Advice regarding unusual exposure times

[JeffNunn]

Last night I was printing something like my 10th print ever so very new to this but ended up having to expose the paper for something near 2 minutes towards the end of the printing period (did it for a couple of hours) whereas usually in doing test prints with 5 second intervals I usually find the right range and have made prints I really like, usually at f/8 for say 15-25 seconds, which seems like a regular time and procedure.

I’m Using Durst301 35mm enlarger, Ilford RC Multigrade paper and developer.

So far all the prints with regular exposure times were from Ilford film, say SFX200 or HP5. The prints that needed extended exposure were both Fomapan 400. I shot the Foma on an old Kodak Retina.

The last negative needed a really long exposure time and I messed a few prints up not believing it could be that long.

I may have made a mistake by leaving the enlarger on for the whole time I was printing - an hour. Perhaps the bulb is burning out? (Don’t think that’s right as I nearly change lightbulbs for a living) but really perplexed! I think I should read up on negative density again, I have heard about images that work well with printing... anyway. Excuse the long post, I looked for a similar post but didn’t see one.
Any suggestions?
Thanks for reading!

 

[Don_ih]

15-25 seconds at f8 sounds about right. But 2 minutes at f8 would be a very dense negative. I doubt the light bulb is changing as you use it - generally, they work then they don't. Opening the lens a stop is likely a better option than a two minute enlarger (a stop will cut your time in half).

 

[pentaxuser]

Key to the question being asked is why did this happen? Clearly some thing changed but to get to the bottom we'd need the answers to a lot of questions and a lot of replies.

My advice is to wait until your next session with fresh developer, set thing up carefully and just try again. If the print times revert to the 15-25 secs then you can conclude that something happened but whatever it was is no longer happening and accept that you may never know what it was

On the other hand if your curiosity is strong and you have the staying power then tell us in detail about the 10th print i.e, is that negative or subsequent negatives all different from earlier ones ie. are they all darker and over developed? Was the developer fresh that session, how old is the developer etc

You need to tell us everything in detail to assist us with narrowing down a cause

pentaxuser

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Last night I was printing something like my 10th print ever so very new to this but ended up having to expose the paper for something near 2 minutes towards the end of the printing period (did it for a couple of hours) whereas usually in doing test prints with 5 second intervals I usually find the right range and have made prints I really like, usually at f/8 for say 15-25 seconds, which seems like a regular time and procedure.
20-30 s at f/8 is about medium. 2 minutes of exposure typically indicate real dense negatives but are not unheard of You may have to reduce negative exposure and possibly negative development time. Check your negatives. You should be able to read newspaper print through them.

I’m Using Durst301 35mm enlarger, Ilford RC Multigrade paper and developer.

So far all the prints with regular exposure times were from Ilford film, say SFX200 or HP5. The prints that needed extended exposure were both Fomapan 400. I shot the Foma on an old Kodak Retina.

The last negative needed a really long exposure time and I messed a few prints up not believing it could be that long.

I may have made a mistake by leaving the enlarger on for the whole time I was printing - an hour. Perhaps the bulb is burning out? (Don’t think that’s right as I nearly change lightbulbs for a living) but really perplexed! I think I should read up on negative density again, I have heard about images that work well with printing... anyway. Excuse the long post, I looked for a similar post but didn’t see one.
Any suggestions?
Thanks for reading!

 

[Sirius Glass]

It sounds like the developer was at the end of its life. When the development time increases, it is time to replace the developer.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio and the wonderful world of darkroom printing!
What Sirius said, although it would be worthwhile to check to make sure that you didn't accidentally change the aperture setting on the lens or put something into the light path that might block it.
Did the image at the easel look less bright? Your eyes + brain aren't very accurate for measuring light levels (they tend to self adjust) - at least not at your level of experience - but if something is way off, it is usually visible.

 

[Bill Burk]

This could be a slow shutter on the Retina.

Your experience would make perfect sense if the Foma negatives look as dense as a pair of sunglasses.

 

[JeffNunn]

Thank you all for the replies - seriously kind of you!

You’ve pointed me in the right direction, I feel silly to have not noticed it...

Firstly, it’s Foma 100 not 400, my mistake, and I realised I had developed it in Caffenol as a trial. And rather badly if I compare it to the SFX developed with DDX. I didn’t clear the negative if that’s the right term, I mean to say the edges are underdeveloped and foggy.

One thing I didn’t say is that when I scanned these 6 months ago they came out “fine” (because the red banner said don’t mention digital!) but there must be some automatic exposure compensation on the scanner as I never noticed how under developed the negative is (so - sorry if I’ve wasted your time but the comment about the sunglasses is about right... er embarrassing).

If I can attach a picture I will, might make you chuckle at least. I will say the other frame from the same roll printed okay at 1 minute exposure (!) so inconsistencies all round...

To finish, it was fresh developer, and the lamp probably wasn’t dimmer although last night I was sure it was something wrong with the machine not me!

Possibly slow shutter on the Retina, but with no built in light meter, more likely I chose a slow shutter.

I had so carefully checked the aperture and actually stepped back for the three minutes, murmuring to myself.

So thank you all again, I suppose this is the lesson I really did need for shooting, developing and printing. I’ll try opening up 1 stop and still expose for two minutes and see what I get.

So would that be termed a very dense negative (grossly dense perhaps)?

Thanks for the warm welcome.

 

[Bill Burk]

(so - sorry if I’ve wasted your time but the comment about the sunglasses is about right... er embarrassing).

Thanks for the warm welcome.

You're welcome.

This was the first time in my life I made an example to compare dense negatives with sunglasses.

It was a lot of fun puzzling this out.

 

[Don_ih]

The dense negative looks maybe a stop overexposed. More importantly, it looks like it has an high overall bass fog - also somewhat mottled-looking. Maybe it would benefit from refixing. It seems to enlarge well enough, though.

You will have dense negatives. And you will have negatives with areas of density that may require burning of more than 30 seconds. It's all part of life's rich pageant.

 

[Jim Jones]

Jeff - Don't leave enlarger lamps on for long periods when not in use. They are designed for maximum practical light output by running hot, which means a much shorter lime span than ordinary incandescent lamps.

 

[JeffNunn]

Dear Bill, Don and Jim, thank you again for the advice. I got straight back onto printing (figured that was a good sign!) and turned the enlarger off between exposures.
I will look into refixing, I didn’t know that could be done, I recall that I was reusing fixer and developing in coffee during lockdown. Nonsense!
Life’s rich pageant indeed, I’m having the most fun starting out in this. I’ve got a long way to go to but having people like yourselves happy to point me in the right direction has really kept me going.

 

[Don_ih]

I’m having the most fun

Fun is what matters. Don't let the frustrations wear you out. (There can be a lot of frustrations)