Gast
Hello,
I have a question about Classic Arts PW Baryt. The online catalogue states: "Processing, results, image tone – simply everything is absolutely identical to Forte Polywarmton, Moersch Select or Bergger Prestige :-)". However, the Heiland Splitgrade device gives _significantly_ different exposure data (time, contrast) for Forte Polywarmton and Moersch Select. How can this be explained?
Best regards,
Ferdinand
Gast
Hello Ferdinand,
It seems one of the two carried out their testing a bit more ‘thoroughly’ than the other.
As Wolfgang Moersch also has a Splitgrade, I’d be more inclined to trust his data.
The specifications are constantly being revised. Unfortunately, we don’t know how quickly Heiland always manages to carry out retests.
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
There are two versions: Forte Polywarmtone and Forte Polywarmtone plus. They differ significantly, for example, in terms of speed.
Best regards, Otto Beyer!
MirkoBoeddecker
Otto,
Polywarmtone without Plus has not been manufactured for over two years and we have not been selling it since then either!
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
:blink: Hello,
I’ve since received two new packs of CA. Whilst with the old batch (delivered in January 2003) the split-grade times for CA were spot on, this is *absolutely* not the case with the new batch. For example, the paper is now significantly slower, and it’s impossible to achieve decent prints using the Forte or Moersch times. Measurement errors can be ruled out; the deviations are at least 1 stop or 1 hat grade. What sort of manufacturer is this, constantly ‘revising’ their papers?
Best regards,
Ferdinand
Gast
Ferdinand,
Unfortunately, photographic paper manufacturers are currently forced to constantly adapt their products.
This is mainly due to three factors:
1) Legal regulations
2) The discontinuation of long-standing ingredients, which chemical companies simply remove from their range because demand has fallen too sharply in recent years to justify continuing production on economic grounds.
3) Fluctuations in the quality of raw materials, which are due to declining global demand (smaller batch sizes).
Unfortunately, the ‘big players’ usually respond by discontinuing products when a reformulation becomes necessary.
Our partners are more flexible and do whatever they can.
Here are a few examples:
Re 1).
The switch from Polywarmton to Polywarmton Plus two years ago became necessary because the EU banned cadmium.
Our partner managed to continue producing their paper cadmium-free, but this resulted in a completely new emulsion.
When launching a new emulsion, it is also possible to make improvements, and so, in addition to being cadmium-free, a more even distribution of speed across the hard and soft gradients was achieved.
The result: all the old settings for the Splitgrade are now obsolete.
Re 2).
There are a multitude of additives that go into an emulsion to make it what it is. Stabilizers are an important component. In this area alone, there are hundreds of different ones on offer from various companies. Due to the global decline in demand for photographic emulsions, products are constantly being dropped from the catalogues of Merck and Co. Just recently, the stabilizer for the efke film was discontinued. A substitute has already been found, but completely new tests on emulsion ageing must be carried out. Agfa is also experiencing problems with a similar substance, which has led to the well-known storage issues with Multicontrast Classic.
Re 3).
The biggest cause for concern here is gelatin. The purity of the gelatin is THE prerequisite for producing stable and consistent emulsions.
With the decline of this market in the 1990s, the problems arose that plague every photographic factory today.
In the past, gelatin was ‘blended’ on a global scale to achieve an almost 100% homogeneous product.
Today, production is solely local, and the properties of gelatin—a ‘natural product’—vary from batch to batch, with unpredictable effects on the photographic properties of the finished emulsion.
Only those who produce huge quantities in a single go can still guarantee the ‘old’ quality. The constant rumours about Agfa discontinuing the production of baryta paper are a sad reflection of this predicament.
The variety of products that suppliers such as FOTOIMPEX still guarantee (after all, we offer a wide range of different baryta papers and not just one) can only be provided through relatively small, flexible production batches. One thinks here in particular of fixed-grade baryta paper. Each gradient is a separate cast, demand is minimal, so anyone wishing to offer it at a reasonable price must be able to cast small quantities. The crux of the matter is the greater margin of variation. In other words: a wide product range implies a greater margin of variation. The only alternative would be to adopt an approach similar to that of the major suppliers and consolidate everything onto a single paper – bundling sales here and praying that it will be enough for a hundred thousand square metres of casting. If it is no longer enough, the product is dropped from the range without replacement.
We don’t do that, so with every casting we tinker, optimise, test and do whatever we can.
We can no longer guarantee exactly reproducible laboratory results these days.
With traditional processing, nobody notices this. However, anyone working with a Splitgrade Controller will, for better or worse, have to ‘fine-tune’ the emulsion by the number.
If this is not desired, we can only recommend purchasing a year’s supply from a single EMU or using Kodak Polymax PE (the most widely produced and STILL most stable product on the global market).
Best regards,
Mirko
Gast
>To use Kodak Polymax PE (the most widely produced and STILL most stable product on the >global market).
Really? I would have guessed Ilford MGIV; Polymax isn’t even that popular in the US – are there any sources, lists, etc. on this?
Roman
Gast
Ilford also generates a lot of revenue, but has a wider range of papers in its portfolio.
Kodak only makes Polymax, and the US market is bigger than the rest of the world put together.
I don’t have the exact figures either – however, KODAK has always used its own gelatin (due to the issues mentioned).
They have their own herd in South America that supplies gelatin exclusively to Kodak, allowing them to ‘reproduce’ it very precisely.
Ilford is certainly not bad either, but I’ve heard rumours of increasing variations.
That’s the product that comes onto the market in white boxes, and there’s more and more of it...
Kodak doesn’t have any white boxes.
Ultimately, you’ll have to test it for yourselves. I work manually and haven’t had any problems anyway, or at least I haven’t noticed anything.
Do these slight fluctuations in speed/gradient really bother anyone apart from Ferdinand?
The impact of developer that’s no longer quite fresh is usually far greater!!
We’re talking here about photo labs in the truest sense of the word, with sensors and computers and all that jazz.
Normally, you wouldn’t even notice it.
That would be really good to know.
Regards,
Mirko
Gast
Hi Mirko,
Unfortunately, I’ve only just read your post today.
As for the facts: I’m talking about one pack of CA that I received around October 2002 and two packs that I received in October 2003 (please don’t hold me to that).
To get this out of the way: I have no objection to the minor corrections required with the Splitgrade. They are almost always necessary when creating a ‘perfect’ copy.
However, the difference between the two batches is massive. Enlargements produced using the specified exposure are unusable, even as a guide for corrections. As a rough estimate, I’d say the new paper is about one stop more sensitive and one gradient harder (i.e. it needs to be exposed for a shorter time and with a softer gradient).
I’m sure you’ll agree that such a deviation cannot be adjusted using the analyser’s fine-tuning options. I would definitely need an additional densitometer for that.
Using split-grade settings on Bergger, Forte or Moersch is also of no use.
So I’m stuck with just under two packs of CA that I can’t process with the split grade, and I’m SO GLAD I didn’t order a larger quantity, as the ‘old’ paper was absolutely brilliant.
I find snide remarks about alleged quality fluctuations at Ilford (‘... I’ve heard’) to be completely off the mark in this context.
Best regards,
Ferdinand
PS: Fancy a quick trip to the phototec forum? There’s another interesting post there about the “quality” of the Fortepan/Classicpan films. I held back this time, though. If even your regular customers can’t find anything good to say about the stuff...
Gast
Ferdinand,
In this case, it can only be a matter of the old Polywarmton versus the new Polywarmton.
That fits in with the timeline as well.
In autumn 2001, we bought up everything that was still available of the old quality, and we were able to supply the old, cadmium-containing PW well into 2002. That quality is no longer available today.
Cadmium is no longer permitted for use.
We are absolutely delighted that the new paper is as good as it is.
However, the papers are marked ‘NEW’, and for over 1.5 years there have been clear indications on the website and in the catalogue that the old specifications no longer apply.
Ilford. The quality of Ilford papers is unquestionable. But Ilford has no in-house raw gelatine production and no in-house base paper mill.
I didn’t know which aspect of the variations you were referring to. If you are talking about the variation range between the new emulsion (i.e. not old vs. new, which is a completely different emulsion), then the reference to variations at Ilford makes sense, as they do occur. That’s not to say Ilford is rubbish. It’s just to make it clear that we’re all in the same boat and that, due to the decline of the market as a whole, we’ll have to accept certain losses in the future that none of us can change.
Best regards,
Mirko
