andreasdegner
Hi everyone!
Yesterday I developed a few prints on Adox EasyPrint PE using freshly mixed Dokumol at a 1:6 dilution... and I’m not entirely happy with the results. The reason: the images somehow lack depth because the blacks aren’t quite rich enough. But you only really notice this when you hold a photo developed on Ilford MG, also in Dokumol, next to it. Its blacks appear warmer and deeper, even though both papers are neutral black. With the EasyPrint prints, I get the impression that there’s a bluish film over them.
Have you had similar experiences with this paper? Is another developer perhaps more suitable, or how can I achieve rich blacks with it?
Best regards
Andreas
cfb_de
Hello Andreas,
How do you dry the prints?
Best regards,
Franz
TA
Hello Andreas,
I’m currently using Adox Easy Print PE for contact prints. So I ordered 50 sheets of 24x30 in gloss.
They were delivered in five ‘envelopes’ of ten sheets each. At first, everything went perfectly. But when I opened the third pack of ten, I noticed a significant loss of contrast and consequently low maximum black density. I then prepared a fresh batch of developer (Eukobrom 1+9), but there was no improvement. I had to perform exposure on the sheets from this pack using an Ilford filter 3 to get decent contact prints.
The last two packs of ten were fine again, just like the first two. They showed the deepest blacks with filter 2.
Perhaps you’ve also come across such a “strange” pack??
The fact that the paper appears slightly cooler than MG IV is nothing new; as far as I’m aware, the box contains Kentmere VC Select, and that is, after all, relatively cool.
Best regards,
Taher
andreasdegner
Hi Franz!
After developing, I just hang them up in a corner using clothes pegs. I do the same with the other papers, so that can’t be the reason for my problem with the ADOX paper. It must have something to do with the emulsion. Maybe I’ve just got a dodgy batch.
Best regards
Andreas
bernhardmangelsgmxde
I’ve heard that Ilford wants to change the emulsion, partly to achieve a wider dynamic range. Maybe that’s the reason? I can’t complain about the lack of black (though it’s definitely still the old emulsion).
andreasdegner
I’ve heard that Ilford wants to change the emulsion, partly to achieve a wider dynamic range. Perhaps that’s the reason? I can’t complain about a lack of black density (though it’s definitely still the old emulsion).
Hello Namir!
It’s about the maximum black density of Adox EasyPrint... according to FOTOIMPEX, this is supposed to be neutral in tone and characterised by good maximum black density... I can’t see any evidence of that. I only used the Ilford MG for comparison.
Regards
Andreas
bernhardmangelsgmxde
The gradient is slightly different with every type of paper. Have you ever tried a harder gradient? You might need a harder filter setting than with Ilford to achieve a comparable gradient.
I can certainly confirm that with the good maximum blacks.
andreasdegner
The gradient is slightly different with every type of paper. Have you ever simply tried a harder gradient? You might need a harder filter setting than with Ilford to achieve a comparable gradient.
I can certainly confirm that regarding the excellent maximum blacks.
I’m actually happy with the gradient... the darkest areas on the print, which no longer show any differentiation, have to display the blackest black the paper can produce. And that just doesn’t seem rich enough to me with the ADOX EasyPrint. Even though the developer was freshly mixed and the print was definitely in there for 2 minutes.
Is your ADOX EasyPrint comparable in tone to Ilford (i.e. neutral)? Which developer do you use?
bernhardmangelsgmxde
[...] the darkest areas on the print, which no longer show any gradation, must, of course, display the blackest black that the paper can produce.
Is that right?
Try using a gradient 5, without film and with a proper exposure time... I’d say that would get us closer to the blackest black...
Can’t compare it to the MGIV. Compared to Agfa MCP, the tone is slightly warmer. I use N113.
andreasdegner
[...] the darkest areas on the print, which no longer show any gradation, must, of course, display the blackest black that the paper can produce.
Is that right?
Try using a gradient 5, without film and with a decent exposure time... I’d say that would get us closer to the blackest black...
Can’t compare it to the MGIV. Compared to Agfa MCP, the tone is slightly warmer. I use N113.
If I expose for long enough, then with every gradient I’ll get the blackest black that the paper in question can produce, won’t I?
If I’ve already exposed it so that the shadows are almost washed out (i.e. no longer show any differentiation), then the maximum black must be present on the print. If the highlights are then paper-white, I’ve at least used the correct gradient for the overall contrast.
So it could only be down to poor development (which I can rule out, however, as I’ve used freshly mixed developer), or the paper doesn’t have good shadow differentiation.
Just for fun, I’ll make a comparison with the blackness I achieve with this paper through generous exposure without film.
cfb_de
After rinsing, I simply hang them up by one corner using clothes pegs.
Hi Andreas,
Why not try drying a print in the microwave (it actually works!) or in the oven? The effect you describe does indeed have something to do with the emulsion: specifically, the fact that, compared to Multigrade, it’s a completely *different* emulsion :P
Best regards,
Franz
Lui
I’ve had the same problem with Adox Easy Print. It’s supposed to be the equivalent of Kentmere VC Select, but it does have a few shortcomings when it comes to maximum black and the mid-tones. I once made a comparison print on Adox MCP and was surprised at just how big the differences were. The print on the MCP had higher contrast (not as washed-out as with the Easy Print) and a much higher D-max. The Easy Print is fine for contact copying, but for proper prints I use a different paper.
The cooler colour tone is normal too. I actually found that quite nice at times.
Regards
Lui
philippleser
Hello,
I use Easyprint as my standard paper with Acugrade as the developer (always for one minute). During the process, I’ve noticed that the exposure latitude is significantly narrower compared to Ilford Multigrade or ADOX MCP. At gradient 0, I measure around 90 ISO R, which gives a latitude of three stops; MCP, on the other hand, goes up to around 130 ISO R, Which is more than one stop further.
This also applies to the hard gradients: at gradient 5, Easyprint reaches around 40 ISO R, i.e. a printing range of 1 1/3 stops, whilst the other papers show significantly more at this point.
I must say that, of course, one cannot compare the specific ISO R values, as these depend both on my chemical process and on the nature of my gradient filters. What is, however, very much comparable is the fact that, under the same conditions, Easyprint always has a lower copying range than MCP or Ilford at the same gradation.
It doesn’t bother me too much, because with an RHD Zonemaster I always find the ‘right’ exposure time anyway, and I usually manage the contrast quite well too (hard negatives in particular benefit from this, of course).
However, this difference compared to the other papers might have something to do with your problem...
Regards,
Philipp
andreasdegner
I once had a snippet of EasyPrint exposed for a long time (without a negative) to produce a proper black... and it really was blacker than the one on my prints. Perhaps I should increase the gradient.
Best regards
Andreas
andreasdegner
After rinsing them, I simply hang them up by one corner using clothes pegs.
Hi Andreas,
Then try drying a print in the microwave (it actually works!) or in the oven. The effect you describe does indeed have something to do with the emulsion: specifically, the fact that, compared to Multigrade, it’s a completely *different* emulsion :P
Best regards,
Franz
Hello Franz,
What power setting and time do you use for drying in the microwave? And why is that supposed to improve the print?
Regards
Andreas
andreasdegner
Hello,
I use Easyprint as my standard paper with Acugrade as the developer (always for one minute). I’ve noticed that, compared to Ilford Multigrade or Adox MCP, the range of tones is significantly narrower. At gradient 0, I measure around 90 ISO R, which is a range of three stops; MCP goes up to around 130 ISO R, which is more than one stop further.
This also applies to the hard gradients: at gradient 5, Easyprint reaches around 40 ISO R, which is a range of 1 1/3 stops, whilst the other papers show significantly more.
I must say that, of course, one cannot compare the specific ISO R values, as these depend both on my chemical process and on the nature of my gradient filters. What is, however, very much comparable is the fact that, under the same conditions, Easyprint always has a lower copying range than MCP or Ilford at the same gradation.
It doesn’t bother me too much, because with an RHD Zonemaster I always find the ‘right’ exposure time anyway, and I usually manage the contrast quite well too (hard negatives in particular benefit from this, of course).
However, this difference compared to the other papers might have something to do with your problem...
Regards,
Philipp
Hi Philipp!
I’m a bit confused at the moment... if the paper has a lower copying range, doesn’t that mean it’s also harder? But that contradicts what other forum members have said, namely that the paper is too soft. How does that fit together?
I actually have the feeling that the shadow differentiation is poor.
Regards
Andreas
philippleser
Hello,
If I’ve read it correctly, Lui mentions lower contrast than MCP. But of course that also depends on the maximum density. Whether the paper reproduces two, three or four stops of negative contrast within that contrast range is a completely different matter!
A paper with a wider reproduction range can still look crisp if the blacks are simply blacker there.
And in any case, I’d like to point out once again that all this is extremely difficult to compare, because so many parameters influence the result (chemicals, filters, etc.). I find it quite convenient that I can at least take approximate measurements with the analyser, and for my process, they look exactly as I described.
Ultimately, the situation is as follows: you can adapt to the paper and measure it. Then you know exactly how long you need to expose it to bring a spot on the negative precisely to the desired near-white. The print range for the chosen gradient then determines where the shadows land on the negative. Once you’ve got the hang of that and choose the gradient that suits the negative, you should always be able to achieve all the grey tones.
If the deep black doesn’t work out, it’s probably because the paper, together with the developer, can’t produce that deep black.
Since you say that a rough, very long exposure already produces decent black, I’d guess that with a bit of trial and error, you’ll get the negatives right after a while. It’s much quicker if you measure with an analyser (professionals can probably do it without one, but I’m a bit clumsy and like to use technical aids).
Regards,
Philipp
bernhardmangelsgmxde
[...] I did a test print on Adox MCP and was surprised at just how big the differences were. The print on the MCP had much higher contrast (not as washed-out as with the Easy Print) and a much higher D-max. [...]
...I also made some comparative prints and was amazed at how incredibly similar the results were...
andreasdegner
Hello,
If I’ve read it correctly, Lui mentions lower contrast than MCP. But of course, that also depends on the maximum density. Whether the paper reproduces two, three or four stops of negative contrast within that contrast range is a completely different matter!
A paper with a wider reproduction range can still look crisp if the black is simply blacker there.
And anyway, I’d like to point out once again that all this is extremely difficult to compare, because so many parameters play a part in the result (chemicals, filters, etc.). I find it quite convenient that I can at least take approximate measurements with the analyser, and for my process, they look exactly as I described.
Ultimately, the situation is as follows: you can adjust to the paper and measure it. Then you know exactly how long you need to expose it to bring a specific area of the negative precisely to the desired near-white. The exposure range for the chosen gradient then determines where the shadows land on the negative. Once you’ve got the hang of that and choose the gradient that suits the negative, you should always be able to get all the grey tones right.
If the deep black doesn’t work out, it’s probably because the paper, together with the developer, can’t produce that deep black.
Since you say that a rough, very long exposure already produces decent blacks, I’d guess that with a bit of trial and error, you’ll get the negatives right after a while. It’s much quicker if you measure with an analyser (professionals can probably do it without one, but I’m a bit clumsy and like to use technical aids).
Regards,
Philipp
Hello Philipp,
thanks for the detailed reply. I think I now know where my problem lies. To me, warm blacks somehow seem more saturated than cold ones. I once did a sepia tone with EasyPrint prints... now they look richer in the shadows.
Incidentally, the test strip with the generous test exposure does have a bit more black than on the prints, but not as much as other papers. I find the name EasyPrint a bit misleading, because you don’t get good results if you work by eye (as I do). Well, on the other hand, the paper is nice and cheap.
Conclusion: I’m going to experiment with other developers and drying methods (hot drying tends to produce warmer images) and see if I can get prints I like with this paper. Perhaps it’s down to manufacturing consistency and I’ve just got a bad batch...
Regards
Andreas
bernhardmangelsgmxde
Hello,
If I’ve read it correctly, Lui mentions lower contrast than MCP. But of course, that also depends on the maximum density. Whether the paper reproduces two, three or four stops of negative contrast within that contrast range is a completely different matter!
A paper with a wider copying range can still look crisp if the black is simply blacker there.
And anyway, I’d like to point out once again that all this is extremely difficult to compare, because so many parameters play a part in the result (chemistry, filters, etc.). I find it quite convenient that I can at least take approximate measurements with the analyser, and for my process, they look exactly as I described.
Ultimately, the situation is as follows: you can adjust to the paper and measure it. Then you know exactly how long you need to expose it to bring a spot on the negative precisely to the desired near-white. The exposure range for the chosen gradient then determines where the shadows land on the negative. Once you’ve got the hang of that and choose the gradient that suits the negative, you should always be able to achieve all the grey tones.
If the deep black doesn’t work out, it’s probably because the paper, together with the developer, can’t produce that deep black.
Since you say that a rough, very long exposure already produces decent black, I’d guess that with a bit of trial and error, you’ll get the negatives right after a while. It’s much quicker if you measure with an analyser (professionals can probably do it without one, but I’m a bit clumsy and like to use technical aids).
Regards,
Philipp
Hello Philipp,
thanks for the detailed reply. I think I now know where my problem lies. To me, warm blacks somehow seem more saturated than cold ones. I once did a sepia tone with EasyPrint prints... now they look richer in the shadows.
Incidentally, the test strip with the generous test exposure does have a bit more black than on the prints, but not as much as on other papers. I find the name EasyPrint a bit misleading, because you don’t get good results if you work by eye (as I do). Well, on the other hand, the paper is nice and cheap.
Conclusion: I’ll have a go at experimenting with other developers and drying methods (hot drying is said to tend to produce warmer images) and see if I can get prints I like with this paper. Perhaps it’s down to manufacturing consistency and I’ve just got a bad batch...
Regards
Andreas
... I think it’s a myth that you can’t get good results with Easyprint when working by eye. I reckon you can achieve good results with any paper available on the market. By eye, of course. Of course, you might need different filters or exposure times, and for one or two negatives you might need a harder or softer gradient than the Easyprint can produce, for example, but you can still work quite well with the paper.
Production tolerance and a bad batch: I think they should have that under control in England by now.
Regards,
Bernhard
