I suspect that this in itself helped quite a bit...
...
And, also (being frugal) to find how much I could dilute the stock solution!
So, I did a test. The paper is Polycontrast II that I have marked as "Bad Fog" - which means unusable with any amount of restrainer added.
I chose a higher contrast negative. Seems that's probably a necessity. A subsequent test I tried with a lower-contrast negative resulted in a very low-contrast print. Not sure how it would work with contrast filters added. That can be tested later.
The first print was close to normal exposure for the paper (probably twice as long) and a long time in the developer
View attachment 397127
The streaks are water but the mottling is normal for this paper. I've fairly certain it has developer-incorporated and that usually means cow-pattern mottling.
Top show the fog level:
View attachment 397128
White paper at the top. You can see where the easel blade covered the edge of the print (slightly less fog where the paper was covered during exposure). That fog is probably about half as dark as it would be in normal paper developer with added restrainer.
The next tests were with greatly increased exposure and reduced development time.
View attachment 397126
The top print received half the exposure the bottom print did. Both were developed for about the same time. I was attempting to pull the prints before too much fog appeared. The top print looks underdeveloped in person. The bottom print looks more normal.
View attachment 397129
Detail of the bottom print against white paper. The line where the paper was covered by the easel blade is very obvious. Very little fog. The image also has better contrast. A bit longer development and then using farmer's reducer would possibly result in a normal-looking print.
The reason for the grey outside the image area of the print is, even though the enlarger masks that, you can still see the paper around the image while the enlarger is on. It's not a lot of light, but it really does something over the course of 4 minutes.
So, I'd consider it a success. Like I said earlier, this paper has been considered by me to be unusable. Inconvenient, but paper isn't cheap.
I suspect that this in itself helped quite a bit...
I would love to IMPROVE upon your lofty findings.
I have no doubt. My test was quickly mixing a stock solution and only using one dilution. I would anticipate far better results from something like Kodabromide - which has no incorporated developer. As it is, the mottling might always be a stumbling block for papers that have degraded in that way - although I did wonder if they would benefit from a short soak in water before developing (haven't tested that).
I have a full -3 100 sheet box of Kodak Elite Fine Art S4P paper to try this on. It has a very even coat of fog so it should be a good candidate for this process.
Alas, I predict that it will NOT be a good candidate but, rather, a stellar candidate. Fine papers like this jump at the chance to bathe in high quality oils.
John, avoid the temptation to use full sheets at first. Consider using tiny trays and change developer a lot more frequently than you do for hardy Dektol. (The keyboard keeps trying to say "Desktop"!!!)
Take one sheet, cut it into 8 to 10 smaller sheets and with each, individually, test different exposures, different dilutions (probably either 1+4 or 1+9), and different development times. Place a penny on each sheet.
My fear is that with wasting full sheets your tolerance for ongoing experimentation will be sadly diminished. The next print can easily be better than the last. - David Lyga
Thanks David for those suggestions. I figured if any paper I had stood a chance at this, Kodak Elite was my best shot. I wanted it for contact printing my B&W 8x10 negatives and was so disappointed to find that veil of fog sticking out like a sore thumb. The good thing is that I see no other flaws in the paper other than the even layer of fog. It's not real heavy, but it's there.
This is a superb thread. Is it being pinned somewhere? I do not recall.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?