Gast
Hi!
I’ve just realised, whilst enlarging the print, that I have to provide a much longer exposure for the Fomaspeed in ‘Normal Gradation’ than in ‘Hard Gradation’ to get the same result.
That can’t be normal, can it?
The Fomaspeed Normal seems a bit flat to me too.
Could it be that the Gradiation Normal has been over-exposed? (I only bought the paper two weeks ago!)
How can I check this? (Could the relatively long exposure time be a sign of over-exposure?)
Kind regards,
Marco
FrankJBeckmann
Hi,
Get yourself a transparent grey scale, if you don’t already have one, and expose it. Then you’ll see the dynamic range the paper can reproduce. Paper that’s been stored for a long time becomes very soft.
Bye
Frank
MirkoBoeddecker
Marco,
Well, if you bought the paper new from us, then it certainly isn’t old stock. We’re weeks behind demand for standard-gradient paper because we’re constantly sold out.
If you’d said ‘soft’… that could mean it’s up to a year old.
However, I can’t explain a sensitivity difference of 3 stops.
2 questions:
1) Are you sure you calculated in stops, or did you perhaps compare (e.g.) 5 seconds with 15 seconds?
2) How do you measure the degree of blackening with different gradients?
Generally speaking: fresh photographic paper can easily be 30% more sensitive than paper that is a year old or older.
If you add in the variations caused by the emulsion, deviations of 50–60% can occur.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hello,
This afternoon I carried out several comparisons with other papers. These included Fomabrom and Tetenal Work, which, according to the data sheets, all have the same contrast range within their respective gradations. I also enlarged Ilford Multigrade accordingly.
In terms of contrast, all the papers are similar, except for the Fomaspeed, which is significantly softer.
To achieve the same contrast with Ilford Multigrade as with the Fomaspeed, I would need to enlarge using a filter of 0, roughly speaking.
Unfortunately, I don’t have a grey scale to measure the contrast range accurately.
Since, according to Mirko, superimposition is not possible, I can only imagine that there might be a different gradation in the pack. Perhaps Foma accidentally put the ‘Soft’ gradation into the ‘Normal’ pack?
Kind regards,
Marco
cfb_de
Hello Marco,
Terms like "normal", "soft", "hard", "gradient 3" or other subjective descriptions used for photographic papers really just depend on the manufacturer’s whim.
Exactly what is represented in ISO-R and what the range of reproduction is... You’ll have to try it out for yourself. There are even differences between Agfa-MCC and Agfa-MCP, and Ilford, Forte, Kentmere or Agfa are certainly not comparable.
It’s not for nothing that there’s no “DIN” standard here; it also depends on the developer. In Neutol, for example, my frequently used Tetenal Speed with “special gradient” comes out too soft; in Eukobrom I like it; and in Dokumol it becomes rock-hard.
What I mean is that in my process, where a Fomaspeed comes out just right, a troublesome Tetenal paper has been mislabelled and put in the box, because it’s actually ‘hard’ and not ‘normal’ :-) Do you see what I mean?
Also, the development times/speeds between “hard” and “soft” aren’t transferable with fixed-grade paper. Different emulsion, different process. It’s as simple as that.
Usually you just don’t notice it, as you develop the papers fully anyway and leave them at five grades.
Best regards,
Franz
Gast
Hi!
I realise, of course, that ‘normal gradation’, for example, comes across slightly differently with every paper and process and isn’t an absolute value. But if I have, say, two papers with normal gradation and the same contrast range, then I can still expect roughly the same contrast in a standard developer. My test confirmed this result, after all. Broadly speaking, different ‘Normal’ papers also had roughly the same contrast. Only the Fomaspeed was the outlier.
I’ve used the Fomaspeed before, so I know what to expect in terms of contrast. I just tried out different papers to make sure it really was down to the paper and not the developer, for example...
Kind regards,
Marco
