 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2004KODAK POLYMAX FINE ART
Hy, anyone tried double weight Kodak Polymax Fine art? What do you think about this paper? Thank Eros I've been an Ilford Multigrade user for a long time, but I wanted to try some Polymax Fine Art to see how it performed compared to the Ilford paper. It is obviously cooler than Multigrade, but the real eye opener came when I did some experiments to see what contrast was achieved with Polymax contrast filters and with Ilford Mulltigrade filters. This required printing a number of step wedges which were selenium toned, dried, and then read with an XRite densitometer. I then plotted the characteristic curves. The biggest difference is the lack of the "vc hump" in the Polymax when using low-constrast filters. The characteristic curve is dead smooth all the way down to PM filter # -1 which yields a grade 0 on my coldlight enlarger head. Kodak has done some nice work here! Multigrade has the traditional vc hump caused by the interaction of the two contrast layers in the emulsion. This effect is visible from MG filter #00 through #1/2. By filter #1 it's gone and the remaining curves are smooth. I put a comparison graph on the web showing the two papers at their lowest contrast settings: http://www-schneider.viscom.ohiou.edu/images/low-contrast-papercurves.jpg Another bonus is that the Polymax achieves slightly blacker blacks than the Ilford Multigrade (both measured after toning). The resulting pictures are very nice from my 35mm Tri-X negatives. I just bought a couple more boxes of Polymax to use as a regular paper. The only little complaint that I have is that the edges of the PM prints "fray" a bit after handling and washing. It doesn't show much when there's a white border, but it was obvious on my mostly black step wedge prints, and will be also on contact proofs. Bill Schneider >Hy, >anyone tried double weight Kodak Polymax Fine art? >What do you think about this paper? > >Thank >Eros It's OK but I prefer Galerie. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > > anyone tried double weight Kodak Polymax Fine art? > > It's OK but I prefer Galerie. Galerie is Ilford's only Graded Fiber Base paper. They also produce at least one Graded RC paper. Polymax is Kodak's last Fiber Base paper; Poly... , a VC projection speed print paper on a Fiber Base and at my last look, of all things, available in single as well as double weight. Who says Kodak does not cater to the nich market? Lest we not forget Azo, still being produced. But, where, when, and WHY did the SW, FB, GR paper disappear? Lots of double and even museum weight Fiber Base but no Single weight. Dan Dan said: >>Polymax is Kodak's last Fiber Base paper; ........ and at my last look, of all things, available in single as well as double weight.<< Not any more. Kodak just announced the single weight was going away. And along with all those other papers you mentioned which are no longer around, I understand Ilford is in financial trouble and looking for a buyer. Bernie > understand Ilford is in financial trouble and looking for a buyer. Hasn't that been the case since day aught?  SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/ >> > anyone tried double weight Kodak Polymax Fine art? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Who says Kodak does not cater to the nich market? > Lest we not forget Azo, still being produced. But, where, when, AFAIK, AZO is being kept in production only by the efforts of Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee. Something about, every year, they risk their own capital (dollars) to make the minimum necessary bulk purchase from Kodak to keep the line in production. http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html >and WHY did the SW, FB, GR paper disappear? Lots of double and >even museum weight Fiber Base but no Single weight. Dan The others disappear because no one else is willing to risk there own money to keep them alive. Time for a reality check: Talk is cheap, money is dear. > AFAIK, AZO is being kept in production only by the efforts of Michael > Smith and Paula Chamlee. B&H carries Azo. Likely there are others here and overseas. > > and WHY did the SW, FB, GR paper disappear? Lots of double and > > even museum weight Fiber Base but no Single weight. Dan I'd have thought the less expensive, quicker washing and drying Single weight to have been more popular. > The others disappear because no one else is willing to risk there > own money to keep them alive. "... No one ..." as in 1? I think Azo is available in a Single weight. Dan Dan Quinn wrote (in part): > I'd have thought the less expensive, quicker washing and drying > Single weight to have been more popular. > Ages ago, I tried single weight and hated it. It tended to curl up too much. Furthermore, if there was the slightest irregularity in my dry mount tissue, even a single whisker of dust, it tended to show through. Double weight did not have this problem for me, so I abandonned single weight after one box. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 06:55:00 up 20 days, 22:32, 3 users, load average: 4.17, 4.19, 4.12 >> AFAIK, AZO is being kept in production only by the efforts of Michael >> Smith and Paula Chamlee. > > B&H carries Azo. Likely there are others here and overseas. But they aren't actively promoting it. Of course Michael is. >> > and WHY did the SW, FB, GR paper disappear? Lots of double and >> > even museum weight Fiber Base but no Single weight. Dan > > I'd have thought the less expensive, quicker washing and drying >Single weight to have been more popular. And you forgot to mention curlier.. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Dan Quinn wrote > > B&H carries Azo. Likely there are others here and overseas. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And you forgot to mention curlier.. Now that really galls me; you and J. D. Beyer. If you two knew how to dry print paper that thought would have never entered your minds. I made big bucks, for a college student, many years ago drying that single weight in blotter rolls; nice very nearly flat prints. That single weight is all they dished up in my three years in the service. All that and some newspaper work were glossy or mat dried on 'flat' or rotary bed print dryers. Dan >> And you forgot to mention curlier.. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the service. All that and some newspaper work were glossy or mat >dried on 'flat' or rotary bed print dryers. Dan Take it EZ Dan ! I'm sure it can be done but I doubt if it would compare to DW when processed identically. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email Hy, I would like to know which is the best developer for the Kodak Polymax Fine Art Double Weight: Dektol or Polymax ?? Thank Matteo > Hy, > I would like to know which is the best developer for the Kodak Polymax Fine > Art Double Weight: Dektol or Polymax ?? > Thank > Matteo I like D-72, but substituting 100ml of 1% benzotriazole in water for the KBr. IIRC, Ansel Adams used Dektol for everything near the end of his career. I used to use lots of different developers for paper. My other favorite was Ansco 113 (Amidol), but after a lot of testing, I concluded that they were all alike except: 1.) Amidol required about double the exposure of other paper developers. 2.) The color I liked with Amidol was a result not of the developing agent, but the restrainere. It was then that I started mixing D-72 (essentially Dektol) and using bzt instead of KBr. The miracles of deeper blacks, etc., seem due to increased exposure of the print, not some mysterious property of the developer. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:05:00 up 22 days, 23:42, 4 users, load average: 4.21, 4.18, 4.12 Jean D, I have found that adding a bit of bromine to dektol also will give a deeper black without pushing the highlights to grey. Probably the same as using benzotriazole as it allows greater exposure. Frank >> Hy, >> I would like to know which is the best developer for the Kodak [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The miracles of deeper blacks, etc., seem due to increased exposure of > the print, not some mysterious property of the developer. > Jean D, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Frank I sure would not want liquid bromine in my darkroom. Perhaps, as you say, adding it to a paper developer will give deeper blacks. The reason I prefer benzotriazole to bromide is that bromide tends to give prints a disagreable (to me) greenish tint in the blacks, and bzt is free from that. It very much depends on the color of the viewing light, though. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 09:35:00 up 23 days, 1:12, 3 users, load average: 4.12, 4.15, 4.14 > > Jean D, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > prints a disagreable (to me) greenish tint in the blacks, and bzt is free > from that. It very much depends on the color of the viewing light, though. try Orthozite, by Edwal. It's a liquid, usable at room temperature. M. >>>Jean D, >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > try Orthozite, by Edwal. It's a liquid, usable at room temperature. Why bother? I mix up 1& benzotriazole in 1/2 litre bottles and it works fine. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 18:15:00 up 3:29, 3 users, load average: 4.07, 4.05, 4.04 >>>> Jean D, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Why bother? I mix up 1& benzotriazole in 1/2 litre bottles and it works > fine. I would be interested in mixing up some D72 and D76 but substitute the bromide with benzotriazole. Anyone have an idea how much to use to replace the bromide in those? Bert >>>>> Jean D, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Anyone have an idea how much to use to replace the bromide in those? I put 100ml to 125ml of 1% benzotriazole int 4 litres of D-72 stock for the papers I use, including polymax. Since I use D-76 only for film, it needs no restrainer. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 16:40:00 up 1 day, 1:54, 3 users, load average: 4.06, 4.04, 4.00 >>>>>> Jean D, >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > the papers I use, including polymax. Since I use D-76 only for film, it > needs no restrainer. Thanks, I am curious about image tone. Bert >>>>>>> Jean D, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Thanks, I am curious about image tone. About the only thing you can do is test it yourself with your paper, you exposure and development practices, the lighting you use on the prints when viewing them, etc. The worst lighting is usually fluorescent lights. I used to work in an office building with lots of 4-tube fixtures. The phosphor they used in the fixtures at any time was whatever was cheapest. So any one fixture could have up to 4 different colors in it. I took some prints and was walking down the hall to show a friend the difference between the same negative printed on the same paper with D-72, D-72 with benzotriazole instead of KBr, and Ansco 113. Before I even got to his office, I could see changes in print color depending what lights I was near. Now under the incandescent lamp in my darkroom, I liked the Amidol and the D-72 with bzt prints better than the straight D-72 one (which had an olive-greenish tint to the blacks). But under some fluorescent lamps, I could not tell the difference, and under others, the difference was more pronounced than under incandescent lamps. The paper, IIRC, was Ilfobrom, but it might have been Galerie. Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:35:00 up 1 day, 23:50, 6 users, load average: 5.43, 5.22, 5.28 > I would be interested in mixing up some D72 and D76 but substitute > the bromide with benzotriazole. > Anyone have an idea how much to use to replace the bromide in those? Are you sure D76 has bromide? I use print developer one shot and have found that the fog level varies from paper to paper. The paper you use may need no bromide. Like I say though, I compound all my own chemistry and use it one-shot. Dan > > I would be interested in mixing up some D72 and D76 but substitute > > the bromide with benzotriazole. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like I say though, I compound all my own chemistry and use it > one-shot. Dan D72 is a print developer, which has bromide. D76 has no restrainer. >>I would be interested in mixing up some D72 and D76 but substitute >>the bromide with benzotriazole. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Like I say though, I compound all my own chemistry and use it > one-shot. Dan No, it doesn't. I was thinking of image tone in papers developed in D72 and threw in D76 without thinking. Bert |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.