish to use. Refinements of this include e.g., intentionally exceeding that range in the negative in order to retain midtone separation and then dodging and burning to bring in the extremes (or masking for the same reason).
There is a whole science of tone reproduction and sensitometry that deals with this as well as exposure/development systems like the Zone System and BTZS, all of which I'm sure you're aware of, and which were intended to facilitate this matching of negative density range to paper exposure range. There's not really any way you are going to be able to avoid the laws of physics here.
For negative that you already have that have such an extreme density range, there are options, traditional and digital, but that's another can of worms.
Best,
Doremus
Hi Guys,
Well, it appears I screwed up. Memory ain't what it should be.
I decided to investigate this further since I've been developing and printing Acros successfully for over 20 years. I've generally been pleased with the prints, but I think they could be better.
I just pulled out some old Across datasheets and found the D / log H density charts.
It seems the Dmax varies from 1.5 to 2.5 depending on development time.
This is obviously quite different from the 4.0 that I had been quoting.
I found that 4.0 value some years ago and it stuck in my mind.
Given that I can't edit earlier posts, there's no way I can correct it in those.
My apologies for the error.
The question of which paper has the highest Dmax remains. As mentioned in the OP, I'm coming back after a couple of years hiatus in my photography and find there are some new papers with which I'm not familiar. I'm wondering if any of those have better Dmax than traditional ones.
Thanks very much.
- Leigh
If you are contact printing or have the right type of enlarger try Lodima paper in Amidol developer with a water bath during development. Can handle negetives with excess contrast as you have been describing.
Doremus Scudder
26-Sep-2016, 08:36
Hi Guys,
Well, it appears I screwed up. Memory ain't what it should be. I decided to investigate this further since I've been developing and printing Acros successfully for over 20 years. I've generally been pleased with the prints, but I think they could be better.
I just pulled out some old Across datasheets and found the D / log H density charts. It seems the Dmax varies from 1.5 to 2.5 depending on development time. This is obviously quite different from the 4.0 that I had been quoting. I found that 4.0 value some years ago and it stuck in my mind. ...
The question of which paper has the highest Dmax remains. As mentioned in the OP, I'm coming back after a couple of years hiatus in my photography and find there are some new papers with which I'm not familiar. I'm wondering if any of those have better Dmax than traditional ones.
Thanks very much. - Leigh
Leigh,
Join the club! Your present density range seems much more workable!
As for papers: I use a couple graded papers as standard and switch to VC when needed. Galerie, Slavich and Fomabrom are in my arsenal. They all have good blacks. I've also been pleased with the Adox MC110. I've heard good things about the Fomabrom Variant and am anxious to try that. I like neutral to cold tone papers with a pure white base that then warm up a bit in the direction of brownish-purple when selenium toned.
All these papers have good blacks. D-max can be upped a bit on all of them with selenium toning. However, what makes blacks in a print sing is not necessarily D-max, but rather the relationship of the tones. If you're not happy with blacks in your prints, it is likely a negative exposure or development issue.
Best,
Doremus
bob carnie
26-Sep-2016, 08:55
I use a Galerie based paper in lambda to wet process, it is very nuetral black and white paper.
Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 09:00
You seem to be confusing negative transmission density with reflective paper DMax. Too dense a negative simply might not print well at all. Paper "blackness"
depends on a number of things: the specific paper itself and how much silver it carries, your specific developer and length of development, and the effect of toners afterwards, which are often necessary to obtain the deepest blacks. Then there is the color of black you desire, which affects all the foregoing. Among warm trending papers, MGWT will render a wonderfully deep black after selenium or gold toning. The last premium graded paper on the market capable of a deep cold tone seems to be Ifobrom Galerie. Otherwise, matching negative density to the final print can be a rather involved discussion with many variables and endless opinions. But per paper, you kinda get what you pay for. Cheaper papers tend to be anemic.
Jerry Bodine
26-Sep-2016, 09:23
...Memory ain't what it should be...
Approaching 82, memory is fine, but there are apparent issues with recall.
Drew Wiley
26-Sep-2016, 10:18
As I sorta recall, Total Recall transpired on Mars, not on earth, so that kinda explains my own memory issues.
Mark Sampson
26-Sep-2016, 17:23
Leigh, your idea of a 4.0 dMax probably drives from E-6 transparency film, which will go that high.
I have not tried many of the currently available papers, and my experience at Kodak is far enough back that the knowledge from those days is functionally obsolete. I currently print on Ilford Multigrade Classic and am pleased with my prints. Although there are several long-gone emulsions that I wish I could still use, I try not to dwell on them.
Hi Mark,
The 4.0 was a mind-crash. I corrected it to a range from 1.5 to 2.5 depending on development.
But I can't go back and edit the earlier posts.
Thanks.
- Leigh
Jim Michael
26-Sep-2016, 20:15
Where does Oriental Seagull rate these days?
Drew Wiley
27-Sep-2016, 16:01
It ain't. The rumor is that the older Seagull G couldn't be exactly replicated because cadmium became a no-no. But whatever the reason, the redux Seagull G didn't have quite the same punch, and the Grade 4 version was a bellyflop. The general image color and toning characteristics were similar. But now all the graded Seagull is long gone. VC Seagull has been kept alive; but some dealers dropped it because the quality control got flaky. But it was never in the same leagueas the graded anyway. Them was the days. Seagull G, Brilliant Bromide, Portriga, Kodak Elite, Galerie. Used em all, though Seagull was the most versatile. Now the only really punchy graded paper I can find is Ilfobrom Galerie, though I still have some EMaks on hand. It's a new era with superb VC papers to choose from instead. A couple months ago I stumbled upon an old dramatic Brillant print I hadn't toned or mounted yet, so I gave it a good soak in GP-1. That's gotta be the most DMax I ever gotten from a silver paper.
Yes DW, That Boesflug Brilliant was a wonderful paper. Of those currently available, I've used Ilford Galerie & Slavich in graded papers & the Slavich seems to pack the punch as far as density goes.
bob carnie
28-Sep-2016, 10:20
Yes DW, That Boesflug Brilliant was a wonderful paper. Of those currently available, I've used Ilford Galerie & Slavich in graded papers & the Slavich seems to pack the punch as far as density goes.
I used Slavich for lith printing and it was great, how is it for traditional printing, consistent?
Bob, I haven't used enough of it to say. I have a good size stock of Ilford Warmtone & FomaTone Variant, and only pull out the graded papers for certain negatives. But the few boxes of Grade 3 Slavich produced good results. Besides the Guilleminot & Boespflug Brilliant I sure liked Fortezo graded.
Drew Wiley
28-Sep-2016, 12:34
This thread is downright painful. I soooo much wanna get back to the darkroom and start printing again. But I've gotta keep plugging along on some outdoor projects before the rains start again.
Jim Michael
28-Sep-2016, 14:38
Thanks for the education on Seagull Drew. I remember it being pretty good back in the late 70s, and saw they had brought it back in some form.
It ain't. The rumor is that the older Seagull G couldn't be exactly replicated because cadmium became a no-no. But whatever the reason, the redux Seagull G didn't have quite the same punch, and the Grade 4 version was a bellyflop. The general image color and toning characteristics were similar. But now all the graded Seagull is long gone. VC Seagull has been kept alive; but some dealers dropped it because the quality control got flaky. But it was never in the same leagueas the graded anyway. Them was the days. Seagull G, Brilliant Bromide, Portriga, Kodak Elite, Galerie. Used em all, though Seagull was the most versatile. Now the only really punchy graded paper I can find is Ilfobrom Galerie, though I still have some EMaks on hand. It's a new era with superb VC papers to choose from instead. A couple months ago I stumbled upon an old dramatic Brillant print I hadn't toned or mounted yet, so I gave it a good soak in GP-1. That's gotta be the most DMax I ever gotten from a silver paper.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.