Changes to Ilford paper

[Ben Crane]

I've noticed that in the past few months Ilford has started selling at least its MG IV fiber paper and perhaps all its paper with a slightly redesigned label. As far as I have see there is otherwise no indication that the new paper is any different from the old. Over the past few months I've used several boxes of the paper with the newer labels as well as the original paper. As I've been making this transition I've noticed a couple of differences with the new paper. First it requires about one and a half times the exposure to make the same density of print I had with the old paper. A first I thought it may use be due to my developer becoming exhausted, but it seems to hold true even when I develop a sheet of paper from one box immediately after a sheet from the other one. This change is quite annoying as I try to reprint negatives that I am used to printing with the old paper. Second, at least when the paper gets wet it tends to expand in the long dimension rather than the short dimension. This is not a serious problem, but the difference becomes obvious when I put the prints back to back for drying. I'm starting to wonder if there are other differences that I haven't noticed yet? Has anyone else encountered this problem or know why Ilford did this?

[tim atherton]

"First it requires about one and a half times the exposure to make the same density of print I had with the old paper. A first I thought it may use be due to my developer becoming exhausted, but it seems to hold true even when I develop a sheet of paper from one box immediately after a sheet from the other one. This change is quite annoying as I try to reprint negatives that I am used to printing with the old paper. "

I always thought that one of the good things about analogue/traditional was that these kinds of differences make for a unique original hand-made print. Surely it's what gives a silver gelatin print its je ne sais quoi. The whole point of using traditional materials is not to make the same print you made last time.

If you wanted easy repeatability why not just make digital prints with a computer where you can just hit the button and run off a dozen exactly how you like them?

[robc]

All paper and chemical suppliers are constantly changing their products without telling anyone about it.

paper batches may be different. Production line changes. Different chemical suppliers. etc etc

I'm surprised you are surprised.

If you want consistency then buy materials with the same batch number and use it quickly.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I use a lot of MGFB IV as well as the MGFB Warmtone and have seen no change as of late. It has been consistent.

I did change the bulb in my Saunders enlarger recently which has caused some slight exposure compensation requirements but nothing different recently about the paper.

[Mike Butler]

I hadn't noticed any exposure changes with Ilford paper lately, but I'll keep an eye on it now.

If you're a prolific printer (and can afford it) you could try asking your regular supplier for two 250-sheet boxes. It's a pretty good bet that will end up a special order and your boxes will be very fresh and consistent.

[Steve Feldman]

Benjamin,

I havn't used the use Ilford yet, but do know why it tends to expand in the long dimension. The paper grain is running the short direction rather than the long way as older stock did. After drying and flatening it should have no effect.

[Pete Watkins]

Considering the disgusting way Ilford are treating L.F. photographers (especially the U.L.F. brigade) I'm suprised that anybody is bothering with the company. They won't even publish the formula for Perceptol even though resuming production of this product seems to be at the bottom of their list of priorities. If you're in the U.K. try to get an answer to an e-mail message...........................thats how much they care about the home market. PETE.

[robc]

I think you need to get upto speed. Ilford have restarted production of Perceptol and have been posting messages on APUG about it. Also, they are a wholesale company not a retail company so why would they speak to every consumer who wants something for nothing, especially when they are still producing what you seem to think they should be giving you the formula for.

[darter]

I had a similar issue with increasing exposure speeds and it turned out the enlarger bulb was aging and producing lower intensity. A new bulb restored the original exposure times.

[neil poulsen]

Whatever Ilford needs to do to stay in business is fine with me. And, it's always been my impression that they are quite friendly to LF photographers. For example, they've always been open to having special runs of ULF off sizes, if I understand correctly.

Isn't Ilford our best hope of continued availability of traditional black and white materials? Where would we be if they had to fold? Kodak has announced the demise of it's b&w paper products, and they've implied that their b&w films will follow the same path. Who else can really fill the void as well as Ilford? Hopefully, the additional customers they receive from Kodak's withdrawel will improve their chances of success.

I intend to support Ilford as much as I can, and will obtain all my materials from them. Their management made a gutsy move by buying out the company. That works to our advantage. They need our support if they are to succeed in the long term.

[Bob._3483]

Ilford are showing such disgusting total disregard for consumers that an Ilford director has been active on APUG for a couple of weeks now answering questions and generally being helpful. Erm... no... wait a minute... that doesn't make sense... does it???

Perceptol (not a developer much used by LFers, although I hear it is liked by some for portrait work) is back in production and has been available in the UK for a couple of weeks and I believe has just become available in the US and Canada.

As is well known by everyone here, Ilford have been asking photographers what size ULF film is wanted. They will be cutting ULF sizes directly instead of relying on third parties to cut it. What they are deciding now is which sizes and which emulsion(s) based on consumer feedback. Everyone will be able to order it through their normal suppliers instead of relying on one or two outlets.

I don't know how they can live with themselves, showing such lack of interest in what the consumer wants...

[sigh]

Back on topic. This close to the management buyout, I doubt they will be messing about too much with production etc. I expect they are too busy making sure everything is ticking along and that delivery and stock levels are back to normal. However, I have switched from MG-IV to Kentmere recently so can't offer any personal observations... If it is indeed slower, that's not much of a problem as it was already pretty fast. Only Kentmere is faster in my (admittedly limited) experience. More interesting would be what other effect a different emulsion composition might have on toning etc.

Cheers,

[Bob._3483]

Stop press.... Ilford says in answer to a different question on APUG that they have not made any emulsion changes since the MBO.

Cheers,

[steve_782]

"I always thought that one of the good things about analogue/traditional was that these kinds of differences make for a unique original hand-made print. Surely it's what gives a silver gelatin print its je ne sais quoi. The whole point of using traditional materials is not to make the same print you made last time."

No. Would you accept this with film? Every batch had a different ISO speed by a factor of +/- 1.5? I don't think so. Would you accept a deviation in grade of paper so that one batch was grade 2, the next batch was 2.5, the next batch was 3, the next batch was 1.5? Probably not.

The shadow speed and grade with paper should be as consistent from batch-to-batch as film ISO and contrast. The selling point of papers from Kodak and DuPont to commercial photographers was consistency. You could reprint a negative exactly if you kept good printing notes.

As for the idea that you can't replicate a print the next time so it's "hand made." Let's just say this. If you were selling the print commercially - you wouldn't get away with that idea. If you don't know how to make match prints, then you need more practice printing - and if you think inconsistency is "artistic" you're fooling yourself.