Low Contrast Prints

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,586
Ive been having a go at making a print but its lacking in contrast. I had 1/2 sheet of 7x5 left so I just went for it and gave it 30 seconds f/8 with a Number 5 filter and it still lacks contrast.

Could old developer be an issue
 
it could be the developer or the paper, which kind of and how old it is
 
It was some Ilford MG RC paper and Ilford MG developer Bothe about 12 - 15 months old
 
It could well be old developer, it could be the safelight, it could be the paper (unlikely), and it could of course be a flat contrast negative..

If it's the developer it would need to change colour quite significantly. If the darkroom is very small and you use a red/orange safe-light you can get image bleaching, better known as the Herschel effect. This is a strange effect, it's used in direct positive papers and negative materials where the emulsion is pre-fogged with one wave-lenght of light and the latent image destroyed by another.

With MG papers 2 0r 3 emulsions of different speeds and spectral sensitivity are mixed during manufacture and coating, although the paper is supposedly safe to the safe-lights output and you can test and you won't see fogging if it's too close to the paper and exposed too long you'll get sufficient image bleaching to affect the contrast range achievable.

I had this problem myself when I changed from using a large darkroom to a very small one, no matter what I did I couldn't achieve the higher grades with MG filters. It was a known but relatively rare issue and around that time VC (variable contrast) filters for safelights came on the market. In my case changing the Photoax domed filter from the standard Red/Orange to the VC Amber/Brown completely cured the problem. Another way around this is to use a dimmer switch to reduce a safe-lights output.

Ian
 
Thirty seconds at f8 seems quite a long time to make a 3½" x 5" print, even with a filter.
The developer is the most likely culprit. Was it freshly mixed? Was it the right strength? A remote possibility (I've done it myself) is that the paper was upside down when exposed.
If it hasn't happened before under the same conditions, it's unlikely to be fogging from the safelight, although as it's half a sheet, it might have had some inadvertent pre-flashing the last time it was out of the box.
Is there something unusual about the negative? Filter 5 suggests that it has very low contrast.
There are ways of intensifying negatives, some riskier than others. I've used chromium intensifier, which can be repeated for greater effect, but it increases grain and can ruin the neg permanently. It's a bleach and re-develop system. Selenium is often suggested, but I've only seen about half a grade improvement, although others report more. It doesn't damage the neg, but both are irreversible.
It would be possible to scan the neg, adjust it on screen and them output a second corrected neg, as alternative printers do, but this does look like a lot of work, when the image could be printed directly from the scan.
Assuming it's a large format neg, it would be possible to make an unsharp mask*, but reversed to be a second negative and bind the two together to improve density.
Is it a valuable negative?

*A footnote for the digital generation. Although Unsharp Mask in Photoshop comes under the Sharpen menu, it was originally devised as a way of reducing contrast in wet printing, by combining the original negative (or transparency) with a thin contact print, made on film (which would be a positive). Because of the difficulty of getting absolutely perfect registration, and to avoid destroying micro-contrast, the mask was made slightly blurred by interposing a sheet of glass when the contact was made. The sharpening effect came from the narrow halo created by the blur, and was a bonus. In Photoshop, the filter has no effect on overall contrast, but it does create a halo if overused.
 
It could well be old developer, it could be the safelight, it could be the paper (unlikely), and it could of course be a flat contrast negative..

Developer:
I still haven't ruled out the developer although it does not look to dark.

Negative:
It was a negative from my pinhole which does look pretty flat, maybe not the best choice to be starting out with.

Safelight:
Hmm... interesting, my safelight which is a paterson small one, not the dome type but more of a cylinder type and is only about 18 - 20 inches above the tray. I put it here because the further away I put it its press dam dark in there.

I think I will develop a strip of paper for 1 1/2 mins with no safelight on and see black it goes
 
"...not...too dark..." suggests at least some darkening and hence some deterioration. Mixed developer doesn't last long, because of the proportionately huge surface exposed to air. Fresh every time is best. It might be worth testing your current tray against a freshly-mixed batch.
Two methods suggest themselves:
1: Simply develop two equally exposed strips of paper in fresh and old developer and look for the best black, as you suggest.
2: Cut a stepped test strip across the steps and develop in two trays simultaneously, comparing the emergence times. There should be little difference if the old developer is still potent. This might be a useful way to determine a new development time to compensate for ageing and in turn, this would be useful to know if you were developing a large batch of prints.
I've seen a large batch of prints made at the same time, perhaps a hundred, and the contrast gently decreased as I leafed though the stack. Imperceptible between adjacent ones, but noticeable between early and late prints. As you may guess, these were not exhibition prints.
Safelighting can be quite bright and still be safe. Several lamps, placed at a distance from the sensitive material are better and more comfortable than one close up. All subject to testing, of course.

I'd like to dispel any impression that I know it all. I do know about mistakes, because I'm quite good at making them. I've just made myself a disaster by assuming that the development times for Fomapan 200 are the same as for 400.
 
Last edited:
first and easiest test you can do is to snipp two pieces from that paper in totally dark, expose one with normal light for about 10 sec. and put both in developer bath for 2 minutes. one should be white the other black.
Now you know how black it can get and if there is a fogging on the paper.
You also should compare this negativ to an other one of your work on the same paper with the same developer.
 
Safelight:
Hmm... interesting, my safelight which is a paterson small one, not the dome type but more of a cylinder type and is only about 18 - 20 inches above the tray. I put it here because the further away I put it its press dam dark in there.

Safelighting can be quite bright and still be safe. Several lamps, placed at a distance from the sensitive material are better and more comfortable than one close up. All subject to testing, of course.

18-20 inches is far too close, Ilford state a minimum distance of 1.2m/4ft, at that distance you are quite like to suffer image bleaching which affects the higher contrast grades, you wouldn't notice it with fixed grade papers but you will with MG. The Paterson old style orange lanp was the one that caused me problems with contrast loss.

As David suggests it's sometimes better to use more than one safe-light, I have 3 Photax (now sold as Paterson) domed 902/OC safe-lights for B&W printing in my darkroom as it's 12'x13' that makes the room quite bright, one is approx 45" from the developer tray but as it's on the wall only a small part of it's output strikes the paper directly.

Ian
 
@Keith Haithwaite has just been to see me and as soon as he looked inside the dev bottle, he immediatley told me it was bad so I think that clears that up.

Now... as I am not doing much printing, this leads me to another question. Obviously, once the bottle is opened, the developer only lasts a certain amount of time (not sure how long that is).

Apart from Ilford MG, are there any other cheaper options on the market which will work with RC paper
 
I have a quantity of 50ml brown glass bottles. When I open a new 1litre bottle of paper developer I pour it all into the 50ml bottles. I use one of these mixed with 450ml of water for a printing session, or two if I'm doing big prints and need a litre of dev. At the end of the session I always discard the developer. I used to try saving it if not many prints had gone through it, but this can lead to a lot of hassle, and wasted paper.

Alan
 
Alan's solution is a good one. I've found that a tray of developer can last until tomorrow, if you cover it overnight and provided that it has been lightly used. Trying to save working-strength, partially used print developer doesn't seem like a recipe for good prints.
Five litres of Multigrade concentrate costs £19.99 from Wex, much cheaper than the one litre bottle. That would give fifty litres of working solution or a hundred trays for developing 5x7 prints. – about 20p a session, or eleven sessions for less than a small Starbucks cappuccino. Only nine sessions for the price of a tea. Life is evidently harder for tea drinkers.
Tetenal make a spray, called Protectan which is an inert gas that you spray into a bottle to exclude oxygen when it's partially empty. Some people add something inert like glass marbles to top up the level for the same reason.
 
Five litres of Multigrade concentrate costs £19.99 from Wex, much cheaper than the one litre bottle

Just like film developer, I am assuming once you have broken the seal on the 5ltr bottle, the clock has started ticking.
If you just closed the lid and did not squeeze the air out, roughly how long do you think it would last
 
The concentrate seems to last quite well, and rather better than Ilford suggest. A couple of years seems fine.
I suspect that deterioration accelerates as the bottle empties because the oxygen/developer ratio changes in favour of oxygen. Re-bottling in brimful bottles must be the best method. It doesn't have to be 50ml bottles, although that's an added convenience. Litre or half-litre bottles would suffice. I assume that keeping them in the fridge, both cold and dark would help.
Is it possible to get a 5L pack and divide it with friends?
I have heard a suggestion that wine boxes are a good idea. A container that can preserve wine should be able to cope with developer, but I'm guessing. A quick google turned up this source for new ones, but there must be others. I wonder why Ilford don't use them in the first place. Cost, perhaps?
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3L-Refil...Bag-In-A-Box-For-Homebrew-Wines-/301519025105
There's seems to be no definitive answer to this question, because conditions of use vary so widely. Using fresh developer must be more economical, because it saves paper, and paper really is expensive.
 
I use Ilford Warmtone paper and so like to use Ilford Warmtone developer. As this comes in 1 litre bottles, decanting immediately into 50ml bottles is a good practical option. It preserves the developer, and it provides a pre-measured amount ready for diluting with water.
If I had a 5 litre bottle of paper developer concentrate to deal with I would do what I do with a freshly mixed batch of ID11. This is mixed in a 5 litre container, then immediately decanted into plastic 500ml drinks bottles. These have the labels removed and developer name and date mixed written on with permanent marker. These bottles are screw top and have a good seal. Only one is in use at any one time, and it is easy to squeeze the air out of it. I am sure this would work with paper developer, though I would still like some in 50ml bottles for convenience of use.

Alan
 
I rarely buy pre-packed developers liquid or powder however I noticed that Ilford's Liquid PQ developers don't seem to last as long since their sub-contractor(s) switched from Phenidone to Dimezone. This happened when Ilford stopped in-house manufacture and outsourced to Champion, later when Champion took over the much more lucrative deal to manufacture chemistry for Kodak part of the agreement was they would no longer manufacture for Ilford and others. This was also why Paterson B&W and Phototechnology Colour chemistry suddenly disappeared.

In recent years I've mixed nearly all my own developers from raw chemicals, I still use Phenidone in my Warmtone developer ID-78 which I mix to a "commercial strength", Ilford originally sold it as a powder developer, I just re-formulated it with Potassium Carbonate and some Sodium Hydroxide. It keeps well even in a part filled bottle.

Ian
 
I would agree completely that the best method of preserving developer concentrate is decanting to smaller containers. My own experience with Ilford MG in one litre bottles is that it deteriorates rapidly once opened. Protectan hasn't helped much in my case. Once there is air space above the developer, it starts to oxidise. I would be wary of buying a 5litre container, despite the great economic benefit, unless you can decant to suitable smaller containers, and you aim to use it fairly quickly. I do quite a bit of printing, and tend to work with a one litre bottle decanted down into smaller bottles, with an unopened one litre bottle in the cupboard as back-up.
I agree with Ian about the safelight. You should definitely move it further from your trays, and any paper as it moves from packet to enlarger, then trays.
Alex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Back
Top