Polymax II RC semi-matt / Ilford MG-Cooltone Pearl in F-130

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Shesh, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. Shesh

    Shesh Member

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusett
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Folks,
    I just got out of the darkroom after using F-130 for the first time (photographer's formulary version of Ansco 130). I made a print on polymax II RC. I wanted cooler tones and I thought using Ilford MG-cooltone would give the effect I am looking for, but the result looks like the cooltone is decidedly warmer than the polymax II RC.

    The developer was mixed around 4 hours earlier and the working solution is diluted 1:1. I am developing for 50 seconds with both paper, the filtration grade is the same for with both papers (there is a slight difference in contrast which I will compensate for in the final print). Other chemicals in the process are Sprint Rapid Fixer (1:4) and Kodak stop bath.

    Any suggestions on what I may be doing wrong, what I could use, why I see this behavior would be very welcome!
     
  2. gma

    gma Member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think the 50 second development time might be the cause of the warmer tone on the Ilford Cooltone RC. There is an excellent article in the current issue of View Camera magazine regarding paper developers. Last issue was on papers. Most of the times for Ilford Cooltone RC were 6 minutes. The best results reported for Ilford Cooltone RC were #1- Clayton P 20, #2- Zonal Pro Factor One and #3- Edwal Ultra Black, all for 6 minutes.
     
  3. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,910
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I think the spec sheet for cooltone calls for a 2 minute development time.

    We have run test with a variety of developers with a variety of papers, including cooltone and used the recommended development time of 2 minutes. THe only time i have every seen it warm up was with Edwal Super Patinum at 1 :15 and not only was it warm it was tan.
    I know that Bruce was very impressed with Cooltone paper, but didn't realize his development time was 6 minutes (haven't read the second part of that test).

    As others have suggested i would increase your development times. In fact even with 130 i would encourage a long development time.
     
  4. gma

    gma Member

    Messages:
    793
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I just looked at the expanded internet version of the development article by Bruce Barlow. F-130 is listed at 6 minutes development time for Ilford Cooltone RC. Let us know if that works for you. I have some Cooltone RC to try out and I am curious. I plan to use Dektol.
     
  5. Shesh

    Shesh Member

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusett
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Gma and Ann,

    Thank you very much for the suggestion, It worked!

    I reprinted on the cooltone paper, compensating for the contrast also this time and ran 2 prints through the developer. The first one was developed for 2 minutes (per Ilford's info sheet) and the second was developed for 6 minutes.

    The 2 minute development did not yield a significant improvement over my earlier print.
    The 6 minute development is markedly different from the earlier prints (including the Kodak paper) and the print has exactly the look I was going for.

    Now, I am curious, why is the info sheet from Photo Formulary so wrong? (the recommend 45-60 seconds).

    P.s. I just pulled the print of out of the fixer - the increase in time also made a significant +ve difference in the mid-tones. From now on, its going to be 6 minutes with F-130.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 6, 2004
  6. ann

    ann Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,910
    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2002
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Thanks for the feedback, next time we do our paper class i will suggest the 6 minute development time with ANsco 130. That is the version i am using, rather than the PF one. I would have to check their spec sheets to determine the difference in the chemical.

    I have found that the recommendations for development time are usually pretty basic as different papers may require something outside the usual (as you have discovered)
     
  7. BBarlow690

    BBarlow690 Member

    Messages:
    193
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Hey! Let's be careful out there! I tested 2 minutes and 6 minutes with ALL the paper/developer combinations. If the chart says "6 minutes" before it says "2 minutes" for the same combination, it means that I preferred 6 minutes to 2 minutes when I looked at them side-by-side, but there's nothing magic about 6. 4 might be enough...or 3. The best (and only) way to tell is for YOU to TRY IT for yourself. You will notice how subtle the difference is between development times.

    Note: enlarger exposure time changes with the change of development times...

    PLEASE don't make my tests out to be more than they are, or the "definitive" answers for anything. Mostly they were done out of my own curiosity, and as a goad to get others to test their own favorite materials for themselves.
     
  8. Shesh

    Shesh Member

    Messages:
    161
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2002
    Location:
    Massachusett
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Bruce,
    Thanks for the response. I agree that there isn't anything magical about 6 minutes :wink:. Actually with Oriental Seagull, I have found 3 min to be sufficient. I hope I did not mislead someone into thinking that 6 minutes development was "required". Its more of a personal preference issue than anything else.