Yes the 'terrible, attic-stored' paper came out best, as long as you use the BZ. But you would be shocked to know how much enlarger exposure this required because of the underdevelopment. I will say again, Kodak papers age gracefully and respond well to BZ. As far as my assessment that there is 'more accurate color' with the Ultra NOT having BZ: I had wanted to make the point that when using BZ there is oftentimes an inability to get rid of the blueness because of the necessary underdevelopment. If you look very carefully at the print you will see an accurate rendition of color, in terms of hue inter-relationships, but this involves mentally 'removing' the ugly green cast.
The 'benchmark' is really good paper. I did not use ANY BZ. I should have used a bit and with only a little there would have been NO yellowing or sufficient under-developing to cause blueness. This yellowing used to drive me nuts, even back in the 70s when I used to buy color paper before RA4 came out. I think that it was Ektaprint C. I used to buy it from Olden Camera in Manhattan in person and you know that their turnover was constant. Yet...if you looked closely at the new paper after processing, you would have seen, even then, with brand new paper, a slight buff in the white. How I wish that there was a chemical that could cause all densities to 'retreat' like Farmers Reducer does for B&W.
The Agfa Sensatis paper's colors are fantastic (possibly the best I have ever seen) when the paper is new. But this paper deteriorates quickly and I would not be surprised to discover that its long term image stability might be profoundly bad. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 10-29-2013 at 09:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.