Ilford MG IV versus Big Yellah polymax fine art

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

I've just tried Polymax fine art paper, because Sir Sexton swears by

it. I almost wet me britches when I first pulled it out of the fix...it

looked like Heaven. But after drydown it looked flatter than my first

girlfriend's...well I won't get crude on ya'll. This is even after I

did lots of preemtive pushing the contrast, etc. to compensate.

 

I've used Ilford multigrade IV ever since it first came down the line,

and I swear there's nothing like it for brilliant highlights, rich

velvety blacks, shine, shine, shine, shine, show, show, show!

 

I don't know...Since I got two damn boxes of the Kodak shit, I want to

make it look better. Anyone know how to make the gray go away?

 

Thursty

[mark_sampson]

check your safelights. The filters fade over time and may cause fogging. Myself I have no problem printing on Polymax Fine-Art (except the silly name). It's worth noting as well that no two papers are the same (that's a good thing) and that you have to learn the characteristics of each. Try printing the same neg on the two papers and see haow close you can get them to match. It's also an experience thing- print thru your supply before you have a final opinion. When your results are different from many other people's, perhaps it's your procedure, rather than the qualities of the material in question. One final thing- I haven't noticed a severe dry-down with this paper..unlike the (discontinued Elite).

[z_z1]

The big Yellow Father never sets foot in my darkroom, except for film developer. I use Agfa MG and love it. For years I used Ilford and may give it another whirl when I run out of Agfa, but for my style of pictures Yellow box stuff never sang to me. Or if it did it was off key and flat.

[eugene_singer]

Thurston, return to using Ilford Multigrade IV, and don't look back. Now, after first checking your safelight, you may be able to salvage those two boxes of Polymax paper by adding approx. 3 grams of potassium bromide to your tray of paper developer. That's about 1/2 teaspoon of KBr powder. It helps to dissolve the KBr in 100ml of warm water before adding it to the developer. You will notice that the highlights look very white when wet, but will look better when the paper drys down. It works for me.

[kcrisp]

Thurston: The advice to check safelights makes sense. When I tested Polymax for drydown I think it was in the 5% or6% range (I'm at work, going from memory), more than Seagull VC but nothing out of the ordinary. I just cut the time by that much and had no problem with it. I thought it was a decent paper developed in Dektol or Clayton.

[Troll]

1) Check your safelights. 2) Try developing in Amidol.

[michael_sherck]

I thought that Polymax Fine Art was all right but it didn't find a place in my darkroom because it seems to "spoil" more quickly than other papers I've used. A trial box of paper lasts me for months and that's never been a problem with other papers but after a couple of months in the paper safe the Polymax's highlights had turned gray while other papers' hadn't. My darkroom is in my basement, by the way, and it's within a couple of degrees of 68 deg. F. all the time in there.

 

Its even more odd because I'm something of a coward when it comes to storing stuff. Paper in my commercial paper safe is kept in it's original paper or plastic liner, inside the original box, and I pull it out a piece at a time as I use it, shutting the rest back inside its packaging inside the safe for each print. Tests show that my safelight causes no discernable fog on any of the papers I've tested it on with over 10 minutes' exposure on the enlarger baseboard. A pity because when fresh I like the paper: it compares well with Brilliant, Cachet, and Forte, which are other papers I'm very familiar with. It seems matched very well to Tmax 100, which is my preferred film, and T-max developer.

[steve_feldman2]

FWIW - Not *totally* off the thread, but, have you tried GEKKO VC? IMHO A beautiful tonal quality and very responsive to VC filters. Maybe a new thread for "What's the best paper" but probably discussed on this site in the past.

[brian_ellis3]

I used MG III and then IV for years but tried Polymax Fine Art about three years ago and have stayed with it. One of the main reasons for me was that MG IV seemed very difficult to selectively bleach and I started doing more of that after attending a Bruce Barnbaum workshop. Polymax Fine Art bleaches very easily. I'm surprised at your contrast situation, my experience was different. With MG IV I used to set the dial on my Aristo 4500 VCL head at 2.7 (with a range of .1 to 5.1) for a normal negative, which was the approximate equivalent of grade two with that paper. With Polymax Fine Art I set the dial at 2.0 for the same contrast. I also haven't observed the kind of dry down effect that you describe. I've haven't made any controlled tests but my subjective impression was that Polymax Fine Art usually showed less dry down effect than MG IV. When I used MG IV I used to always make one final print at 10% less exposure than looked exactly right with the print wet. It seemed like more often than not the 10% less print was the one that ended up being the show print. I do that occasionally with Polymax Fine Art but not as a routine matter any more because I don't usually see a significant dry down effect with that paper except in a print that is particularly susceptible to dry down.

 

All papers have approximately the same density range, they differ in how that limited range is apportioned among the highlights, midtones, and shadows but if the paper isn't fogged, and if you're using a filter and exposure time appropriate for the negative, I don't think you should be seeing the kind of drastic difference between the two papers that you describe.

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

Thanks, Guys

 

Its not my safelight, because my final prints are done in total darkness.

 

The differences are kind of subtle, but I'm a nit-picker!!Even with the hilights looking okay, everything else just loses vibrance. What can I say?

 

I'll try the potassium bromide. Thanks very much,

 

Thursty

[jeffrey_scott]

GRADE 5!!!

[clayh]

Benzatriazole!!!

[light-zone]

Thurston, how about telling us about your choice of developers. I've used the Polymax paper for enlargements for a couple of years now, and it suites my taste better than Seagull, Agfa or Ilford. In fact, only Azo in Amidol was able to prove itsself to be a better combination than the polymax FA developed in a 2 bath system of Tetenals Dokumol (first bath, until about 60-70% of the image is developed) and finished off in Centrabrom.

[neil_poulsen1]

To Michael Sherck: Check your paper safe. It sounds like Polymax is a little more sensitive than the Ilford paper, so the difference that you see between the papers could be due to this increased sensitivity.

 

I had the same problem, and when I upgraded my papersafe to 11x14, I found that the whole back end had separated. This left a slow light lead that eventually spoiled paper, if it had been left in the "safe" for any length of time.

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

I think the thing with paper and developer is all subjective. I tried

the kodak paper, didn't like it, and am going back to Ilford. Now I

realize how well it works for me. I only use Dektol developer now.

I used variuoous others over the years...Ilford, sprint, my buddy's

homemade stuff, and the dektol is still my friend. I dilute it 1:1,

1:2, or 1:3, or use it in a two bath, 1st bath 1:4, second, straight,

all depending on what the negative wants. I then selenium my

Ilfords 1:10 for about 5 minutes, and they gets luscious and

yummy. I am now more confident that I had it right the first time.

 

I've seen some stuff printed on azo with amidol, and its nice, yes.

But I can still dust it with Ilford in Dektol/selenium hands down!

You know why? Because I make a damn good negative, and

print with a condenser head!

 

That's my 2 cents for ya

 

Thursty

[light-zone]

Never change a working system Thurston. But I understand the enternal quest for something better.

 

But if you think an "enlargement" can dust a "contact" print on Azo, well bro, who's kidding who. And FWIW, there are plent of us out here that can make a damn good negative, and the najority of them are probably using LF cameras and making contact prints.

[robert_a._zeichner1]

I have used both papers extensively. When Kodak was having some difficulties with contaminated coaters, I switched over to Ilford and it took me awhile to adjust. At that time I was using gelatin printing filters. After awhile, I decided to give the Polymax another go and as it seemed that Kodak had solved the original problem, I switched back and have been very happy since. I eventually switched over to an Aristo VCL4500 head and, like Ellis, have noticed that the Polymax requires less blue to achieve a similar result as one would get with the MGIV. I know there has been a good bit of anti-Kodak sentiment on this forum, but I want you to know that all through the contamination difficulties, Kodak's customer service department was as responsive and simpathetic as one could want. The Polymax product, while not everyone's cup of tea, has a beautiful surface, tones well and, at least in my darkroom, has produced some sparkling prints. I feel the whole business of viewing wet prints is a complicated issue and may have much to do with influencing a particular printer's experience with one paper or another. Perhaps a new thread on viewing wet prints is in order?

[photobyalan.com]

The problem you have with the Polymax Fine Art has nothing to do with the safelight or the developer or the age of the paper. It can't be cured with benzotriazole. The problem is with the surface of the paper. You didn't say which paper surface you're using, but if it's N or C, they both are VERY flat finishes that make it nearly impossible to get deep blacks. Even the F finish needs to be ferrotyped to get a truly glossy finish. I bought one package of the Fine Art in the C surface. I liked the image color and the weight of the paper, but the lack of true blacks kept me from buying another package.

 

I suppose you could try another couple minutes in the developer to see if the blacks will get any deeper, but I doubt that will be sufficient.

 

This lack of real black in the Polymax fine art is why I have a half-package that's been in the drawer for over a year and I'm now buying MGIV semi-matt, which is truly a beautiful paper.

[arne_croell]

Polymax FA does age faster than most other papers by loosing contrast and fogging the highlights. I've experienced that myself. Kodak gives it not more than 18 months after manufacture. You can check the age of your paper using the stock rotation code on the label. The number looks like yyyy-xxxxxx ZZ. ZZ is the stock rotation code (expiration date, essentially). Code no.49 was January 2000, then add 1 for each month after that until you reach 96 (Dec. 2003), then it starts at 1 again.

What is the code on your paper?

[james___]

God I love these trolls. Here's one. Thursty needs to learn to print. Then maybe he can match Sexton using Kodak Polymax Fine Art or Barnbaum using Forte or Jaheil using Cache or any number of others using any number of other papers, developers, toners. You learn to print properly and you can use anything and make it sing. Now go stand in a corner for 10 mins for being such a troll. We don't need this stuff here.