Complete lack of contrast. B&W printing

[Ed Sukach]

One other "weird" thought, just crossed my consciousness... What color is the surface of the paper you are using, in ambient light?

 

[Gerald Koch]

Since you haven't done printing for some years is it possible that you are pulling your prints too soon? This would prevent them from achieving sufficient contrast. Prints need to continue to develop for 2 to 3 times the length of time it takes for the image to appear.

 

[Wayne]

are you printing on the right side of the paper?

 

[Hlop]

Back to basics:

You mentioned that you cannot get "contrast" ... that there are neither "white" whites or "black" blacks ... everything is an intermediate shade of grey.

CAN you get a "black" - completely BLACK, black? .....

...... either you do NOT have enough negative contrast (no matter how they scan), or something weird is happening with the enlarger/ filters. Try placing one of the gelatin filters over a contact print, in ambient light. If you still cannot get decent contrast after "playing" with the exposure ... you have to have a uniquely sensitive scanner that will correct for unusually thin negatives.

Yes, I can get pure black when I'm exposing paper to clear light and if I'm partially masking paper (say, masked part wasn't exposed to the light at all) - it's white)

Negatives are not contrast as I mentioned before but this is the whole point - you have negative with all details in all extremes and control contrastness during printing. Negative, in this case, just an information storage - you've got everything from the scene and deside later what you wish to do with it. But I don't have unique scanner it's mid-range Epson 4990 and I'm getting not bad results with it. As I said before I don't beleive that average scanner can produce better results than higher than average enlarger


So, paper is OK, enlarger is OK too. Negatives ... I'd assume they are OK accordingly to scans. Look like I'm doing something wrong. Underexposure option from my very first message?

 

[Hlop]

Since you haven't done printing for some years is it possible that you are pulling your prints too soon? This would prevent them from achieving sufficient contrast. Prints need to continue to develop for 2 to 3 times the length of time it takes for the image to appear.

I'm developing, as recommended by Ilford for Ilford Multigrade developer and RC papers, for a time between 1' and 1'30" (end of session when developer is weakened) to avoid under- or overdeveloping

 

[Hlop]

are you printing on the right side of the paper?

No, on the left

Sorry, couldn't stop it Even if you can expose wrong side and get some "image", you won't get it sharp, would you?

 

[glbeas]

Have you looked inside your enlarger lens for trash or fungus? If that is good it may be your scanner is auto compensating for a bad neg, I know I can pull stuff out of a poor neg I'd have an impossible time printing on regular print paper with my scanner. 'Course that don't help me much if I want a print, you know what that digital stuff looks like...

 

[Hlop]

Have you looked inside your enlarger lens for trash or fungus? If that is good it may be your scanner is auto compensating for a bad neg, I know I can pull stuff out of a poor neg I'd have an impossible time printing on regular print paper with my scanner.

I've got both lenses serviced when I just bought the enlarger because there were some dust particles and fogging from storage in the garage. Fortunately, no fungus at all.

OK. Let's start from the beginning What is a poor neg? Too dense? Too thin? I've got something in between. It isn't contrast but in the past I used to get good results from such negs using proper grade of paper. Now, with all this multigrade papers and filters all things are more flexible but well more confusing and as in any versatile system there are too many points of failure

'Course that don't help me much if I want a print, you know what that digital stuff looks like...

That's why I've returned to film from digital and now trying to print

 

[Donald Miller]

I've got both lenses serviced when I just bought the enlarger because there were some dust particles and fogging from storage in the garage. Fortunately, no fungus at all.

OK. Let's start from the beginning What is a poor neg? Too dense? Too thin? I've got something in between. It isn't contrast but in the past I used to get good results from such negs using proper grade of paper. Now, with all this multigrade papers and filters all things are more flexible but well more confusing and as in any versatile system there are too many points of failure

A poor neg can be either too thin or too dense. A poor neg may lack information in either the shadows or have blocked highlight densities which is a result of improper exposure or development. If it has adequate shadow and highlight detail, it lacks inadequate density range (from the shadow densities to the high light densities to print properly on the material or paper that you choose to print it on. It must have this density range in order to print with the proper contrast. It is not enough to have detail. It must also have contrast.


That's why I've returned to film from digital and now trying to print

I hope that this helps.

 

[Huub S]

Well, you've checked about everything now and we've still no cue what could cause the lack of contrast. Perhaps it's a suggestion to ask a more experienced dark room worker to have a look in situ and have him or her have a look at what could be wrong.

Huub

 

[Ed Sukach]

The longer it goes, the fewer answers we are able to propose. If you ARE getting an acceptably dense black,and an acceptably ... not dense (?) white, the paper and chemistry... at *some point* of exposure/ processing, seem OK.
IIRC, you say you are using Agfa Paper in Ilford Multigrade Developer, per Ilfords instructions; 1'00" to 1'30". I would be amazed if that was the source of your problems, but the only questions I have left are "At what dilution?, and is that dilution recommended for that time/ temperature?".
Myself, my paper developer of choice is Agfa Neutol, 1:10, usually 2' 00" (two) minutes, at 20 degrees centigrade, in the JOBO processor (I think Agfa recommends 1'00" - 1' 30" as well). Try a longer development time than "what was recommended". If that offers no remedy, all I can think of is to try a different paper, and failing there, get an experienced printer, like one of us, to come, observe and try their own hand at it.

This is becoming the mystery of the century.

 

[Hlop]

Hi guys!

I've just sent couple of negatives to Donald Miller as he offered to check their density. Donald, they don't need to be returned - they are badly scratched and I wasn't going to keep them anyway but they should be OK to check density.

Ed,
I'm diluting them. also, as recommended 1:9 and developing temperature is about 22-23C, so, longer time will certainly will follow to paper fogging

Unfortunately I have to stop my experiments for a while - I'm leaving to Europe this Saturday and will be back at the end of April. And next two day that I have left before I'll go, I'll be too busy to settle some things down

Thank you for your help everyone! With your feedback I was able to narrow probably options and have to do some more tests. If you got any other ideas , please, do not hesitate to post them here - I'll be reading this great forum from time to time during my trip

 

[Bob F.]

The fact the neg scans OK only really means that the exposure was good - it says nothing about the density because a scanner will pull out highlight detail and move it to the correct level with ease, although you lose dynamic range...

Once Donald has run his densitometer over them, if it does not turn out to be low contrast negatives, I will eat this hat I have here next to my desk (well... it's not exactly a hat... sort of more of a chocolate Easter Egg sort of thing really - but, it's about the same size as a hat so that's close enough I'm sure you will agree... Well, to be honest, it's more like the size and shape of an entire head, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice if necessary.. ).

Enjoy your trip.

Cheers, Bob

 

[srs5694]

I don't have unique scanner it's mid-range Epson 4990 and I'm getting not bad results with it. As I said before I don't beleive that average scanner can produce better results than higher than average enlarger

In the case of normal-contrast prints from low-contrast negatives, a scanner most certainly can produce better results than a conventional enlarger (or, more specifically, conventional paper) can, at least when using standard processing techniques. The details depend on the scanner software, though. For instance, the default algorithm in VueScan assigns the darkest value available to the thinnest part of the negative, the lightest value available to the densest part of the negative, and in-between values to parts of the negative with in-between densities. Thus, VueScan will pull out an image with a full range of contrast even if the negative has an image that's barely perceptible to the human eye -- or to photographic paper.

That said, a scan of such a negative will look bad in other ways. It'll probably look noisy and grainy, and there may be little in the way of variability in mid-tones. When printed conventionally, such a negative will appear very low in contrast. Still, my experience is that it's easier to get an acceptable scan from a moderately low-contrast negative than it is to get good conventional prints from such a negative. OTOH, various tricks (high-contrast developers, etc.) can help increase the contrast in conventional printing.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I'm developing, as recommended by Ilford for Ilford Multigrade developer and RC papers, for a time between 1' and 1'30" (end of session when developer is weakened) to avoid under- or overdeveloping

I would not depend on time to determine whether a print is correctly developed. Times are dependent on a number of things such as temperature, condition of the developer (as you mention), dilution, paper, etc. It is better to develop by inspection knowing what a correctly developed print looks like in the bath.

BTW, it is very difficult to over-develop a print. The reason for this is that prints are developed to completion and after they are correctly developed there is little change in density or contrast even when the print is left for an extended period.

 

[Hlop]

BTW, it is very difficult to over-develop a print. The reason for this is that prints are developed to completion and after they are correctly developed there is little change in density or contrast even when the print is left for an extended period.

I wouldn't agree with this statement. Try to develop few unexposed pieces of paper, initially marking them 1,2,3,4 and 5 and develop them with same time in minutes as they are marked, then stop, fix and completely dry them. Accordingly to conditions you've described above (paper, developer, temperature etc) you'll notice changes in tone probably between 3 and 4 or possibly between 4 and 5 minutes. This happens when exceed maximum developing time and on print it will look like a lack of contrast and fogging

Overdeveloping is the enemy of the contrast. If there is already lack of contrast then you'll make it worse even if overdeveloping changes it very slightly

 

[Gerald Koch]

I wouldn't agree with this statement. Try to develop few unexposed pieces of paper, initially marking them 1,2,3,4 and 5 and develop them with same time in minutes as they are marked, then stop, fix and completely dry them. Accordingly to conditions you've described above (paper, developer, temperature etc) you'll notice changes in tone probably between 3 and 4 or possibly between 4 and 5 minutes. This happens when exceed maximum developing time and on print it will look like a lack of contrast and fogging

Overdeveloping is the enemy of the contrast. If there is already lack of contrast then you'll make it worse even if overdeveloping changes it very slightly

Developing blank paper is not the same as developing a print. It will not behave the same way because it has not been exposed. Increasing the development time will increase contrast up to a point and then begin to lower it due to overall fog formation. However, one would not usually leave the print for that long. There is a point where a print may appear done when it still needs a bit more time. That is what I was referring to.

More prints are spoiled from being pulled too soon than from being left too long, particular by inexperienced printers. You shouldn't watch the clock when developing a print but watch the print.

 

[elpuri]

So what's the verdict on the negs? I'm just dying to know...

 

[Hlop]

So what's the verdict on the negs? I'm just dying to know...

Me too No feedback from Donald Miller yet

 

[Area51Resident]

I just read this thread and am facinated to know the outcome.

Was a cause/solution ever found?

Thanks,

 

[Donald Miller]

Me too No feedback from Donald Miller yet

I am still waiting for your negatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is a truly strange case. This new subscriber joins in late March this year. His actual threads seem to be 3, all launched within a week or two of joining and the vast bulk of his posts are connected to this thread. Despite a lot of help from many sources we collectively are unable to resolve his probem. He then leaves for Europe but expects to be back in late April. So presumably he has been back for say over 2 months and has not followed up on Don's kind offer. Has he found the solution? If so we'd all like to know what it was. Has he left APUG, changed his mind about a return to darkroom printing or what else?

In every who or what dunnit the author should unmask the villain of the piece. Until then the Marie Celeste sails on and remains a mystery.

I used to forget to put the filters back into the light path in the dichroic head with the white light lever quite often after focusing and deciding on the contrast grade. Did anybody mention this as a possible cause?

Couldn't be as simple as that, could it?

pentaxuser

 

[eumenius]

I well remember that I've experienced a complete contrast loss on Ilford Multigrade III paper - well, after it's been well past its expiry date Maybe thanks to some developers included in sensitive layer, or maybe something else, it stopped to react to magenta filtration at all, giving me always 00 grade. As a result, the whole 100 sheet box of paper was trashed - fortunately it was just a 9*12cm format Maybe the paper is dead in this case? Just a guess.

Cheers,
Zhenya