[Leica] The paper argument

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

Gerry is absolutely right about Ilford Multigrade IV. Generally, with VC
papers, the characteristic curve of the highlights doesn't change much
with "grade" (filter) change. Whereas overall contrast can indeed
change, highlight contrast is essentially "built in" to the paper. In
the old days, papers generally had fairly abrupt toes, to counter the
fact that most film curves had a "shoulder"--that is, highlight density
began to "roll off" with increased exposure. With more modern emulsions,
this has become less and less true--the newer films are sometimes called
"straight line" films because highlight density increase corresponds
more directly to increased exposure into the high highlight range
(indeed, extending above the range of most printing densities),
resulting in a characteristic curve that isn't rounded off at the top
but creates more of a straight line. As a result, papers are being made
generally with lower highlight contrast--longer toes to their curves--so
they match better with straight-line films.

Put into simpler terms, films these days generally have hotter or more
contrasty highlights, so papers are being made to have softer or
"muddier" highlights to compensate.

While it's true of most VC papers that they have lower highlight
contrast than papers of a few decades ago, the two papers that have
taken this effect to an extreme are the Indian-made Sterling (also sold
under a different, U.S. brand name) and Ilford Multigrade IV RC (at
least in its early incarnations--we haven't tested it recently).

The reason is simply that commercial labs are often dealing with
straight-line films that have been underexposed and overdeveloped, and
that tend to have very contrasty, dense highlights. It's easier to get
to a decent print quickly if the paper has low inherent highlight
contrast.

With many film/developer combinations, however, the effect of the early
MG IV was too much. Use a film with any sort of shoulder, with negatives
that are more fully exposed and developed for a shorter time (pulled),
and the highlights of the resulting print will be unacceptable--muddy,
flat, and gray. I personally like relatively low highlight contrast, but
the combination of my usual (shouldered) F/D combo--Tri-X 400 in D-76
1+1--with MG IV RC or Sterling is way too much.

_PHOTO Techniques_ actually took the unusual (for us) step of advising
the manufacturer to ameliorate this tendency in the then-forthcoming FB
product, since fiber papers are generally used by more careful workers
who can control their negatives better. Whether we had any influence or
not, the FB version of MG IV, when it arrived, was indeed more "neutral"
with regard to highlight contrast, falling in about the middle of the
range of available papers. Since those early days, too, even MG IV RC
has gotten somewhat less extreme (most paper manufacturers modify their
products on an ongoing basis, even if subtly). But there is no question
that its inherent highlight contrast is among the lowest of currently
available papers, just as Gerry claims.

Ilford Warmtone has somewhat higher-than-average highlight contrast, and
will work better with films that have shouldered characteristic curves,
such as T-Max 100 or Tri-X 400. I typically use Ilford Warmtone FB
(neutral-high highlight contrast) and Agfa Multicontrast Classic
(neutral-low highlight contrast) with my TX / D-76+1 negs. The two
papers look reasonably similar, but allow me subtle control over
highlight contrast.

The current discussion is typical of half-informed internet banter, in
which "experiments" (actually mere individual trials) are being carried
out with uncontrolled variables, so that opposing conclusions can be
reached by different individuals without understanding why. Three things
have an effect on gradation: the film (F), the film developer (D), and
the paper (P). With some FDP combinations, degree of film exposure and
development also changes the gradation because it changes the shape of
the film curve; and with some papers, using certain "grade" filters can
change the gradation inconsistently because the curve shape is deformed
at those contrasts (in fact this is true of all but a few VC papers).
Actually, all of these variables can be measured and entered into a
computer program (invented by Phil Davis) that makes simple work of
predicting the results. With most materials, we can make different
values for F, D, or P appear to "match" by changing the other two
variables. But in any event,  reaching conclusions without controlling
all of these variables leads to inconsistent and even directly
contradictory "results," which is why you can find many examples of
people "concluding" on the internet that the same materials have
opposite properties.

- --Mike J. (Editor, _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine)

P.S. If you would like to find the FDP combination that will give you
your preferred gradation with one or two materials of your choice, and
under your own typical exposure and development conditions, I'd
recommend you either take one of Phil Davis's BTZS workshops, or contact
The View Camera Store in Arizona (602/767-7105) for information about
their film and paper testing services. The Plotter / Matcher compuer
program with data set is given out as a "freebie" at the BTZS workshops;
there is no other way to get it (well, except perhaps by being the
Editor of a technical photography magazine <s>).