Ilford MG IV vs the other options

[Fotoguy20d]

I'm a longtime Ilford paper user - MG IV RC & FB and even Gallerie (found a half box of Grade 2 in my basement that must be 15 years old - yielded good prints but I don't see enough difference from the MG FB to warrant buying it new). I've started using paper as "film" in my 8x10 - I'm wondering whether I should use the RC or FB, and I'm wondering how the other options compare. Not that there's any comparison to film cost, but, for comparison from Freestyle, Ilford MG IV RC is $64 for 100 sheets, Arista Edu Ultra is $34, Adox MCP is $47, Fomaspeed is $50, Kentmere is $46, Arista Private Reserve is $39, and Fotokemika is $58. Anyone have any thoughts on these papers in comparison. I suppose primarily for use as film, but perhaps as a replacement for Ilford.

Thanks,
Dan

[anon12345]

Hey Dan,

I have tried the Ilford MG IV RC Glossy and the Arista Edu Ultra glossy. I would say that the Ilford and Arista are close in some of their characteristics when used as paper negatives. Currently I'm burning through the Arista for the negatives and when prints are required I use the more expensive papers if desired. As a negative, the Arista paper appears to be sensitive to blue. I think that's expected. I want to say that because in order for me to get detail into the shadows the skies almost always end up overexposed. I consider a solid black sky in negative to be a bit overexposed. I am now shooting with a yellow filter which has changed everything. You may have read that elsewhere. With the filter I can finally get detail deeper into the shadows without overexposing the skies. My opinion would be to shoot on the cheaper glossy, and print on the more expensive papers. I always shoot more than I print. But, you may find characteristics with other papers that you really like. Just some random thoughts.

[Fotoguy20d]

Thanks. The Edu Ultra, for cost alone, was my first option as a replacement for shooting. I was thinking of using the matt finish (pearl?) though. I think all the papers are blue sensitive (goes with being not red sensitive). With Ilford, the skies are very light too. I was going to try different filters and see what happens - I guess a red filter wouldn't do much but yellow or green should.

I almost always print on FB now (if for no other reason, I bought an FB print dryer so its now easier to work with). FB paper has gotten similarly more expensive, with the others all trailing Ilford in price by similar margins. Any thoughts on using Arista FB (or one of the others) instead of Ilford for printing (from 4x5 or contact from 8x10)? Lets say I use the Arista for refining the steps for getting a good print - how hard would it be to then make the final prints on Ilford using the same steps (in other words, are they the same ISO and do they behave similarly)?


Dan

[pentaxuser]

FB paper has gotten similarly more expensive, with the others all trailing Ilford in price by similar margins.
Dan

These prices are interesting. In the U.K. market Agfa( now Adox) MCP is in fact a little more expensive than Ilford. I wonder what explains this difference from the U.S. market? Can't be transport cost. Might be volumes purchased I suppose or is it simply that the makers have decided that the U.K. will pay a premium for Agfa that the U.S. simply won't?

pentaxuser

[Neal]

Dear Dan,

I would use RC paper for a negative. It will stay nice and flat.

Neal Wydra

[anon12345]

. . . . Any thoughts on using Arista FB (or one of the others) instead of Ilford for printing (from 4x5 or contact from 8x10)? Lets say I use the Arista for refining the steps for getting a good print - how hard would it be to then make the final prints on Ilford using the same steps (in other words, are they the same ISO and do they behave similarly)?


Dan

I couldn't give specifics on those two papers in question. I would suggest running exposure tests for the papers that you plan to use. I mean, that's how I approach it. I'm sure there will be some differences because of your developer, developer concentration, temperature, light quality, and contrast filtering used. You can always try contrast filters or their equivalent to adjust the paper contrast when contact printing on VC papers. I choose to use an enlarger as my light source because I can control the amount of light and use filters in the light path. You may find that you can achieve similar contrasts etc, between those papers, but that your exposure times do differ. I definitely would plan on that. Again, I would make plenty of exposure tests for each paper and paper negative in question.

[L Gebhardt]

Wouldn't you want to use a fixed grade paper for negatives? Otherwise your green trees will have less contrast than your blue sky.

[anon12345]

Wouldn't you want to use a fixed grade paper for negatives? Otherwise your green trees will have less contrast than your blue sky.

I agree with that as an option, definitely. But, I have only used grade 2 as a negative and would say it performed much better than straight VC paper. But, I have had so little on hand that I avoid using it for experimentation. I'm only in the middle of my own experiments using different yellow filters (weak yellow thru dark yellow). The yellow is absorbing the blue as needed, and passing some green. I'll try to look into how much separation there is between foliage and sky when using different filters. I could really use a variable yellow filter.

[Mike Wilde]

'Wouldn't you want to use a fixed grade paper for negatives? Otherwise your green trees will have less contrast than your blue sky'

Oh god, now we will have the split grade filtration on exposure discussion spring up. LOL

Yes, filtration is a fictor to consider here.

[anon12345]

I have a large set for hand coloring prints. I'll take care of them there trees.

I considered bringing up split-grade printing earlier, but thought it might be a bit advanced. It's too late now.