[pure-silver] SV: Re: Old Paper Results
- From: Ole Finn Tjugen <oftjugen@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: PureSilverNew <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:01:57 +0200 (CEST)
I have an opened box of Ilfospeed G3 which I tested along with just about every
other paper sold in Norway over the past 30 years - many of them 30 years old.
The Ilfospeed lost contrast mainly in the highlights, and after 20 years of
room-temperature storage has the lowest highlight contrast of all papers I
tested. All of my Kodak papers had lost all sensitivity, while Agfa was far
more variable. Tetenal papers (also AGFA sold as Tetenal) were heavily fogged
and blotchy. Varycon was still no worse than when new - slight reduction of
highlight contrast, but nothing damaging.
I used up my remaining Oriental Seagull VC since it was still very good...
Ole Tjugen
> From: DarkroomMagic [info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 2005-10-06 18:18:15 CEST
> To: PureSilverNew [pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Old Paper Results
>
> OK
>
> I guess one needs two measurements to compare the loss of contrast over
> time. I have an unopened box of old Ilfospeed grade-3, but as I said, it was
> never opened. I could measure it's contrast now, but that will not tell us
> how much it lost over time. We should print enough to never have old paper
> laying around, that would avoid this problem all together.
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Ralph W. Lambrecht
>
> http://www.darkroomagic.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2005-10-06 17:45, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "DarkroomMagic" <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "PureSilverNew" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:17 AM
> > Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Old Paper Results
> >
> >
> >> Richard
> >>
> >> Please explain. This note isn't as fact-filled as your
> >> typical notes. These
> >> test results sound rather vague. 'probably as good as new'
> >> and 'somewhat
> >> soft looking', or even 'has full contrast' don't sound
> >> like a test results
> >> but mere observations without measurable evidence.
> >>
> >> I did conduct a test to determine the effect of paper age
> >> on contrast a few
> >> years ago. These were made on a variety of papers, I had
> >> for up to ten years
> >> and they were stored at 5 degC. Their contrast was
> >> measured every two years.
> >> The study wasn't very scientific either, but it produced
> >> numerical values,
> >> which were compared and found to be consistent. The result
> >> was as follows:
> >>
> >> 1. All papers get softer with age.
> >> 2. Some papers are more stable than others
> >> 3. The effect is significant an averages about 1/2 grade
> >> over 3 years.
> >> 4. The effect can be compensated with filtration as long
> >> as max contrast is
> >> not required.
> >>
> >> I think it is fair to assume that paper stored at room
> >> temperature would see
> >> a higher loss of contrast in the same amount of time.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ralph W. Lambrecht
> >>
> >> http://www.darkroomagic.com
> >>
> > Well, there are just not a lot of facts. I don't have a
> > reflection densitometer so I can't measure the actual
> > density range of the papers. I am guessing at the contrast
> > by printing known negatives. These are graded papers not VC.
> > I've found that VC paper tends to loose contrast noticably
> > but I've not noticed that effect on graded paper. Both the
> > Kodak and Agfa papers are Grade-2 and print similar contrast
> > from the same negative. There was no detectable fog on
> > either paper. I checked these because of a question posted
> > to rec.photo.darkroom from someone who had been given a
> > bunch of old Medalist. Since I had some I thought I would
> > test it. This is stuff I stashed away after a severe
> > earthquake some years ago. It was necessary to dismantle my
> > darkroom to allow repairs to be made and it was some time
> > before I set it up again. These packages have been open and
> > stored in boxes for at least ten years and the Medalist at
> > least was probably five to ten years old then. I was
> > surprized and pleased that it still works. The point of my
> > post is that old paper can have a very long shelf life. I am
> > not so sure current papers will last that long because of
> > changes in emulsion constituents due to environmental
> > hazards restrictions. I don't think VC paper ever had much
> > of a shelf life and its probably worse now.
> > FWIW, the test negatives were on current Plus-X roll
> > film, a roll I shot which has a variety of subjects on it,
> > mostly old railroad rolling stock and a couple of casual
> > portraits.
> >
> > ---
> > Richard Knoppow
> > Los Angeles, CA, USA
> > dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ==============================================================================
> > ===============================
> > To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> > account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> > subscribed,)
> > and unsubscribe from there.
>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] SV: Re: Old Paper Results
