I suspect that this in itself helped quite a bit...
Age-fogged B&W materials: the definitive guide to working and succeeding with them
-
A
- Thread starter David Lyga
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: One of a kind Canonet QL17 GIII, PANDA
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale 3.25x4.25 adox CHS 100 II
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Fuji fp3000b & Fp100c fridgestored
- Started by belichten
Forum statistics
I suspect that this in itself helped quite a bit...
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
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:
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.
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.
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 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
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:
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.
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.
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.
OP
OP
When I finally had achieved what I was seeking I was genuinely thrilled and did not hesitate to write about it, so certain that I had fulfilled my desires. Don_ih, I will be blatant enough over this to tell you that I would love to IMPROVE upon your lofty findings. My developer DOES work but it requires diligence and tailoring to specific sensitized materials. Yes, I would try to improve even upon your great success. I am never wholly satisfied because I am obnoxiously selfish with this matter. I have the audacity to state that I would like to make a PERFECT print from your "garbage" paper. Thank you. - David Lyga
OP
OP
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).
OP
OP
Well, if it be a slight reprieve for you, I never considered "old Poly" to be especially prominent in the mottling realm. - David Lyga
This is a superb thread. Is it being pinned somewhere? I do not recall.
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.
OP
OP
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.
OP
OP
If I lived near you I would break into your house to teach that paper how to sing. I am confident for you.
I have a feeling you are about to be stunned. Remember, my paper was multiples worse. - David Lyga
MattKing
Moderator
No - but the thread title has been tweaked to make it easy to find with a Photrio search.
For your own purposes, you could use the "Watch" tool at the top right.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |