All Grade 2 Papers - Grades 0 to 4

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by dancqu, Dec 25, 2007.

  1. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    This is a follow up to the thread Grade 0 Emaks
    I started a few months ago. All papers tested were
    Grade 2 DW FB Glossy. Beer's contrast control developer
    1 and 7 was used. A 21 step step tablet used in conjunction
    with the Log E.S. grade scale established the values. Allow
    +/- 1/4 grade from listed values as a densitometer was
    not used in making the determination.

    Beer's 1 is the lowest contrast Beer's and equal
    to Ansco 120. Results:
    Arista 1 1/4; Emaks 1/4; Kentmere 3/4; Slavich 2 3/4

    Beer's 7 is the highest contrast Beer's, a little higher
    than Dektol's. Results:
    Arista 2 3/4; Emaks 2; Kentmere 1 1/4; Slavich 3 3/4

    Twixt Beer's 1 and 7 the differences in grades are:
    Arista +1 1/2; Emaks +1 3/4; Kentmere +1/2; Slavich +1

    Grades 0 to 4 by the 1966 ASA Standard. So 4 grades
    from one grade of papers.

    The Arista in Beer's 1 value may change. I think the
    paper is old. It took well over a minute in each Beer's
    prior to emergence and persists in showing a low level
    of fog. Dan
     
  2. RoBBo

    RoBBo Member

    Messages:
    255
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Can't say I've ever heard of that developer, care to give a little more information about it?
     
  3. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Beer's is similar to A. Adams' split Ansco 130. Both
    provide contrast control by varying the ratios of an
    A and B component. With both the B parts have as a
    developing agent, hydroquinone. The A part has metol
    and with Ansco 130, glycin as well.

    Dr. Beer specifies 7 blends. I take the ratios as
    suggestions on Dr. Beer's part. A. Adams specifies
    whatever works. For example, Beer's 1, 3, and 6+ may
    do well for all print jobs. In effect 3 developers each
    delivering a certain contrast. To easily combine the
    A & B portions 3 and 6+ are quarter combinations.
    The latter, 6+, is not a Beer's ratio but is near
    his 7. Strictly speaking I don't use 7; I work
    with very dilute one-shot chemistry. Beer's
    7 is used without dilution. Dan
     
  4. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    25,908
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Dan;

    Quite frankly, the differences in toe, shoulder and mid scale of papers vary so much that the measurement you give is almost meaningless. I know that it was hard work, and I'm sure it was carefully done, but that 'grade scale' cannot give a full appreciation of the real contrast. Only the curve itself with quantitative data can do that. In fact, we used 4 points on the curve to determine compliance with ISO contrast, and since there are 2 methods of controlling contrast even the most rigorous method can fail.

    For example, one method centers contrast around a standard mid tone of 0.8 or 1.0 in which all prints turn out with the same mid tone density but toe, low toe and shoulder vary. Another varies contrast from the low toe speed point and contrast and apparent speed vary at the same time.

    This is a very slippery slope. It is like saying "I made a bridge" when in fact, you have dropped a log across a stream. There is a big difference in the concepts involved.

    PE
     
  5. David A. Goldfarb

    David A. Goldfarb Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Messages:
    18,000
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Honolulu, Ha
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    If anything, this test supports my suspicion that Emaks graded is more amenable to developer controls than other papers.

    Do you know what the Arista paper is that you tested? They are usually something else rebranded.
     
  6. Thomas Bertilsson

    Thomas Bertilsson Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,255
    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The only comment I have is that the Fotokemika paper I have to treat differently and usually leave in the soup longer. I use it with Ansco 130 at 1+3 dilution and I use a three minute print time to reach d-max and develop to completion. It does like a negative with lots of contrast, but for me that's a good thing. It's how I like it. I don't know if it's 'correct' or not.
    This is a completely unscientific observation (as I approach photography unscientifically) and is just how I feel about the paper after having gone through maybe 200 sheets of it. There's an attachment to this post using Emaks G3 with a normal contrast negative and 1+3 dilution of A-130 @ 72*F and 3 minutes.
    (Shot with a Tessar Rolleiflex using FP4 film, developed in Pyrocat-MC [semistand]).
    - Thomas
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2007
  7. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    [QUOTES=Photo Engineer;564333]
    Quite frankly, the differences in toe, shoulder and mid
    scale of papers vary so much that the measurement you
    give is almost meaningless. ...
    In fact, we used 4 points on the curve to determine compliance
    with ISO contrast, and since there are 2 methods of controlling
    contrast even the most rigorous method can fail.

    For example, one method centers contrast around ...
    Another varies contrast from the low toe speed point ...PE[/QUOTE]

    The specific tests conducted and determinations made
    are for IN HOUSE purposes. My objective in doing these
    tests is to determine the Exposure Scale of the paper.
    Rough approximations of contrast distributions can be
    made from the step tablet image. Also, the relative
    speeds of papers can be determined.

    My original post should not have implied any OFFICAL
    status to the findings. Although all papers tested are
    glossy non were ferrotyped. David Vestal states that
    ES measurements for grade give false results with
    dull-surfaced papers. Not exactly dull but not
    fully glossed.

    All that is not to say my grade determinations are not
    accurate. They ARE within context meaningful. Two
    developers, all other things being equal, and the
    resulting Exposure Scales. Dan
     
  8. Photo Engineer

    Photo Engineer Subscriber

    Messages:
    25,908
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Dan;

    I fully understand. I guess that if I could show you some graphs, I might convince you that appearances can be deceptive. It is hard to judge qualitatively, the true contrast of a paper (or film in some cases), but your work can serve very well to point out relative differences. I meant no offense whatsoever.

    I can cite several examples though that might help you.

    Imagine two papers with exactly grade 2 mid scale contrast but one with a soft toe and the other with a hard toe. Your observation might be that these papers have two different contrast grades, but 'technically' they have the same contrast. Now, by sliding exposure up and down, the sharp toe paper can appear to have higher contrast than the soft toe paper but another exposure might show that they look the same.

    The soft to paper, meanwhile, might blow you away by showing great highlight detail, but the hard toe paper might impress you with its rendering of shadows. That is why a subjective evaluation is often difficult. And, it is hard to explain in words. I need to start doing some graphing and posting of the graphs.

    PE
     
  9. michael9793

    michael9793 Member

    Messages:
    2,012
    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers,
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    Well,
    A friend of mine is using Azo and amidol at this point. he is running out of Azo and saw that I was using Ansco 130 with almost all my contact printing and enlarging. So he took a print he had that was done on Azo #2 with good shadow and highlight detail and bought kentmere, oriental seagull and Ilford. printed all on #2 paper with Ansco 130. what a difference in the shadow detail from kentmere and the other two. From what I have already found using several different developers, that the kentmere highlights and shadow areas blocked up. the Shadow areas muddied up and the highlights all blended together. the other two showed good separation in high and low tones along with deeper blacks. Now I know there is alot of people who love kentmere and will respond against me, but unless you try your own tests, I'm sorry kentmere doesn't hold up to these papers. as for the match to Azo, well as always the Azo print just glowed and detail was there that non could get.
    And as form Beer developer, I forgot all about that and will have to dig up the formula and try that again, just for fun.

    Mike Andersen
     
  10. dancqu

    dancqu Member

    Messages:
    3,676
    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2002
    Location:
    Willamette V
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That is some consolation. Fact is I've based grade
    determinations on a false premise. For those who followed
    the thread Grade 0 Emaks and suspected something was
    wrong I now see the error of my way. I hope I didn't
    cause any unnecessary confusion or cast doubts
    upon the industry.

    After giving David Vestal's article Paper Contrast Perplex,
    specifically the section Finding the Exposure Scale - Without A
    Densitometer, I understand where I went wrong. In a nut shell
    the relation ship twixt grade and steps is non-linear. So just
    counting steps then multiplying won't do it. Mr. Vestal has
    incorporated the non-linear relation ship in his 'edge
    count' method of determining grade.

    I'll make use of Mr. Vestal's method and post grades
    more believable. Dan