VC versus graded papergreenspun.com : LUSENET : Black_and_White_Photography : One Thread
Hi folks, has anyone noticed that when printing on VC papers(doesn't matter whose) that the prints just don't seem as sharp as the smae neg printed on graded paper?? I used the same neg,same enlarger,same lense(6 element rodenstock) but found that the VC paper(ilford mgVI) just didn't print as sharp as the agfa brovira. I contacted Ilford and they denied that there could be a difference. Consider this; most VC paper is about 2\3 the price of graded fiber base ans sometimes 1\2 the price if you are buying Ilford Galerie. So can a paper that is that much cheaper be as good? I realize the concienence aspect of VC but when I can put an 11x14 of some graded paper next to the same print done on VC and see the difference from 5ft is it worth it??
-- Anonymous, February 09, 1998
ron, i've found this to be true also, and i wouldn't believe the people at ilford since they invented mg papers. But if you think about it, what can blasting your neg through a mg filter do but degrade the image. Many lf purists stay away from using filtration of any kind and absolutely abhorr multicontrast papers for this very reason. Thinking more about what these filters could do, i can theorize that what ever filter you use to print with could degrade the corresponding tone on the print, it just stands to reason. Now this is splitting hairs but if you are indeed seeing this then your photography has reached a level to leave MGIV behind. I use ilfobrome and agfabrome rc for proofing papers and use graded Cachet Expo G for final prints. Rc is not permanent even with selenium toning.
-- Anonymous, December 18, 1998