Arista Film from Freestylephoto

[Jenni]

I did some printing today an the Arista edu fb matte paper, I failed at achieving a level of contrast I could be happy with.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

To me, matt paper has a grayish black. Try printing on glossy.

 

[Roger Cole]

I did some printing today an the Arista edu fb matte paper, I failed at achieving a level of contrast I could be happy with.

I tried the EDU RC paper and didn't care for it, even for contact prints. YMMV.

Some people love matte paper but the other poster is right - the maximum black will never be as deep as the same paper in glossy and this can reduce the contrast. Bear in mind that fiber based "glossy" is really only glossy if ferrotyped, something almost no one does anymore. FB glossy air dried, what used to be called "glossy dried matte" is definitely smoother and shinier than matte paper but doesn't have the highly reflective finish of ferrotyped glossy or RC glossy. It's probably the single most popular surface for FB for good reason. (Not that I don't like matte for some things, and others prefer it for all their work - YMMV.)

 

[Rick A]

I did some printing today an the Arista edu fb matte paper, I failed at achieving a level of contrast I could be happy with.

Matt paper never looks as deep as glossy for blacks, it's all about light reflectance. IMO, matt looks muddy and not as crisp as glossy. It does have it's place, I like it for soft focus subjects and portraiture, when deep blacks aren't needed. I also think it's da bomb for hi-key subjects (my opinion).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To me, matt paper has a grayish black. Try printing on glossy.

I can't argue that glossy paper will appear to have deeper blacks, but at the same time switching materials isn't going to teach the OP much at this stage. It isn't supposed to be easy; the struggle will make us stronger and see possibilities we wouldn't otherwise have.

I have said it a million times: the paper we use and its paper developer is something you have to target with everything else that you do. All that you do when you pick your film, pick your film developer, expose the film, film developing time, agitation, temperature - everything, all of it will have to fit on the paper. If you switch papers in the middle of everything you are introducing yet another variable, and when we learn (or re-learn as in this case) the less variables we have the better it is. It is, after all, about learning a technique.

I have used matte paper in my prints for a decade now, almost exclusively, and I have used several hundred sheets of the type of paper Jenni is currently using. It isn't bad paper at all. It is Foma VC paper as we know, and that's a quality product. It is possible to achieve deep, rich, velvet blacks with this paper, but it takes a bit of practice, some pain, some hard work, analysis of technique and improvements to make it happen.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I've shot and developed 3-4 rolls of Action 400 in Rodinal 1:100 60 minutes, it gives lots of grain, quite nice grain, but still, lots of it. I kind of liked it, creative, but nothing I am going to keep on doing. Here's a cpl of shots (not entirely perfect since the scan didn't do a lot for the grain when viewed on the screen.. they look better even printed digitally.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Theses are really great. The extra grain seems more obvious in the non-focused areas than in the main subject with sharp focus. It adds a nice counterpoint to the subject. Is this a common effect with this particular use of Rodinal?

Steve

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I'm using VG Fiber Paper, Is it more difficult to use then graded paper? I have not been in the dark room in 20 years and my brain has muddled all my past darkroom experience into one be ball of chaos.

Jenni,

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one getting back to the darkroom after a 20 year absence. What I've done is collect a library of everything relevant I could find in written works in order to bone up on the process, and then dive in with developer blazing.

Steve

 

[Jenni]

It was very encouraging to read all of this this morning. I've got two prints from yesterday that look okay but I feel I like more contrast. And I DO LOVE FB paper. the RC paper doesn't have the feeling to it that I like. I'm going to stick with what I've got and just keep practicing. Everyone here is so helpful! It's nice to have such a community of people that are more about the art then popularity.

 

[Jenni]

Jenni,

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one getting back to the darkroom after a 20 year absence. What I've done is collect a library of everything relevant I could find in written works in order to bone up on the process, and then dive in with developer blazing.

Steve

Steve you should see my desk right now, it's piled high with books and print outs. My husband is about ready to hire a backhoe to dig me out.

 

[Jenni]

Matt paper never looks as deep as glossy for blacks, it's all about light reflectance. IMO, matt looks muddy and not as crisp as glossy. It does have it's place, I like it for soft focus subjects and portraiture, when deep blacks aren't needed. I also think it's da bomb for hi-key subjects (my opinion).

You are exactly right that is what I am seeing and I'm not crazy about it. I will try it with some hi-key subjects and see if I like it better. I only have 25 sheets of it, so maybe I'll save it for that. I have a box of 100 sheets of Ilford RC paper that a photographer gave me, I'll use that up, by then I should have a good start at understanding the printing process. The only thing I like about the RC paper is the deep blacks. To me it just feels cheep. It shouldn't because I really like Ilford products. Anyway I'll try the hi-key for sure!

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't know how the Foma paper will respond to it (Thomas would know) but to get slightly deeper blacks on neutral toned papers you can try selenium toning. For this you usually use more dilute toner than you would for a more radical color change. Many neutral tone papers will cool slightly with a slight increase in d-max and contrast. I use Kodak selenium toner at 1+19 for somewhere around 5 minutes. With the Adox MCC 110 paper I've been using I stop at 4 minutes because 5 starts giving me too much purple eggplant color I don't really care for.

 

[Jenni]

I don't know how the Foma paper will respond to it (Thomas would know) but to get slightly deeper blacks on neutral toned papers you can try selenium toning. For this you usually use more dilute toner than you would for a more radical color change. Many neutral tone papers will cool slightly with a slight increase in d-max and contrast. I use Kodak selenium toner at 1+19 for somewhere around 5 minutes. With the Adox MCC 110 paper I've been using I stop at 4 minutes because 5 starts giving me too much purple eggplant color I don't really care for.

Thank you for the suggestion, I am not ready to try toning prints just yet. I'm going to go back to the basics and work on getting my negatives correct and work on getting good results with the paper, once I'm good at that I'll feel brave enough to try toning. Which indecently we never did in school.

 

[Roger Cole]

Personally I think if you're ready to print, you're ready to tone, and no print is finished until it's toned. Even if you don't want a color change, selenium and sepia toners (and gold but that's expensive) improve archival properties of the prints, and using them is quite easy. But that's just my view.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Personally I think if you're ready to print, you're ready to tone, and no print is finished until it's toned. Even if you don't want a color change, selenium and sepia toners (and gold but that's expensive) improve archival properties of the prints, and using them is quite easy. But that's just my view.

Toning prints is not necessary to learn in order to learn how to print. It's an extra step that isn't necessary. If you really want to tone them, it can be done even a couple of years down the road.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't think it's necessary to "learning how to print" either. What does learning to print have to do with it? I don't consider the print finished until it's tone and personally tone all my prints. YMMV but if someone isn't satisfied with the d-max of a paper they otherwise like, dilute selenium toner is worth a try. There's really nothing to learn, just try it and see if you like the results.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't think it's necessary to "learning how to print" either. What does learning to print have to do with it? I don't consider the print finished until it's tone and personally tone all my prints. YMMV but if someone isn't satisfied with the d-max of a paper they otherwise like, dilute selenium toner is worth a try. There's really nothing to learn, just try it and see if you like the results.

To each their own. I disagree with you. It's my opinion that if you are a beginner, which the OP is, and if you're not happy with how your prints turn out, then selenium toning isn't going to save you. It makes a pretty small difference compared to learning proper technique, I.e. 'learning how to print', and if you don't learn how to print, no toning in the world is going to help you.
Toning, to me, is a fine tune adjustment that you apply once you've learned to achieve good tonality in the print, something the OP has admitted not being capable of yet.

 

[NB23]

To each their own. I disagree with you. It's my opinion that if you are a beginner, which the OP is, and if you're not happy with how your prints turn out, then selenium toning isn't going to save you. It makes a pretty small difference compared to learning proper technique, I.e. 'learning how to print', and if you don't learn how to print, no toning in the world is going to help you.
Toning, to me, is a fine tune adjustment that you apply once you've learned to achieve good tonality in the print, something the OP has admitted not being capable of yet.

100% with you.

 

[Jenni]

I do like the way the toned images look, but it's a step I am not ready for. Not saying I won't be one day, but just not right now. Very happy for the suggestion though!

 

[MattKing]

Jenni:

Try playing with some toning.

It is wonderful to experiment with, and you may find that the results you get from your explorations will help you with your re-discovery.

It is not going to necessarily help with your re-learning printing skills, but it might.

And the fun is worth it!

On the subject of contrast, it may be that you are aiming your testing at the wrong tone.

Try adjusting your exposure to get what you want in your mid-tones and lighter tones, and then adjust your contrast to get the contrast you want.

 

[Roger Cole]

I agree that the results from toning, at least dilute selenium on neutral papers like I am suggesting, are pretty subtle. But if someone isn't happy with the blacks on their prints, practice and becoming even a master printer isn't going to increase the d-max. For that you need a different paper, different paper surface, different print developer, or some toning. That's all I'm saying.

My suggestion is to try a different paper. I agree one shouldn't just jump around (I settled on two papers, one neutral and one warm) too much but every paper isn't going to suit every taste.

I don't really understand the concept of not being "ready" for toning, because in this case there's just simply nothing to it. Buy the KRST (or whatever brand) mix with appropriate amount of water, rinse print and immerse in toner, agitate gently for the time, remove and into water bath and rinse and hypo clear and wash normally. The only variables are dilution and time/temperature and it's not like that takes a lot of experimentation or expertise to find what you like.

But if someone doesn't want to do it, that's cool. But just practicing your printing won't make your blacks blacker.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think you guys are recommending something that is completely irrelevant.

You don't get good at printing unless you can fix the problem. The problem is flat and dull looking prints. To fix it, you need to learn BASICS like contrast in the negative, and identifying how to make a good work print.

To tone the print or to try a different paper would be to cure the symptoms without actually fixing the problem. I KNOW that this paper is capable of GREAT tonality and rich blacks, because it was all I used for a couple of years.

Do NOT fix the symptoms. Fix the problem by learning the very basics. Let's focus on basics when someone is trying to learn the very basics. Dmax isn't even a word yet.

 

[Roger Cole]

It doesn't take much to figure out what "d-max" means. It should be easy to infer "density - maximum" thus "maximum black."

OTOH, I'll take your word for the paper.

It is of course possible that the blacks aren't black enough because the print is simply flat and needs more contrast to push the shadows blacker and the highlights whiter. Could be the negatives are too flat and could be the print just needs to be made with a higher contrast VC filter.

Jenni, this is a variable contrast paper. You do have variable contrast filters, don't you? What filter did you use to print the prints you are unhappy with? Could you scan one and post the image? Also, and excuse me if you mentioned this, but what print developer are you using? And how long are you developing your prints? In my experience most fiber based papers benefit from a longer-than-usually-recommended development time. I develop my RC prints for two minutes and FB for at least three.

 

[Jenni]

I can not scan anything right now because my prints are in the darkroom ( I left them there yesterday) I also wrote all over them so I really don't want to scan them and upload them. Let me try to explain the issue to you so you better understand.
1st the subject has medium brown hair and is a beige skin, So her face should not be paper white and her hair not black in a print.
2nd I exposed using a light meter at box speed of iso 200.
3rd, I developed the film in D76 developer, for 6.5 min, agitating for the first 30 seconds then once every 30 seconds, stop, fix, wash, photo flo, when looking at the negatives (4x5) in a light box I can see detail in her hair and even her skin looks good, the negative is fairly thin in her hair and pretty dense on her face. But I still have detail in the hair.
4th I did a strip test to determine the correct exposure for a contact print and found that to get detail in the hair and to keep her hair from going totally black and blocked out, I needed 10 seconds on her hair and 25 seconds on her face.
5th I suck at burning---I'll practice
6th I tried a #5 filter to bring out the contrast in her hair at 10 seconds, then a #0 filter for 15 seconds to try and bring the tones in her skin down to normal. This gave the best results without actually burning. I still feel her face is to bright.

So I thought maybe I agitated the negatives to much during development? Her hair when I meter it is a zone II and her face I placed in Zone VI, Printed on paper I"m getting her hair in Zone I and her face in zone IX even X.

The FB paper that I am using has very soft tones that are pretty but because it's matte I suppose it's kind of milky, it's not crispy black and crispy white. like the RC paper I also have. I do like the FB paper, but to me the shadows block up very easily. I don't like that.

I hope this clears things up a bit. It's not that I want true black in my image, the only true black in the image is her eye lashes and they are printing up perfectly fine. It's that I don't want her hair to be a solid mass of shadow and her face to be paper white. With the split grade filtering I was able to get something close to what I want but it's still not exactly what I wanted.

I hope this helps

 

[Jenni]

Yes it is VC paper and yes I have 3 sets of filters, (I'm using a friends darkroom and he has redundant tools.)

Jenni, this is a variable contrast paper. You do have variable contrast filters, don't you? What filter did you use to print the prints you are unhappy with? Could you scan one and post the image? Also, and excuse me if you mentioned this, but what print developer are you using? And how long are you developing your prints? In my experience most fiber based papers benefit from a longer-than-usually-recommended development time. I develop my RC prints for two minutes and FB for at least three.

 

[Roger Cole]

It sounds like you have overdeveloped the negative resulting in too much contrast on the negative. I looked up the development info for this film (EDU Ultra aka Foma 200, right?) and it says 5-6 minutes in undiluted (which I presume is what you used) D76. So you gave it the upper range of that. Having too much contrast in the negative doesn't preclude detail in both highlights and shadows. The thing is, and this was part of the very basis of creating the zone system, even old films could record a much wider range of brightness than papers, so a method was created to try to match what you get on the negative with what the paper can handle (not counting dodging and burning, local bleaching etc.) Most people find that the Foma films are best developed for 15-20% less than the instructions, and exposed a bit more generously, but Thomas uses more of it than I do and I've only used the 400.

So if your negative is a bit too contrasty, it sounds like you are trying to compensate for that by printing with a print contrast that preserves detail in both highlights and shadows - you've expanded the negative and compensating by compressing the print. This may get you detail in both highlights and shadows but it also reduces something that is sometimes called "local contrast" or "mid tone separation" or some such term. Changing the contrast doesn't only affect how dark the shadows print and how light the highlights print, it also affects how much difference prints between very closely spaced tones. Say you have a fairly smooth skin tone with a very slight shadow on one side so, in zone terms, it varies from Zone VI (where you placed the face) to VI-1/4. More contrast in the print will expand this to show, say, low zone VI to low zone VII. It will make this light shadow more apparent but it will also make the deeper shadows darker and the highlights brighter, possibly to where they don't show detail (without dodging the shadows and/or burning the highlights.) The result of all this is you lose separation between closely spaced tones when you try to compensate for a contrasty negative by printing on a flat paper. On the other hand, the overdevelopment also expands the "local contrast" some but not as much as printing on a soft paper contracts it because the film development disproportionately affects the highlights - the brighter the highlight, the more extending development increases it.

I must point out this is just conjecture based on what you're saying about your development time and how the shadows and highlights look when you print for the best overall tonality you can get.

My suggestion, if you have a chance to shoot a test, is to reduce your development time by about 15% and try again, maybe with just a couple of shots - since you're using sheet film that's pretty easy. That would give you close enough to 5 minutes instead of the 6 you first used. Gentle agitation every 30 seconds should be fine, though agitation certainly affects contrast. If reducing the development time helps the problem but doesn't fix it, you need to reduce it some more. Most people don't like to go below 5 minutes or so in a regular inversion tank (tank you manually turn upside down to agitate) and I agree with this if you fill the tank after loading the film. In that case, if you need to reduce the time more, you can dilute D76 1+1 with water. I prefer this anyway - it will give you slightly worse grain with slightly more sharpness, and in 4x5 you'll never notice the difference. It will also give you a longer development time so you can reduce it more without risking uneven development.

In the meantime, if I'm correct about the negatives you've already shot, they can probably be printed fine, but will require dodging and/or burning (or contrast masking and that's an advanced technique.)

The other interesting thing here though is that you like the tones on the RC paper better. Is it RC glossy? I too dislike the look of RC glossy as too shiny and "plasticy" but it can often produce some of the darkest blacks around. I prefer pearl/semi-matte/whatever a manufacturer calls it in RC paper. The relevant question here is this: can you produce a print from these negatives on your RC paper that you like in terms of tonality (leaving aside things like whether the surface is too shiny and how it feels like plastic.)

EDIT: Somehow I read 6 minutes but you said 6.5. That just adds to my suspicion the negatives are over developed and contrasty and you're getting muddy prints because you're compensating by using a too-soft filter to try to contain the highlights. For a printing test, try printing test prints to get the midtones looking right and let the highlights and shadows do what they may. The print may not look good but if you can get those midtones looking good that will tell you something about the problem. I'd still try going to a 5 minute developing time. That's a bit more than 20% less than your 6.5 and is also at the lower end of the manufacturer's spec.

It also occurred to me you said you were agitating every 30 seconds but this is 4x5. What method or kind of tank are you using for your film development?