Does anyone use graded paper these days?

[tommy_mitchell]

I�ve been away from photography for about 10 years. I note that

these days everything seems to be moving in the direction of

variable contrast printing. Graded papers were the norm in my day.

 

My questions are: Does anybody still like graded papers? If so,

which is your preference these days? I always used Seagull in the

past, but I understand that it has been changed in the last few

years.

 

Please forgive a rather basic question for someone trying to catch

up after a 10 year layoff.

 

Tommy Mitchell

[david_goldfarb]

Yes!

 

I like Azo for contact printing, Cachet Expo graded for enlargements, and occasionally Oriental Seagull graded as well.

 

I do keep some Ilford MGFB IV on hand for prints that would benefit from split grade effects.

[c_p_goerz]

Its all I use! I just can't get a good print from a PMK neg on the stuff and even my pre-PMK negs always have a richer look on the graded.

 

 

CP Goerz

[c_p_goerz]

Its all I use! I just can't get a good print from a PMK neg on the (multigraded) stuff and even my pre-PMK negs always have a richer look on the graded.

 

 

CP Goerz

[tim_atherton2]

It's a bit of a strech to call AZO graded these days... maybe a binary paper? with only two grades available.

[jerry_flynn1]

Like others who have responded, I primarily use graded papers. I use Ilford Galerie, Arista graded (from Freestyle in LA), and Oriental Seagull.

 

You'll find that there is not the range of contrast grades available now as were formerly. Grade 2-4 are about it, now. Extra-hard or extra-soft negatives may require the use of VC paper.

 

Be aware that most people would probably agree that the quality of VC paper today is much better than "the old days".

[stephen hazelton]

They still sell it, don't they?

[jose_angel]

I use Ilford MG fiber based glossy, but always filtered to grade 2 or 3. I can't obtain a satisfying print with other grades. I am really surprised that others use another grades. If a negative is too thin or too dense, I try to repair it or mostly I discard it and repeat the taking.

 

I would like to know if others have the same problem, and if they (like me) just obtain ugly prints without good blacks and luminous highlights when using grade 1 or an absolute lack of middle tones when using a grade 4.

 

That's the reason because a lot of times I'm tempted to buy "normal" (not MG) grade 2 paper, perhaps the next time...

[ed_pierce2]

The VC papers are fabulous and much cheaper than graded papers now. I've tried to love the VC papers, really I have. But I still prefer the graded. For one thing, my safelight is unkind to VC papers, so I have to turn it way down and work quickly in very dim light. Also, I see a slight loss of sharpness with VC on my rig...whether it's the filter scattering the light, or 'focus shift', or all in my head, I don't know.

 

Perhaps most important is I just can't handle all the possibilities. Printing is difficult enough for me...the possible variations with split printing just blows my mind, and I go through a lot more paper. Printing with graded paper just seems more straightforward to me.

 

I do keep a lot of VC paper around, especially the larger sizes, because it's so much cheaper now. But these days when I do print on VC I pretty much just use the filters as I would changing paper grades.

 

The Ilford Gallerie graded is very good, as is the Seagull. I mourn the loss of Brilliant graded.

[john_kasaian1]

Tommy, I use graded paper too. I like the way it accepts toners. AZO for contacts and Freestyle's graded classic(probably Ilford) for enlarging. I had some Agfa Brovira and Oriental Seagull that I lost (sniff) in the flood of '02.

[neil_miller2]

Like most of the other respondents, I use azo and gallerie graded papers. Also, I can't get a decent print from PMK on VC paper.

 

Regards,

Neil

[brian_ellis3]

No, except for Azo for 8x10 contact prints. I find the ability to burn different areas of the image at different contrasts an overwhelming advantage for VC papers. Until I started using VC papers about 10 years ago I never realized how important it was to be able to do this. I now can't really print without having that ability. It's very, very seldom that I make a print at only a single contrast any more.

[nick_morris]

I use both VC (Agfa MMC) and Graded (Ilfobrom Galerie) and plan to work with Azo. They seem to have different "looks", which is good, gives you a broader pallette (SP?). The Galerie has a very "rich" look to it that I like for my 8x10 contact prints. Seems to tone well.

Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee have a show hanging in Richmond now. I've been back four times. Fine photographers, and what they do with Azo should make a believer of anyone. Magnificent prints.

[skip_a]

Azo for contact prints. I mostly use Seagull graded for enlargements, but I also use Zone VI Brilliant VC and Agfa Classic VC, depending on the desired effect.

[ronald_lamarsh1]

They do but the range of options is diminished, how sad. For all the complaints about VC: seeming lack of sharpness I've found from personal experience that an Ilford MGIV print just can't stand up to the same print done on Galerie I've talked to Ilford even and they of course claim there is something else going on like safelight fog(I tested it my light is more than safe) I think VC paper just isn't as good! Lets face it folks different emulsions at different depths et al means certain compromises have been made. At the same time almost every fine art photographer who has written a book and makes a living at it extols the virtues of VC paper! So the bottom line is its good enough. I have found Forte to be extremely good for my printing much easier to work with and I get better results from my negatives than I do with Ilford. I just ordered some POP from chicago albumen works to print my 5x7's with this should be interesting.

[nicholas_f._jones]

Just been printing 16x20's from 8x10 negs on VC paper, so I'll chime in a little belatedly on this one.

 

After trying a half dozen or so papers, we settled on Seagull dw fb glossy. As long as we were doing only 8x10 I kept a box each of 2, 3, and 4 on hand, but now that we've started enlarging the 8x10 negs up to 20x24, it's no longer feasible for us to stockpile all our sizes in all three grades. Besides, having invested in a VC cold light head for the Zone VI enlarger, it only makes sense to use it. I ran an informal test on 8x10 Seagull papers, comparing each graded paper with VC paper exposed at the prescribed settings for that grade, and I found no significant difference---certainly there was nothing visibly deficient in the VC prints to my unaided eye.

 

Mostly I print at grade 2, increasing contrast to grade 3 for certain subjects, only rarely going to grade 4. The 2's and 3's on VC I've done the last few days satisfy my expectations, and somebody would have to show me some real evidence that I could get better results on the corresponding graded papers before I'd be willing to switch.

[triblett_lungre_thurd]

both...

 

poly rc for proofs, graded fb for final.

[WAn]

"Does anybody still like graded papers? If so, which is your preference these days?"

 

 

Does. Ilford Galerie, Bergger Silver Supreme, Kodak Azo.

Nevertheless I use VC papers (both FB & RC) more ofter than graded.