I've been playing around with a few sheets of each of the new papers and posted some early impressions here.
Bottom line? They're beautiful papers and I can't wait to get some more!
The Gate. FB Classic, Mamiya Press 6x9
I've been playing around with a few sheets of each of the new papers and posted some early impressions here.
Bottom line? They're beautiful papers and I can't wait to get some more!
The Gate. FB Classic, Mamiya Press 6x9
I put my initial impressions on a previous thread. I still have some basic experimenting I want to do on the Cooltone before I get involved with the Neutral version,
but am particularly interested in how these two products compare relative to toning.
Having just read your complete online review, about all I can say is that Cooltone does have a distinct amt of drydown, equivalent approximately to MGWT. It's an
undeniable factor.
It's going to be a bit of a learning curve for me, because with this paper it's a very fine line between almost pure white and very subtly detailed high-key greys.
So you can either win or lose the entire ballgame on very minor differences of exposure, and it's really hard to judge until complete drydown, though heat-drying a
test strip obviously gives a clue. I'm fairly amazed at how much fine detail can be held in the high zones. The DMax might not knock your sox off like it can with
MGWT, but is distinctly better than MGIV, with excellent gradation in the shadows too. I don't know if this will turn out to be an A+ paper for me like MGWT, but
it definitely deserves a solid A- at a minimum on the report card. But it takes awhile to fairly judge anything new. It is a damn easy paper to print, once you get used
to the FAST speed.
I agree that it's important to be on the money where the correct exposure time is concerned but I found it easy to get a couple of nice prints done without much bother which is always a good sign. I wanted to get the highlight on the white paintwork on The gate just right and managed it OK. I never noticed any dry down effect on this highlight which is why I said I didn't see any. But I've only done a couple of prints and it might well be the case that if I pay more attention to this aspect I'll see it too. You certainly seem to be more familiar with the paper than I am.
Bruce Barlow
author of "Finely Focused" and "Exercises in Photographic Composition"
www.brucewbarlow.com
I just noticed that I posted the URL of my blog's home page rather than the URL of the actual Ilford review in my first message. Sorry for that. You'll get something different if you go there now so here's the review URL:
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/201...one-first.html
Bruce, 10% is a probably a realistic factor, but with a paper like this, capable of bringing detail well up the scale, very small differences can distinguish between a good print and a great one. So I won't abandon my habit of making minor variations in printing, then evaluating them after a complete air drydown when my eyes are fresh. Drying test strips gets close, but doesn't always hit the nail squarely on the head. Unfortunately, I've gotten some richness of detail that would probably be difficult to appreciate if the print were even framed under glass - really delicate, the kind of thing where you want to hold the print in your hands. And the paper seems rather resistant to selective bleaching with Farmers, but I state that tentatively, because my experimenting is needed. But if this proves true, one more reason to hit those highlights exactly. ... not that I'm claiming this paper is difficult to use. It isn't. It just gives one more control in the highlights than MGIV did.
Bookmarks