Switching to Ilford paper from Kodak; enlarging workflow

[chassis]

Starting up my darkroom after a bunch of years of inactivity. To my disappointment I learned that Kodak no longer makes B&W enlarging paper, so I am converting to Ilford Multigrade RC for the time being. I will be printing 4x5 TXP negatives.

The first question is do I gain anything from using a paper developer other than the Ilford Multigrade developer? My goals in the short term are to get my darkroom "game" back on, then I will explore other papers and chemicals. The Ilford MG paper + dev are simply to get me back in the swing of things.

Enlarging workflow: I would like to do 16x20 prints, but have only done 8x10s in the past. I want to use the most efficient method of test printing and finding exposure from a 4x5 contact print to the 16x20 final print. Here is an idea I had, let me know what you think:

1. 4x5 contact print to see the contrast range of the negative.
2. 4x5 test print in the highlight area at 16x20 enlargement to get exposure time and f-stop.
3. Adjust exposure and repeat step 2 until satisfactory highlights are obtained
4. 4x5 test print in the shadow area.
5. Change contrast filter and repeat steps 2-4 until the desired results are obtained.
6. 16x20 full sheet trial print.
7. Adjust contrast and exposure as needed based on the trial print.

Thanks for any input.

[Mark Sampson]

That method should work. Ilford Multigrade is fine paper and should not present any problems. I found that the FB version dried down more than the Kodak Polymax Fine-Art paper I'd been using, but that's a minor point. A little practice should sort your method out. My tests suggest that modern cold-tone papers are not strongly affected by choice of developers.

[chassis]

Thanks Mark!

[Ari]

Your steps sound good, I would just do away with #1, contact print.
A contact print will give you more tonal range than an enlargement, so it's slightly misleading.
Soon enough, you'll get used to evaluating your tests in the highlight & shadow areas well enough to get to a good working print in less time, and with less paper waste.

[jp]

Ilford MG RC is good stuff. I never really liked Kodak's polycontrast line of RC paper.

I have not used the Ilford developer. I have used various dektol strengths and bw-65 developer; it's all happy with the Ilford paper.

Just make some bigger test strips for printing. It's no different than small prints really. I'd get the contrast and exposure to my satisfaction, then print a test piece slightly lighter, then dry it with a hair dryer or microwave to help you understand the drydown. It's not bad with Ilford RC papers.

[James Morris]

Multigrade dev is definitely fine to get started with. Reliable stuff.

[chassis]

Today I picked up some MGIV paper and MG developer, so I will give it a try and see what happens.

[Roger Cole]

No problem at all with the developer. I like LPD because it lasts so long at working strength poured back into the bottle but any of the "normal" paper developers should work fine.

I always preferred Ilford to Kodak in RC paper anyway because I like the "pearl" surface far better than anything Kodak had in RC paper. I don't like RC glossy (for B&W, I like it ok for color) and Kodak's N was too dull for my tastes, with a pretty sever apparent hit on d-max too, while the E had too much texture. There are many excellent papers on the market now so you won't lack for good ones to try, but MGIV RC is capable of some very nice prints.

[Brian Ellis]

Today I picked up some MGIV paper and MG developer, so I will give it a try and see what happens.

One thing that's going to happen is that you'll go through a box of paper pretty fast with all those test prints. As long as your negatives are correctly exposed there won't be a huge variation in your basic exposure times and contrast settings from one negative to another at any given print size. So with a little experience you should be able to make a decent proof just by looking at the negative, then you can go from there. Leaving the aperture on the enlarger lens one or two stops from wide open (which is the optimum aperture for most enlarger lenses) all the time will eliminate that potential variable.