VC vs Graded Paper

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

Not to start a jihad here but I'm interested in the relative advantages of printing with graded paper vs. variable contrast paper. Specifically are the results any better? or even noticable?

thoughts?

-- David Parmet (david@parmet.net), January 23, 2001

Answers

David,

The quick and obvious answer is higher silver content in the graded paper, giving a print richer in tonality. The downside to graded is that you have little control over contrast in the printing phase. If you don't like the contrast you're getting, you have to change paper.

VC is nice when you have negatives that vary greatly in contrast level. It's also cheaper and easier to come by. The results can be very nice as well. I personally prefer graded, but don't feel I'm losing that much printing with VC. Now RC paper is another story...

Jon Osing

-- Jon Osing (josing@bcr.com), January 23, 2001.


VC and graded papers have their supporters. I use VC because it gives me a wide and continuous range of contrast out of one box of paper by simply changing a filter. I used to use grade 2 and 3 papers for everything and was satisfied with the results, but VC provides more flexibility. I suggest you try VC and graded papers and form your own conclusion. If you should need a really high-contrast paper, you'll have to use a graded paper, because VC can't seem to get quite as contrasty. It may also be that some graded papers have more silver than VC does, which you may find makes for more pleasing prints.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), January 23, 2001.

1. Use of graded papers eliminates one variable in the process, and this can be useful when establishing your process.

2. A few years back, Ctein found what appeared to be a focus shift caused by extended blue sensitivity in VC emulsions. Presumably graded papers would not be sensitized as far, and would not suffer. I don't know the conculsion of this story.

3. A particular paper you like (because of image tone, surface texture, weight, D log E curve, etc.) might not be available in VC.

A few years back (just before it was no longer imported) I tried Seagull graded, and was wowed. Now that it's imported again, I'm going to try it. It was graded.

4. Ansel Adams said Seagull 4 was the best paper he found to print one of his difficult negatives.

5. (Similar to 3) Most VC papers seem to have a curve that favors modern emulsions, like TMax, Delta. Some of the graded papers seem to be more appropriate to traditional films.

6. Theoretically, at least, less sensitive to safelight fogging.

7. You might be used to printing with graded and don't want to switch.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 23, 2001.


For most enlarging, I use Ilford MGIVFB VC paper for convenience and the option of split filtration to increase or decrease contrast in part of the image.

For large format contact printing I use Azo, which only comes in graded (and only grades 2 and 3 at that), because I like its long tonal scale, and I can use other methods to adjust the contrast (e.g., toning the negative, changing developer or developer dilution, local bleaching, etc.).

-- David Goldfarb (dgoldfarb@barnard.edu), January 24, 2001.


One of the nice things about web sites such as this one is that they introduce us to wizards like Mr. Ctein. In this instance I have to marvel at just how the hell anyone could detect a "focus shift" caused by extended blue sensitivity in the emulsion slathered on a sheet of paper. And then I have to wonder how you could even suspect that such a thing was occurring. I may have to read some of Mr. C's writings, but I fear I may begin worrying about how moon phases affect my film or something.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), January 24, 2001.


Well said Keith.
Photography encompasses many scientific disciplines, and is tricky enough as it is, without introducing any new-age mumbo jumbo or unsubstantiated eccentric claims into it.
The spectral transmission charts of most 6 element enlarging lenses show that there is very little transmission in the near Ultraviolet (extended blue?) region, even if the paper can see it. In addition, incandescent light sources just don't generate much energy in that part of the spectrum to start with.
My own experience is that focussing the negative on the paper is a simple and trouble free operation.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrew@bham.ac.uk), January 24, 2001.

Hi Jon,

I think you owe it to yourself to read:

'GRADIENT LIGHT: The art and craft of using variable contrast paper' by Eddie Ephraums.

I think it is a fantastic book that adds a great deal to the understanding of printing, regardless of what method, paper, and etc one uses.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), January 24, 2001.


David And go to the library and take a look at John Sexton's book called Listen to the Trees. the images therein are so beautiful it makes you want to cry. He states in the book that almost all of the images were printed on Kodak Polymax Fine Art, which is of course a variable contrast paper. Let us not forget that all paper is, in a sense, variable contrast. It is called Dodging and Burning. Kevin

-- kevin kolosky (kjkolosky@kjkolosky.com), January 24, 2001.

Whether or not one accepts Ctein's explanation of why enlarging lens lateral chromatic aberration (LCA) can cause focus shifts with VC paper, graded papers are visibly sharper. I made a series of contact prints, from an 8x10 TMY negative, on fiber based graded and popular VC papers. Contact printing took LCA and focus shift completely out of the equation. The graded papers, Azo, New Seagull G and Brilliant Bromide II, were all extremely sharp. Kodak Polymax Fine Art was somewhat less sharp, and Multigrade IV FB was even blurrier. All evaluations were done at a normal viewing distance of around 12 inches by my middle aged eyes without benefit of any magnifying device. The differences were significant and readily apparent. I'm not saying sharpness is everything, but if your artistic goals require it, these paper characteristics exist and should be considered.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), January 24, 2001.

Sorry Jon, that should have been David...............

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), January 24, 2001.



"how the hell anyone could detect a 'focus shift'..."

By observing his prints, finding a lack of sharpness, confirming the best plane of focus was not the same plane as the visual plane of focus by experimentation.

"caused by extended blue sensitivity in the emulsion"

By eliminating all other potential causes.

The result was a "theory" and presented as such. Rodenstock thought the theory likely, and, to my knowledge, no one has disproved it.

"worrying about how moon phases affect my film or something."

Not your film, but the tides, so the moon does have its effects. In fact, Ctein's approach seemed particularly scientific to me.

"The spectral transmission charts of most 6 element enlarging lenses show that there is very little transmission in the near Ultraviolet (extended blue?) region, even if the paper can see it."

Schneider's 150 & 135 Componon-S lenses seem to agree with your statement. They take a nose-dive under 400 nm. Their 100 & 50 mm lenses don't have this same cut-off. Seems like different lenses would perform differently. (Ctein observed this.)

"In addition, incandescent light sources just don't generate much energy in that part of the spectrum to start with."

Standard incandescents don't have much UV, but some have significant amounts. Quartz halogens usuallyt have more. Cold light--depends on the design. I don't think it's safe to assume there isn't any.

"My own experience is that focussing the negative on the paper is a simple and trouble free operation. "

Good. And it's probably the best place to start, since it's the easiest.

Others might not share your experience, though. Ctein didn't. Obviously Sal didn't. I wouldn't characterize either claim as "eccentric", in fact, at least for Ctein, he specifically stated that this was a theory and the only plausible one he could identify. We would all like this not to be the case, since it's not a particularly easy one to fix, if it is the real source of the problem.

As for me, I was just trying to give some insight into why someone might choose a graded paper.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 24, 2001.


Charlie: Dr. Ctein's concern with blue sensitivity in VC emulsion caught me by surprise, since I'd never seen it cited in any previous rundown of pros and cons. Appearing with no context made the point seem more than it is, perhaps. However, I'd hate to see anyone eschew the many conveniences of VC papers just to avoid this one possible shortcoming. My experience is that VC papers are plenty sharp enough. But then, I haven't performed a side-by-side test with graded paper.

-- Keith Nichols (knichols@iopener.net), January 25, 2001.

Keith:

It is referenced in Anchell's Variable Contrast Printing book. I think the key issue is, if you are not experiencing sharpness problems, don't worry about it. If you are, this is one possible source.

Certainly VC papers have their advantages. So do graded papers. I'm not suggesting anyone avoid VC papers. Nor graded. But each also has disadvantages. How important these are depends on what you want and what problems you encounter. It's a personal & personal equipment & personal processes thing.

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 25, 2001.


http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/sept99-bond.htm

-- Charlie Strack (charlie_strack@sti.com), January 25, 2001.

Charlie Strack's Phototechmag reference

-- Erik X (xx@xx.com), January 25, 2001.


I love to read threads like this one. They are indeed the best source for photographers' jokes: lots of credos, little information, and even that is, at times, incorrect.

Seriously, folks: Photography is on the interface of art and science. Some of us prefer not to bother with the science side, others never get a glimpse at the art side. Both viewpoints are lopsided in my opinion.

Ctein's theory on the VC paper focus shift (BTW did any of you note he also mentioned another focus shift that occurs with both VC and graded papers?) was developed in a very scientific and methodical way. There is nothing esoteric about it, and it's not one of those effects that you have to believe in. Ctein presents a test method allowing to determine whether your system (because it's the whole system, light source, filtration, lens, paper, that determines the effect) is affected or not. If the effect cannot be observed with your system, fine. You then belong to the majority of photogs who are lucky in this respect. The effect is still there for a minority who is probably grateful for the solution Ctein offers. Using this effect as an argument against VC papers is like not using the internet because some of the information on it is offensive, and it means not too expand your artistic possibilities because you don't want to bother with a possible problem that can be detected and solved if you use enough care.

Concerning "Gradient Light": If you're after a technical book, this isn't the one. It sure is an inspiration if you like Ephraums' style, but the technical information in there is minimal, and outdated or disputable in parts. Like, e.g., his recommendation of excessive washing: It's not new information that over-washing your images is about as bad as incomplete washing.

Regards, Thomas Wollstein

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), January 26, 2001.


I've just continued the experiment I described above (see January 24, 2001 posting) with neutral, glossy Bergger fiber based VC. Bergger's is one VC paper that's as sharp as any graded product.

-- Sal Santamaura (santamaura@earthlink.net), November 26, 2001.

Yeah, I just bought the Ephraums book on Gradient Light. For me it was a bit of a waste as well. Not enough information. I had mail ordered it otherwise I would ask for my money back. What I would like to see is a book covering the new way of split printing, i.e. where to dodge and burn using the grade 00 and grade 5 filters. So far I have only found articles or single chapters of books dealing with this. I would like to see a whole book on the subject with loads of examples.

-- Russell Brooks (russell@ebrooks.org), November 26, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ