Bad Batch Of Photo Paper....??

[DF]

I'm NEVER one to blame equipment or materials for bad results, but I had a freak experiance, my first, in the darkroom the other night: Some of my prints had a "washed-out" look to them after the usual one-and-a-half-minute developer. I'd reach into the black plastic bag and in a sequence of 8 or 9 or so, only the 3rd and the 6th came out acceptable., the rest varied in degree of "washed-outness" - some whiter/lighter than others. The Dektol was indeed fresh.
Explanations - Please!

 

[Dennis S]

How old is the paper? Fixer fresh? That is just a few of the possibilities.

 

[jvo]

what paper, maybe someone else had similar disapointment/problem?

exposure?

 

[pentaxuser]

The fact that in a batch of 9 sheets 3 and 6 were OK but 1,2, 4,5 and then 7-9 were not OK tends to rule out chemicals, doesn't it?

On the other hand I wonder what the odds are that in many 1000s of cut sheets from the same roll a few odd sheets are defective?

This presumes that the sheets were from the same box of course and had not got somehow shuffled together from different boxes in the darkroom which contained paper of differing ages

The above paragraph certainly describes my darkroom when I use different paper in the same session, store them temporarily in separate empty boxes while printing then try and make sure I get each left-over paper back into its original box at the end

Sounds like a long shot I know but otherwise I am stumped for an answer

pentaxuser

 

[pdeeh]

the chances of a "bad batch" of fresh paper from any of the current major manufacturers is vanishingly small.

look to your process, other materials and equipment.

I had the experience of finding my prints getting inconsistent in contrast only to find it was my enlarger bulb failing

 

[Dennis S]

Years ago I had a similar problem with Foma paper or claimed to be Foma. A certain % of the sheets gave extremely bad prints. THAT is why I asked about the paper. The price of it was from a discount seller so I guess I got what I paid for. That is why I stick with one brand of "house" paper from a certain seller. Majority of the time when I do finish prints I buy from a reputable paper manufacturer such as Ilford all the rest is just practise.

 

[railwayman3]

Have to agree with previous posts that fresh paper, properly stored, and from any reputable supplier is very unlikely to give any issues. I've had most problems over the years, but never any which I could, honestly, blame on fresh materials rather than my own "user error" !

Is your enlarger light-source giving correct and consistent exposure....maybe check that the bulb is not faulty or incorrectly seated in the socket, all wires and circuits correct (no loose connections), and any timer working properly ?

 

[piu58]

The only problem with paper I ever had was old paper. It gets yellowish in the developer, starting from the edges. As many others mentioned, I don't believe in faulty paper. It would be easier for us to guess what happened if you gave us a scan of the result.

 

[kreeger]

Any chance your enlarger light source is failing/about to fail? What type of enlarger do you use?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When making prints one should watch the print and not the clock. I would recommend switching to development to completion to get the best blacks. One of the mistakes that people new to print making is to pull a print before it is completely developed. You should be in the shoulder of the H&D curve before you stop development. This means that there is no longer a fast change in density of the print with time. One of the nice features of this method is that it compensates for temperature and loss of developer activity with use.

 

[DF]

All prints got the usual 1.5 minutes in Dektol 2:1.

 

[DF]

All prints got the usual 1.5 minutes in Dektol 2:1.

 

[paul ron]

isnt 1.5 minutes too short? i do 3 min in dektol 2:1.

ive had odd defects in a box of agfa many years ago that i bought at cambridge photo in nyc. turns out as per agfas investigation, it was an old stock maybe improperly stored.

 

[removed account4]

what brand is / was it ?
another apugger complained about bad paper recently too...
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is another thread here on APUG with a very similar complaint.

Please tell us the paper type.

PE

 

[DF]

It would be unfair to indict an entire brand for one questionable batch - this is a very influential website. I haven't yet come across any chats describing so. I bought another batch and all is O.K.
If it helps, it wasn't Arista or Ilford.

 

[removed account4]

RC or FB ?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Accidents happen. I've had coating defects and streaks in films from many sources. It does not mean that the brand is bad at all.

PE

 

[pdeeh]

this is a very influential website.

amongst its members, yes

 

[Ian Grant]

Sounds like poor storage, it's not inknown. I know a dealer who had a lreasonable stock of paper and I'd have bought some but the packaging looked old on some Ilford boxes, I was actually after the Forte paper they had and decided not to take a risk, later on this forum a member confirmed he'd bought some of the Forte paper and it had in fact detiorated and was useless. I bought two boxes of HP5 and they were just out of date but OK.

Ian

 

[DF]

The paper wasn't old - maybe 3 months at the most in cool dry storage conditions.

 

[mnemosyne]

If the paper was indeed fresh and other potential errors discussed here haven been ruled out, the next logic step would be to return the paper to the seller and let him sort out the issue.

 

[Ian Grant]

The paper wasn't old - maybe 3 months at the most in cool dry storage conditions.

It's how it was stored before you bought it. As long as stored reasonably paper keeps well, but there have been cases of quite fresh paper going off because of poor storage in sores.

Ian