Prints are coming out with low contrast, what gives?

[Jeremy Z]

First, let me ask if having too high of a print developer temperature tends to give low contrast prints?

I'm using Kodak Polymax, mixed as recommended, but our house is more like
75°F instead of their recommended 68°F.

Everything else is good. Development time, stop time, fix time.

Even with a nice contrasty negative, I'm getting low contrast prints.

The developer is nowhere near exhausted; Kodak says it's good for about 120 8x10s. I've printed probably 15.

The paper is brand new Ilford Deluxe RC, not expired.

It is so frustrating, to look at the negative, see that it's sharp, well-exposed, and contrasty, then to not be able to get a proper print from it.

Any tips are appreciated.

[tedwhite]

If it is VC paper, are you using a filter? If not, do so. If so, jump to a more contrasty filter.

Does your enlarger usually print normally? If so, then I would toss the developer and get some D76. Mix 1:1.

All an 8 degree increase in print developer temperature would possibly do is slightly shorten development times.

Ted

[RF-Addict]

If at all, the increased temp. should increase the contrast of the print, I would think.

[saxshooter]

It's been a few years, but even with multigrade paper you need to have some sort of filter in place to print "normal" contrast... which I think is #2. I don't remember what the result of no filter was. Could have been "flat". I also used Dektol paper developer with recommended mix on package.

[Jeremy Z]

Wasn't using a filter. Will try it now, before I get talked into walking the dog.

I've never used a filter while printing.

This is my first batch of prints in 8 years or so.

I'll try D76 next time. I shied away from it this time because I read that you have to mix the whole thing, then it has a shelf life that is kind of scary.

Can D76 be used on prints too? I thought it was just for film...

[dadsm3]

My prof always had us start with a 2 1/2, then work up or down from there. My Saunders dichroic dial-in is 32Y 42M for 2 1/2, but that varies widely for diffrent makes....Ilford has all the pertinent info on their website.
Mike

[saxshooter]

Jeremy, i think the filter is your solution.

D76 is generally a film developer. When I used it I had one of those accordion style collapsible containers which minimized the air in the bottle to stave off oxidation. Don't know if it helped. But I used Tri-X which was a very forgiving film.

Never used D76 for paper, but I heard that in a pinch you can use Dektol on film but it is a very SLOW developer.... (paper is sorta like slow film)

[tedwhite]

OOOPS:

I meant to say Dektol, not D76. Sorry about the senior moment. DO NOT use D76 on paper. Dektol, or that very nice Arista paper developer.

Ted

[Jeremy Z]

Tell me about filters please? I have to buy a set to combine?

I have a set called Ilfochromoe or something. There are several yellow, several cyans, and several magentas. I combine these in a combination to form a 2 1/2? The filters in my set are numbered like this: .3Y, .4Y, .5Y, etc.

I'll check out Ilford's website.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Jeremy,

I would first do a test print to find my minimum exposure to reach maximum black of my paper. To do this take a developed frame of unexposed film and place it in the film holder. Place a full sheet of enlarging paper on the easel and cover all but one inch of it with an opaque item (cardboard, etc.) Set your enlarging lens aperature to 2 stops below maximum, for an f4 lens this would be f8.

Now expose the partially covered paper for say 3 seconds, then move the cardboard to uncover another inch of paper and expose for another 3 seconds. Repeat this step until the paper is completely exposed. Now develop the paper as you have been. You should have a series of one inch steps of various shades from white to grey to black. Find the time that first gives you total black. Let's say that it is at 12 seconds. Use this time and aperature to expose your negative with image.

What you have with this test is the minimum exposure time to reach the maximum black of your paper through film base.

After you have this time then you can play with the filters.

Wayne

[Jeremy Z]

I forgot to answer a question from earlier. Yes, I'm using multigrade paper.

Looking around at B&H and Ilford, it appears the filter sets I have are for color printing.

It looks like I either need this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=114879&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

or this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=92004&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

The Samigon ones say "extra thick", and they appear to be a thick piece of plastic. I don't know how I would cut these with a scissors, as they say can be done.

The Ilford ones are apparently thin acetates or something...

In case anyone else doesn't know diddly about polycontrast filters, there are a couple of links at the bottom of this page that might be of some use:
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=116

When I bought chemicals, I bought Kodak to try to support them & keep them in business. But I must say that Ilford does a MUCH better job with product suppport.

The filter tray in my Omega C700 enlarger appears to be about 2.75", so I'll have to trim those 3.5" filters. No biggie. I'll be happy to be able to get the proper contrast out of my prints.

[Wayne R. Scott]

Never used D76 for paper, but I heard that in a pinch you can use Dektol on film but it is a very SLOW developer.... (paper is sorta like slow film)

Actually Dektol is a very fast developer for film, about 2 minutes is all that is required. You will have grain big time in your film.

Wayne

[Wayne R. Scott]

Another thing to test for is the saftey of your "safe light". Take a strip of un exposed photo paper and lay it on your easel. Place 10 coins in a row on it with your safelight on. Then for the next 10 minutes remove one coin every minute. Develop this strip of paper as normal. If you have the white circles of the ten coins having equal "whiteness" then you have a very safe safe light indeed.

An un-safe light will fog your paper reducing contrast.

Wayne

[Jeremy Z]

That is a slick idea Wayne, I will try it.

I have been doing test strips, but not a complete pretest, as you mention.

When I get that exposure that will give me full black, does that give me a starting point, or THE correct exposure?

For 8x10 size, full-frame prints, I've been getting about f/16 and 7-9s from my test prints. It does seem odd that I need to stop all the way down to f/16 in order not to overexpose....

[Jeremy Z]

I'll do the safelight test tomorrow.

I think I will order the filters anyhow, which will hopefully give me more exposure control, should I need it.

[tedwhite]

Wayne is right. And if, after 5 minutes you notice some decrease in whiteness I wouldn't worry. If it takes 5 minutes to expose and develop a print, one might suggest there's a negative problem.

I did almost the same thing when we got the new Thomas Duplex Super Safelight as it seemed way too bright, even with both doors closed. I placed a pair of pliers on a sheet of 8X10 for 5 minutes, then developed it - nothing - blank piece of pure white paper.

[Wayne R. Scott]

When I get that exposure that will give me full black, does that give me a starting point, or THE correct exposure?

For 8x10 size, full-frame prints, I've been getting about f/16 and 7-9s from my test prints. It does seem odd that I need to stop all the way down to f/16 in order not to overexpose....

It will give you a starting point, the "correct exposure" is subjective. There may be parts of an image that require burning or dodging; perhaps both within the same image to reach the final print that you want.

I have a feeling that you may be pre-flashing your paper with your safelight. What this does is shorten the amount of time for the paper to react to the light from the enlarger.

All of this is beyond the scope of short answer forum, but it should get you started in the right direction.

Wayne

[40oz]

Jeremy Z, you need the filters. You aren't pre-flashing the paper, you are not using the proper filtration the papers are designed for.

Your enlarger's filter drawer is 75mm, which is just under 3". Kodak makes PolyMax filters as well, for roughly the same price as everyone else's. Just buy whatever you can find locally, or if you are ordering online, whatever works. I don't think the thick Samigon filters are a tough material to cut, they are just thick to avoid creases, I'm guessing.

I went through this issue a while ago with Ilford paper. The fact that you are using Kodak chemicals and having this problem isn't an indictment of Kodak.

Kodak's site has a ton of info related to all their photography products, including discontinued materials. It's under "Consumer Products"->Pro Photographer/Lab tab. Everything you need is in one of their downloadable PDF files. Ilford has much of the same info, and their paper includes a datasheet that discusses the use of filters.

[Jeremy Z]

Well, now that I think of it, I think it is either the safelight or a light leak around my door.

The safelight is bright; it doesn't take long for my eyes to adjust, but it is just a 25W Kodak bulb. The red paint doesn't quite go all the way down to the brass screw shell, and there are tiny little nicks in the paint here and there.

Also, there is a tiny, tiny amount of white light coming in from around the door, even with all the curtains & blankets hung outside it.

Here's my plan:

1) Try the coins-on-paper test with NO lights on. If there are shadows, it means the light around the doorframe is the culprit.

2) Assuming that's OK, try it again with my Kodak safelight bulb.

I bet one of those two will be it, but if not, the filters will hopefully by the answer.

From what I've read about multigrade papers, they behave as a #2 graded paper if you don't use filters. (normal contrast) With filters, they can go all the way to #5. I printed years ago, never used filters, and had great prints.

My prints now that lack contrast have almost pure white around the borders, where the easel blocks the light. I get the paper into the easel quickly, so the safelight or light leak is still a potential culprit. However, I'm leaning towards a white light pre-exposing, because they are not even close to normal contrast. They're all gray, starting at about 10%, so the only white I have is the borders.

I plan on getting the filters anyhow, it is just a matter of whether I order them immediately, or wait for my next order. I may find them downtown at the Chicago RFF meeting this Saturday.

[Jeremy Z]

I don't have a scanner, but I will try to take some pix of the prints with my digital camera later, which may confirm or eliminate some possibilities.

[40oz]

get the filters. You are just going to waste time and paper until you do. Trust me :)

VC paper is apparently not supposed to be used without a filter. VC paper with a #2 filter is analogous to #2 graded paper. VC paper without filters is not the same as grade 2 paper.

[Jeremy Z]

OK 40oz. Since you are so vociferous about it, I will get the filters. Please don't be offended if I try to solve the problem by other means first, THEN try the filters.

When I printed last time with VC paper, I never used filters, and the results were great. I'm sure you're right in that the results can be better with filters, but if it is a light leak issue, the filters aren't going to help at all. First things first!

[Vics]

D76 is a developer for FILM, not paper. Try Dektol. You must use a filter if printing on multiGrade paper. No filter would produce very flat prints.

[Vics]

I would think better to buy a set of Ilford's Multigrade Filters (know whar size you need.) This way you can get the kind of control you need with black & white printing. Have fun!

[Vics]

I use the Ilford filters, which are thin acetate, and i like them very much. I had to trim them down to size for my 23CII.

[Jeremy Z]

Thanks to you guys, I'm having some success now.

I spent 14 hours in the darkroom today. I changed the safelight, and did a better job sealing up the door. That made a huge difference.

I also bought the multicontrast filters, and printed most of them at #2. (good tip)

Most of the day, I fought the battle with "dust". (lost most times) The negative was clean, the print was clean, yet I had dust in different places on each print.

Miraculously, when I switched to 5x7 from 8x10, I had no dust on the print.

I finally figured out that I had been scratching the emulsion on the print with my plastic tongs when I pushed the print down in the developer. :bang:

For the last couple hours, things went much more smoothly. :rolleyes:

Thanks for the tips guys.

[wdenies]

YES, YOU NEED FILTERS.
To prove it and to convince you I made a digital simulation with ConverttoBWPro: acts like Ilford multigrade
More examples available. but it seems I am limited to 3 uploads

Wim

[wdenies]

The rest of the simulation

[tedwhite]

OK, so which ones simulate which filters? The last one looks like a #4 or #5.

[wdenies]

The filename corresponds to the filter used

Wim

[tedwhite]

Duh.

Thanks

[Jeremy Z]

Duh.Don't feel bad, I was wondering too, but just wasn't the one to ask. ;)