I'm getting a big difference in contrast between Ilford's Pearl surface and their glossy surface on MGIII RC paper. The Pearl surface comes out about a grade and a half flatter than the glossy surface. I would expect some difference but this seems excessive. With color materials, there is only a slight difference between an identically printed glossy and semi-matte print. Also, the Pearl looks warmer. I've been using Dektol at 1:3 for about a minute at 70 degrees. I've tried other development times from 45 seconds to 2 minutes without much change. Anyway, I like the way the glossy paper looks, but I prefer a pearl or satin finish. If I switch to MGIV, will I have the same problem? I'm working on a portrait from a flat negative, and I could really use some extra contrast. I get this paper at work with an employee discount, and we are currently out of glossy! I should say I've used about three 25-sheet packages of Pearl to one Glossy. Thanks for your help.

-- Peter Korsborn (korsborn@gte.net), July 14, 1999

Answers

I think it just may be the inherent differences in the reflectivity of the two surfaces. The pearl always appears to be less contrasty than the glossy.

-- James D. Steele (jdsteele@erols.com), July 14, 1999.

Try putting the flat prints behind glass and see if that makes a difference in their perceived contrast.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@earthlink.net), July 14, 1999.

I tried putting the print behind glass (my contact printer, actually), and it made nary a bit of difference. I'm wondering if maybe the paper isn't just old? Does Ilford still make the MGIII? I remember reading in an old Camera and Darkroom article that the Los Angeles Daily News had trouble with the original Kodak Panalure getting flatter as it got older. (February, 1992, p.52) Has anybody had a problem like that with old paper? Also, my kodak darkroom dataguide has a section where the same picture is printed on their different paper surfaces, and I don't see as much difference there. It may be the paper surface that accounts for the difference, and if so I am very suprised.

-- Peter Korsborn (korsborn@gte.net), July 15, 1999.

Actually, the surface does make a difference. I have read that a glossy surface may reach a reflectivity range of about 150:1 between the whitest white and the blackest black, whereas a matte surface may go down to something like 1:50 or even less. The effect is due to the fact that glossy paper tends to give specular reflections whereas matte gives diffuse reflections. (Note that we are talking about the reflections from the surface, not about those from the emulsion/base!) Ideally, this means that when a light ray hits a black spot of the image at an angle, from the glossy surface it will be reflected under the same angle. When looking at the dark spot under a 90-degree angle, you will therefore not have a contribution from light rays reflected fromt he surface, namely practically no light at all. The spot is then really black. When looking at a similar dark spot on matte paper, OTOH, there will be reflections to your eyes from the surface caused by any light ray hitting the dark spot under any angle whatsoever. This means that the matte black is not as black as the glossy black even if the emulsion/base under the surface have the same reflectivity.

The strong effect you describe, however, seems more like old paper, maybe stored under unfavourable (temperature, humidity) conditions. I have recently changed from the glossy to the pearl surface with Ilford MG IV RC, and I really didn't find the big difference you mention. After all, pearl is not really matte, but more or less semi-glossy.

As far as I know, Ilford doesn't manufacture MG III any more. The current stuff is MG IV as you state.

-- Thomas Wollstein (wollstein@compuserve.com), July 15, 1999.

Peter, Thomas sounds like he has your answer. From my experience, the Multigrade paper by Ilford has about 2/3 of a visual filter difference between the pearl and glossy.. and the satin.. well just forget about making a punchy print on ot from a thin or flat neg. adding contrast or pumping up the developer strength will just make it contrastier without adding that "snap". But to have a stop and a half difference sounds like you have some crappy paper. Also, when i print on the glossy i find myself not needing to fine tune the exposure as much to make a nice print. I only need to be within .3 to .4 seconds, where as the pearl i am ofter going into the .1 to .2 range, and sometimes an funky negs needing to make split filter prints to make the tones jump out. Good luck, Sean

-- Sean (ZBeeblebrox42@yahoo.com), July 15, 1999.

Thanks to everyone who responded. This bulletin board is the greatest! It is truly an education, not to mention a lot of fun. I won't know for sure until I get a hold of some MGIV, but I think newer paper will solve the problem. Thanks again.

-- Peter Korsborn (korsborn@gte.net), July 16, 1999.

I got a new package of Ilford MGIV, and that did the trick. Whiter base, more contrast, and more neutral tone. Nice stuff. The funny thing was that in all the packages of MGIII that I used, there were no instructions or warranty information, although the packages had not been opened. Hmmmm.

-- Peter Korsborn (korsborn@gte.net), July 19, 1999.