Polymax II vs. MGIV paper speed

[chassis]

Hi all,

I've searched on this and didn't come up with anything.

Are the emulsion speeds close on these papers? I will be coming to the end of my Kodak paper supply soon, and have Ilford MGIV as my replacement. Just curious what kind of exposure times I can expect.

Is there a big difference in speed, or subtle? Thanks.

[Oren Grad]

From the respective data sheets:

Polymax II RC was rated with an ISO paper speed of 500 unfiltered, 250 with Polymax filters -1 through 3 1/2, and 125 with Polymax filters 4 and higher.

Multigrade IV RC Deluxe is rated with an ISO paper speed of 500 unfiltered, 200 with Multigrade filters 00 through 3, and 100 with Multigrade filters 4 and 5.

[jeroldharter]

Just curious how you decided on your replacement. I used to use Polymax and then did a blinded test of many papers to see which was closest. I decided on Kentmere FP VC.

[chassis]

Thanks Oren Grad.

Jerold, there was no rhyme or reason to the choice, I just picked what looked like the "Chevrolet" of Ilford printing papers (available and priced right). I would like to do a blind test as you suggested, at some point.

I have not yet made what I think of as "fine print". My printing is mainly for my own personal enjoyment and gifts to others. When I want to make a fine print, I will evaluate some other materials.

[jeroldharter]

I would say that Kentmere is more of a Chevy in that regard. Ilford owns Kentmere now and it is much less expensive than Ilford Multigrade.

In my tests, Ilford MG was colder toned and more contrasty than any of the many others. However, Ilford MG had a very limited response to selenium toner at 1:20. Kentmere is very responsive to selenium which improved the contrast and tonality quite a bit.

I tested Kentmere, Ilford MG, The standard Foma, oriental, one of the Adox papers, and the Emaks (I forget the real name, the one in the red package). The outcome was that I could have settled on any one of them.

I went with Kentmere because it was the closest match to Polymax which I formerly used, was one of the least expensive choices, is readily available in many sizes, and has a pleasing response to selenium and brown toner. So that is my plug for Kentmere but I thought all of the choices were workable. I did not try Slavich.

[chassis]

jerold,

Thanks again. I do want to try toning, so that is a plus for Kentmere. My limited toning experience Kodak Poly* papers was that they had limited response to it.

You mention that MG was colder toned. Does this mean in your view that Kentmere is warmer than Polymax? I do like cooler tones in general, but I am willing to give Kentmere a try. I have two Polymax prints in front of me now, and the tonality and color temperature looks good to me. I'm sure it's because I haven't used much else. I was also a big fan of graded Brovira, to add another data point. It was pretty cold toned to my eye.

[jeroldharter]

Ilford is pretty cold/neutral black without toning and it does not budge very much with selenium toning.

Kentmere has a subtle greenish brown cast when developed in Dektol that is hard to see until you watch an adjacent print tone in selenium and then it takes on a very nice cold town. The old Kentmere, before Ilford acquired it, tended to go eggplant if left in toner too long. The current Kentmere takes on a slightly red/chocolate black that is more pleasing.

If you are going to the trouble of hand printing large format negatives, you should certainly give toning a try. Selenium toning is the easiest, is inexpensive, and improves almost any print by increasing DMax and improving tonal separation.

[Oren Grad]

It seems to me that we may have an apples-vs-oranges thing going on here - Chassis asked about RC papers, while Jerold is talking about the characteristics of FB papers he's tested.

The reason I assumed RC, and responded accordingly, is that there never was an FB paper called "Polymax II" - only an RC paper. Chassis, could you please clarify what you had in mind?

[chassis]

Yes, my question was about RC papers. I am of the impression that RC papers don't respond to toning well. Is this correct, or are there RC papers that benefit significantly from toning?

[Roger Cole]

Yes, my question was about RC papers. I am of the impression that RC papers don't respond to toning well. Is this correct, or are there RC papers that benefit significantly from toning?

Not correct as an overall rule, though individual papers can always be exceptions.

I have two on my living room wall made on MGIV RC and selenium toned, 1+19. Noticable cooling of image tone and intensification of black values. People say it doesn't change tone in selenium but they just aren't waiting long enough. It's been a long time now but IIRC it was something over ten minutes.

I also have several nicely sepia toned ones (just not on the wall.)

[Oren Grad]

I am of the impression that RC papers don't respond to toning well. Is this correct, or are there RC papers that benefit significantly from toning?

As with FB papers, it depends on the paper. Among Ilford VC RC papers, Multigrade RC Warmtone is hyper-responsive to selenium. But Multigrade IV RC Deluxe and RC Cooltone also respond visibly to selenium, with both color and density changes.

Getting back to the original question: MGIVRCD is different from Polymax II. Both papers tend to flatten highlights. But at least in the lower grades, the Ilford paper behaves as though it has a kink in the middle of the characteristic curve, above which tones flatten abruptly. I've found it to be a really awkward match to a traditional shouldered film like Tri-X roll film, but it does better with films that have steeper highlight contrast like TMY or Delta 400 Pro.

In the end, it's a matter of taste. So try a small pack before you stock up.

[Oren Grad]

People say it doesn't change tone in selenium but they just aren't waiting long enough. It's been a long time now but IIRC it was something over ten minutes.

Toning has a bit of voodoo to it; I see substantial change in MGIVRCD after two minutes in fresh KRST 1+19.

[Roger Cole]

Toning has a bit of voodoo to it; I see substantial change in MGIVRCD after two minutes in fresh KRST 1+19.

It's been a long time and I didn't keep notes, or at least not notes that I kept. But I'm sure it was over 10 minutes. There's no detectable purple cast, just dark, cool blacks. At the time some folks were saying on rec.photo.darkroom (used to hang out there) that it didn't change color much in selenium.

Or, come to think of it, I THINK this was MGIV. Anyone know when MGIV RC replaced MGIII RC?

[jeroldharter]

It seems to me that we may have an apples-vs-oranges thing going on here - Chassis asked about RC papers, while Jerold is talking about the characteristics of FB papers he's tested.

The reason I assumed RC, and responded accordingly, is that there never was an FB paper called "Polymax II" - only an RC paper. Chassis, could you please clarify what you had in mind?

Oops. I just assumed FB. I only use RC for proofs and buy the cheapest available at Freestyle.

[Oren Grad]

Or, come to think of it, I THINK this was MGIV. Anyone know when MGIV RC replaced MGIII RC?

A long time ago - around 1994. I remember how disappointed I was. MGIIIRCD had been my favorite paper, but my heart sank when I saw what MGIVRCD did to my TX negatives.

FWIW, there were two MGIII RC papers - MGIII Deluxe and MGIII Rapid. They had slightly different curves, but either was a better match to TX than MGIVRCD is.

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, I remember, just not the dates. I think these are on MGIV.

The Rapid had developer incorporated in the emulsion, the Deluxe did not, and does not. MGIV has compressed highlight contrast relative to III for a better match with T-grain films (and worse match with conventional films.)