photographers(that develop)... I got a question for ya.

[MajesticMoose]

I've been plaged(sp?) by low contrast prints for a while. I'm not sure if its the paper, enlarging aperture(f8), lighting for the shot, me, or what ever else it could be. I've been using Ilford multicontrast paper. Should i try a fixed contrast paper. If you ask nicely i might be able to scan you something as an example. Any help/ideas would be appreciated.

Thanks,
m00se

 

[Soybomb]

Are you using any filter on the enlarger? Perhaps you're not giving it enough time under the light?

 

[MajesticMoose]

yeah i'm using a #3 filter (if that helps, i don't know if they're standard)

so maybe i should use a lighter filter and up the time(avg is about 8sec for a 5x7, 13-18sec for 8x10)

m00se

 

[Soybomb]

Yeah a 3 is pretty light as I recall (its been a while since I've been in the darkroom) so if contrast on the negs is good I'd try a darker filter and more time. How are you printing them? If you're using trays be sure you're leaving it in developer long enough, if you dont leave it in there long enough the blacks wont get as black as they should.

 

[letitbe]

It's all in your negative. If you have a fairly thin negative then your not going to get much contrast. What you need to so is stop shooting in dull light situations. IE: Gloomy or overcast days. Try printing @ F-11 using your Illford paper. The "standard" filter i around 2 1/2 - 3 1/2 depending on brand..etc. Start out with your "standard" filter and test strip it. See which time is good looking to you and gives a a decent black. Then start worrying about your contrast. Increase filter and print time if contrast is too low. Fixed contrast paper is expensive and I would stick to the filters till your pretty good at telling what filter you need to use.

 

[MajesticMoose]

it gets developer for about 2 minutes. Won't increasing that make the whites look darker? I think I'll play around with the filters and exposure times, maybe apertures. I wish the paper was sheaper though.

letitbe: The odd part is that the problem occurs occurs when there is plently of light. I actually switched to 400 speed film aswell because i used to have the bad habit of shooting in the "dark" sometimes you don't have a choice though.

when i get a few more rolls done, i've some pictures that i really what to see. I shot 5 or 6 pictures of a plane landing on your water (this was from a boat moving about 40mph and 600mil with ~1/1000@f-who knows what) i think i had it pretty steady, we'll just have to wait and see.

m00se

 

[mollymawk]

A few thoughts:

The filters on safelights can age and fade. Have you had your safelight for quite a while? Or have you changed the positioning of the safelight (if it's too close, it can fog the paper.)

Exhausted developer can cause muddy-looking, low-contrast prints. Also, remember that your print will always look contrastier while wet, so don't pull it out too soon.

Are you certain that your paper has not been exposed to light or heat? I had a batch of paper that was spoilt after sitting in a hot car for a couple of hours. The prints were drab and low-contrast, and I had to throw out the whole box of paper.

Have you examined your negatives to make sure they look good? Low-contrast, murky negatives will not lead to sparkling, crisp prints. Assuming that you develop your own film, do you have absolute, total darkness during the critical period when the film is out of the camera and before it goes onto the reel and into the tank?

I have had excellent results using Ilford multigrade paper; fixed-contrast paper is costly, and, in most cases, not worth the money, IMO.

 

[konichiwa]

Try making a "test sheet" of a print -- use cardboard or something to cover up part of your photopaper and then after you turn on the enlarger for X seconds, move the cardboard and turn it on for a different # of seconds. Do this several times, then develop it (this is all on one piece of paper -- should come out in strips) and see which one comes out best and then develop the whole print that way.

 

[MajesticMoose]

the safelight should be ok (my darkroom isn't used much)
I've ruined my fair share of paper (leaving the bag open grrrrrr) but that's prolly not the problem heat doesn't get to it(its in the cool basement). next time i do file i turn off the lights in the room, no need to have them on, although it shouldn't matter.

m00se

 

[MajesticMoose]

thanks koni, but i already do that

I think my problem is prolly a combination of filter, aperture, and time.

m00se

 

[Aruba]

It's been a while....but the key is in the NEGATIVE..

I have made hundreds of prints, maybe thousands...but I was only able to make two (2) great B/W's...Color is easy compared to B/W..

Read Ansel Adams' book "THE NEGATIVE", don't diffuse, don't use polycontrast paper, dilute your developer, use a condenser enlarger...

If you can perfect your negative, you will have the answer...

...Don't settle for soot and whitewash...

A great B/W print is far and above better than any color print ever made..

...Work to acheive it, you will be a true artist...

Good luck my friend..

 

[MajesticMoose]

<< A great B/W print is far and above better than any color print ever made.. >>


very true, i'll check that out.

 

[OZEE]

It's been awhile, but I used to do this professionally... but without seeing the negs and the prints, it'd be awful hard to troubleshoot.

&quot;Muddy&quot; prints can be negs that are either too thick or too thin. Assuming the negs are good, then ur looking at exposure on the paper or developer/temperature/time.

First thought (without seeing negs/prints...) would be to go with a darker filter, longer exposure. Then, I'd probably replace developer -- could be stop-bath contamination.

Just thoughts. Good luck

 

[ultravox]

It's been a while for me also but way back when I used to have this little plastic Test Filter that had a gradient wheel printed on it which gave you the results of various times for exposing. You would expose it for about 25 secs or so and thevarious filtering each gradient had would tell you how long the equivilent exposure was. After a while of developing you can judge just by experience. I think Kodak makes that little test filter.