Beef
Hi,
I’m currently using Fomaspeed V311 (multigrade), ADOX Easy Print RC 311 (multigrade) and Ilford Ilfospeed RC (fixed-grade) as my photographic papers.
First things first: I’m not really keen on the Ilfospeed paper. It’s paper-thin and the white doesn’t come out very well at all. It’s worth mentioning, though, that this is an older version... perhaps things are different now B)
Right, now to the others. I ordered Fomaspeed and EasyPrint to do a comparison... or rather, to choose my standard paper. What struck me is that the ADOX paper is better suited for writing on the back. If you write any details on it and run it through the belts, the writing holds up perfectly. With the Foma paper, it smudges and even sinks slightly into the paper, so you can see the writing through the image :) (Whether it’s a ballpoint pen, Stabilo, or waterproof pen)
I also noticed that the Foma paper tends to fray at the cut edges... so that the paper practically splits in two... but as I said, it TEND to do so. The ADOX paper, on the other hand, remains absolutely stable.
Therefore -> ADOX :(
The print results are identical.
BUT my question now...
I think this ADOX Easy Print is perfect! It meets all the requirements of what you’d expect from a great print. WHAT advantage is there now in choosing other papers??? Then there’s this MCP, which is idolised by so many here... what’s different about it? I couldn’t imagine any improvement :) I’ve already compared the descriptions of EasyPrint and MCP... the EasyPrint description mentions that it’s ideal for school use, whereas the MCP is professional-grade paper... but it doesn’t mention any details that aren’t also true of the other paper :lol:
Regards
Andi
bernhardmangelsgmxde
Hi Andi,
I get the impression that, in normal use, there isn’t much difference between standard papers. When it comes to the image quality for standard subjects… you get (at least for my standards) practically identical results. I’ve worked with Foma V.III, EP312, and Agfa MCP312; the EP312 has a slightly warmer base, the MCP base is a bit thicker, and the Foma is a bit thinner. The ADOX MCP is probably just as thick as the Easyprint 312. (Please correct me if I’m wrong)
One difference is probably that the MCP effectively has more gradients. The Easyprint doesn’t go quite as far into the soft gradients (I’ve got something like 1.5 to 4 in mind); the MCP can handle the full range from 0 to 5. In practical use, the EasyPrint has usually been enough for me. (I’m a bit of a simple soul...)
Another difference is probably the toning characteristics. (If you don’t tone... never mind)
Perhaps my standards are too low, and I’m not taking photos at a high enough level... I’d say you can work well with any of the three papers, and you don’t really see any difference in the result. I get the impression that it makes more difference whether you view a print under an energy-saving desk lamp, a (soon-to-be-banned) 60 W bulb or in daylight, than whether you use MCP (in my case still Agfa) or EasyPrint.
Nevertheless, it’s quite possible that I’ll go for MCP on my next order. I don’t see any disadvantages compared to the others, and it isn’t that much more expensive either. On top of that, there’s the ‘fantastic’ story of the revived paper, which now, despite all the doom and gloom, seems to be heading for a happy ending...
Best regards
Bernhard
Beef
Hi Bernhard,
Well, according to FOTOIMPEX, the EasyPrint has a gradient of 00–5. And in practice, I’ve also noticed that there’s still some variation in the gradients at the edges. But if I’m not mistaken, I would have got more with the Fomaspeed at gradient 5 than with the EasyPrint... though that could also be down to different exposure settings... I haven’t tested the papers thoroughly yet.
So I don’t tone. But I’d like a paper where the base is as white as possible and the black is as black as possible.
As for the white, I don’t have a proper comparison, as it’s actually the same with the Fomaspeed and the Ilfospeed (maybe it just can’t get any whiter because of the emulsion?!).
But as you say: in the light (e.g. under a desk lamp) you can clearly see that the black isn’t actually properly black :) But that’s the same with all my papers.
Is there a difference between EasyPrint and MCP in this respect? Or is that chemically impossible, as we’re not dealing with black ink here but SILVER?
I’ve even switched from Adotol Konstant to Tetenal Eukobrom specifically because the product description sounded like it would produce a deeper black... but it made absolutely no difference :lol:
Regards
Andi
MirkoBoeddecker
The density depends on the surface (light reflection) and on the opacity of the exposed and developed silver.
If the emulsions of all papers were identical, differences might arise due to the amount of silver applied. However, as different papers are being compared, this criterion should be treated with some caution.
The MCP is the best of the three papers mentioned. This is immediately apparent to the connoisseur, and to the beginner in a direct comparison.
However, the differences are not so significant that one would immediately describe one of the other papers as ‘bad’ or ‘inferior’. These are subtle differences that only really come into their own with a perfectly executed print.
The MCP, for example, has the best gloss behaviour. Agfa meticulously measured this during the product launch and compared it with other papers on the market.
This yielded values such as: MCP in infrared dryers 95%, XY in infrared dryers 89%, MCP air-dried 79%, XY air-dried 65%.
Added to this is the consistency of the gradients. A single step up in gradient on MCP means an exact increase in the curve’s slope. Whether you go from 0.5 to 1 or from 4.5 to 5.
A filter step always results in the same proportional increase (corrected for several factors so that the peculiarities of human visual perception are taken into account).
All of this involved an incredible amount of research and was a massive fine-tuning exercise back then.
Cheaper papers do without this ‘final mile of excellence’. That’s why, when you’re working, you simply notice that everything runs more smoothly and cleanly with the MCP. You also get a good print with fewer rejects, which in turn justifies the price.
Nevertheless, the cheaper papers are all very good too. A couple more test strips and you’ll get there just fine. After all, an EasyPrint dried in a hot-air dryer does have a better high-gloss finish than the MCP air-dried, and so on.
Black and developer: Papers that produce a warm black (brownish-black) have a subjectively deeper black when developed with a cool-toned developer. Eukobrom is the coolest-toned developer alongside Moersch Blue. That’s why the text appears to have a rich black. But here too, the differences are subtle.
Of course, I sometimes find myself in a quandary. On the one hand, I need to highlight the differences between the products in the texts; on the other hand, these differences are sometimes not as great as expected.
The best approach is to stick with a (standard) combination for a long time until you’ve got it perfect. Only then should you start tweaking the settings.
Best regards,
Mirko
Beef
Hi,
I received my order of ADOX MCP a few days ago. I have to say, you can tell straight away that it’s a bit more upmarket than Fomaspeed or EasyPrint… I really like the paper!
But now I’ve got a problem:
I simply can’t get a decent contrast at gradation 2. I use a colour enlarger (Kaiser VCP 6000) and perform the development of my films so that they give a perfect white balance at gradation 2 (as this corresponds to unfiltered light and I want more scope for higher gradients). But it doesn’t work with the MCP... I’m already at 1.5 times the usual development time. The highlights are still too dark (or rather, the whole image). If I put EasyPrint under the lens, for example, I get much stronger contrast at gradient 2 (with the same negative).
The same effect occurs whether the filter is in the filter drawer or when adjusting the gradient via the colour mixing head.
What could be causing this?
The MCP is supposedly capable of the full gradient range... but for some reason, it’s not behaving as expected for me. To get close to the EasyPrint at gradient 2, I have to perform exposure at gradient 5.
My developer is Tetenal Eukobrom (freshly mixed... 1+9)... my development time is 1 minute.
I hope someone here can help me out. I’d be very grateful for a quick reply.
Regards,
Andi
Beef
Hi,
I received my order of ADOX MCP a few days ago. I have to say, you can tell straight away that it’s a bit more upmarket than Fomaspeed or EasyPrint… I really like the paper!
But now I’ve got a problem:
I simply can’t get a decent contrast at gradation 2. I use a colour enlarger (Kaiser VCP 6000) and perform the development of my films so that they give a perfect white balance at gradation 2 (as this corresponds to unfiltered light and I want more scope for higher gradients). But it doesn’t work with the MCP... I’m already at 1.5 times the usual development time. The highlights are still too dark (or rather, the whole image). If I put EasyPrint under the lens, for example, I get much stronger contrast at gradient 2 (with the same negative).
The same effect occurs with the filter in the filter drawer and when adjusting the gradient via the colour mixing head.
What could be causing this?
The MCP is supposedly capable of the full gradient range... but for some reason, it’s not behaving as expected for me. To get close to the EasyPrint at gradient 2, I have to ensure that the MCP receives a full exposure of 5 gradations.
My developer is Tetenal Eukobrom (freshly mixed... 1+9)... my development time is 1 minute.
I hope someone here can help me out. I’d be very grateful for a quick reply.
Regards
Andi
bernhardmangelsgmxde
ceteris paribus?
And what’s all this about ‘perfect white balance’?
Beef
All other things being equal?
And what’s all this about the perfect white balance?
Is my post really that hard to understand?!
To recap briefly: the MCP doesn’t provide any contrast! Every paper, whether Ilford, Fomaspeed or Easyprint, has roughly the same properties when it comes to contrast in the gradient at grade 2. But with the MCP, I only get the same at grade 5 (if at all). In short, the paper is completely useless, as I can’t get any white!
For example, I’ve already developed the Agfa APX 100 for 35 minutes (Rodinal 1+50) and it still isn’t working! If I used a different paper, I’d literally only have BLACK and WHITE here. With MCP, all I ever get is dark, soft mush.
I’m slowly starting to think this is a manufacturing defect...
Gerd
Your question sounds as though you’re adjusting the wrong settings.
If the positive is coming out too dark, you should let less light hit the paper during enlargement. In other words, reduce the exposure time or close the aperture further.
PE paper is developed. That means you leave it in the bath until nothing has changed for a while. With Eukobrom, according to the instructions, this should be the case after 1.5–3 minutes. So if you want to rule out the developer as the source of the problem, you can leave the paper in the bath for 3 minutes.
Gerd
Beef
Your question sounds as though you’re adjusting the wrong settings.
If the positive is turning out too dark, you should let less light hit the paper during enlargement. In other words, reduce the exposure time or close the aperture further.
PE paper is developed. That means you leave it in the bath until nothing has changed for a while. With Eukobrom, according to the instructions, this should be the case after 1.5–3 minutes. So if you want to rule out the developer as the source of the problem, you can leave the paper in the bath for 3 minutes.
Gerd
Hi Gerd,
No, no, I’m not fiddling with the wrong settings :)
I know my way around enlargement. I think I’ve already found the problem... I’ve been playing around a bit again with Rodinal, different temperatures and agitation rhythms. Apparently, what happened was that although the negative density increased, the contrast didn’t really go up.
By ‘dark’, I meant that when I performed an exposure on black, for example, the whole negative turned out quite dark... the highlights/whites also turned out quite dark -> too little contrast. And I didn’t even manage to get it quite right with gradient 5.
But as I said, I think that’s more down to the negative.
If I had less exposure, I wouldn’t get any black at all ;)
But it’s still odd that other papers produce more contrast than the MCP at the same gradient... it really does stand out here (the difference is quite significant).
Oh, and with the MCP in Eukobrom, nothing happens after about 40 seconds. My standard time is actually 1.5 minutes... that works for all papers.
Regards
Andi
Beef
Hi again,
Well, I’ve now found the problem… it was down to the DUKA lamp ;)
For some reason, this red light doesn’t quite get on with the MCP. After 2.5 minutes under the lamp, the paper turns pitch black in the developer :) So there was always a grey haze over it.
I’ve now set up my other lamp (Kaiser Duka 50). Even after 3 minutes at a distance of just 10 cm, the paper stays pure white ;)
This red is a bit different; it looks more of a reddish-brownish colour (sodium vapour lamp, specifically for multigrade papers and colour/black-and-white processes). Even a 3-minute test under the enlarger’s red filter (fully open, f/2.8) didn’t blacken the paper... even though the red looks exactly the same as with my old Duka light... strange :)
Now the prints are identical to those from the EasyPrint ;)
Regards
Andi
bernhardmangelsgmxde
There we are! I was wondering about that. I was actually quite shocked at how little difference there was in the end...
Hi again,
Well, I’ve now found the fault... it was down to the DUKA lamp ;)
Somehow, this red light doesn’t quite get on with the MCP. After 2.5 minutes under the lamp, the paper in the developer turns pitch black :) So there was always a grey haze over it.
I’ve now set up my other lamp (Kaiser Duka 50). Even after 3 minutes at a distance of just 10 cm, the paper stays pure white ;)
This red is a bit different; it looks more of a reddish-brownish colour (sodium vapour lamp, specifically for multigrade papers and colour/black-and-white processes). Even a 3-minute test under the enlarger’s red filter (fully open, f/2.8) didn’t blacken the paper... even though the red looks exactly the same as with my old Duka light... strange :)
Now the prints are identical to those from the EasyPrint ;)
Regards
Andi
ultra8
I believe there are many other, more significant issues at play here, including the technical context. Both current and ‘older’ MCP paper has higher contrast than comparable Ilford MG-IV paper. However, this says nothing about the quality of the papers.
If I make a print on MCP at grade 2, I need Ilford at grade 2.8 to make the images almost comparable. The MCP looks slightly ‘crisper’ than the Ilford paper.
Your mistake must lie elsewhere.
bernhardmangelsgmxde
I believe there are many other, more significant issues at play here, including the technical context. Both current and ‘older’ MCP paper has higher contrast than comparable Ilford MG-IV paper. However, that says nothing about the quality of the papers.
If I make a print on MCP at grade 2, I need Ilford at grade 2.8 to make the images almost comparable. The MCP looks a bit ‘crisper’ than the Ilford paper.
Your mistake must lie elsewhere.
It doesn’t have to. The problem was actually that his paper was fogged. So no white and no contrast. Without the fog, there’s no problem and no more errors.
