It is on the latest PT magazine JUL/AUG 04
How does his paper tone? Selenium? Viradon?
Originally Posted by jdef
Last edited by titrisol; 08-26-2004 at 10:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Mama took my APX away.....
As promised in my previous post, I did some printing last night of medium format TMY negs developed in Acufine. First the disclaimers, I dislike Tmax pretty intensely, I a Tri-x 320 guy myself. I gave up on Kodak enlarging papers long ago, preferring Bergger VCCB and Ilford Multigrade warmtone, so I can't compare to the existing Kodak papers.
Initial impressions of the paper are very favorable. It's about 1 stop faster than the Ilford warmtone and much more contrasty. When using the Kodak paper, I had to subtract 30 units of magenta from the filtration (color head) to get equivalence between the papers. The best prints of my negs required no filtration so the negs were pretty good. The paper showed a good range tones from black to white. The highlights were very impressive in that fine gradations were evident in the highlights. Shadow detail was excellent, as well. The paper seemed to work very well with the TMY.
Will this become a standard paper for me? No. First off, it's RC only. The look of the blacks don't come close to either my Bergger or Ilford standards. Secondly, it's a neutral to cold paper. I prefer warm tone paper.
The Kodak paper would be ideal if you had to produce a good number of prints from Tmax negatives.
I'm going to try to print some txp (320) and TX (400) negs tonight. I'll post results if anyone is interested.
Please post, I've been using the RC for 8x10s and the VC for 11x14 with the new TMAX X and am favorably impressed. I would like to hear you impressions.
Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
okay--I'll see what i can do--nothing fancy. I'm going to do a ringaround of grades (settings on a dichro head) using a stoufer stepwedge. I have some polycontrast III and MGIV to compare against--but I used up the last of the polymaxII we had last week actually...Anyways--I found what little I used to similar to Tom's experience. The highlight contrast was real punchy--for lack of a better word--and it handled the shadow type detail in a similar way to Polymax II. It reminds me of Polymax II with better highlight contrast actually. There's no comparison to polycontrast III though.
Originally Posted by Shesh
Following up on my previous posting, I managed to print some txp 320 negs which were developed in Pyrocat on the new Kodak paper and compare to the same negs printed on Ilford warm tone fiber.
Short answer, the txp on the polycontrast IV looked better, ie., better shadow differentiation and better blacks that with the Tmax 400 negs, but the whites looked weak, a lighter gray rather than the strong white I prefer. the Ilford printed the txp far better than the PC IV did. Tri-x looked better on the PC IV than the tmax did. PC IV is not a bad paper but as an RC only paper is not worth the time. better to print on Ilford or Bergger and get deep, rich blacks.
Some of this may be that my tmax negs were developed in acufine, although the negs have adequate shadow detail. My real conclusion, that I've come to time and time again is, "why would anyone use tmax when they have txp available?"
your results may vary...
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I haven't done the stepwedge yet--but I'll get to it sooner or later-- I went ahead and plunged right into a box of it for a job I'm printing at work. I shot over 350 4x5 negs (TMX and mostly Ilford ortho) on some 100-110 yr old photos, postcards and cyanotypes. I shot grayscales as well, and developed two ways. A normal run for a CI to get me into a grade 2, and push & pull runs as well. Now--the majority of these had to be cross polarized as well--so it's a real mix of contrasts.
Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
I have found though, that when printed onto MGIV Deluxe, my highlights suffer in comparison to Poly IV. I really like using Polymax II for these types of negatives, and it would appear that Poly IV will be a pefect match. I have to make prints for this project--I'm going to start on the Poly IV and see how it does. Could be I wind up using both Poly IV and MGIV.
I haven't gotten to print any of our object studio shots. It will be interesting to see how the paper handles the mahogany furniture we shoot on white keys, being on the other end of the tonal scale--but for copywork, the highlights are often compressed--so this paper really shines for that.
In a perfect world, you can fine tune your negs for the material you print on--but that world doesn't exist with historical negatives. This is why I always liked having more than brand of paper on hand....polymaxII would always work for where MGIV failed and vice-versa.
I don't think I'll find one better than the other--just different. But, I can get a killer deal on Poly IV on contract....much cheaper than the ilford, and it gets delivered on time. YMMV as they say.