Contrast control with developers with VC papers

[StigHagen]

I have understood that people use different developers for contrast control with fixed graded papers, which makes sense to me.

But which difference does it do with VC papers? Will you get similar result by increasing/decreasing contrast with the enlarger light, or is the developer/paper combination a whole different game?

E.g. will Dektol mixed with Selectol Soft give the best of both worlds, crisp contrast and smoothness in light tones, as some are doing? Or will I be able to get same tone with a little less contrast with the enlarger light with Dektol only?

 

[John Bond]

There are probably a number ways to do this. Lith printing is probably the most common example you might read about here where contrast is controlled by exposure time and brightness by development time. There are a few warm tone developers that can behave in a similar way ( but without infectious development). Using very dilute developer, less contrast can be achieved with prolonged exposure and not letting the print develop to completion. This also produces a warmer tone. I do not know why it would not work with VC papers similar to graded papers.

 

[ic-racer]

Yes, if your maximum contrast on the multigrade paper is not enough, a "high contrast" developer will make it more contrasty. Likewise, a low contrast developer can extend MG paper the other way if "00" or maximum Yellow/Green is not soft enough.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Generally you can't increase contrast as paper is developed to completion. A small amount is possible by extending developing time to 6 minutes in very fresh developer or by using developer at a higher than normal dilution, such as using Dektol straight. Adding a hefty dose of S. Carbonate can increase the contrast at the shadow end and you can get a slight increase in highlight contrast with the addition of a bit of P. Bromide or by bleaching the print - however both these effects are slight.

You can reduce contrast by overexposing and under developing. If you try to reduce development time with regular developer the development will be uneven. Low contrast developers are just slow working developers that allow you to pull the print early but with the print having enough developing time to develop evenly. Leaving a print in a low contrast developer long enough results in the same developing to completion and the image contrast will be the same as ever. Diluting a regular print developer can help a bit with lowering contrast, but the chemical ratios won't be ideal. Water bath development is a better technique if you don't have a low contrast developer available.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I did hear of controlling contrast with graded papers with Dr. Beers method.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/drbeers.php

I'm not sure it will work with VC papers.

 

[ic-racer]

Generally you can't increase contrast as paper is developed to completion. A small amount is possible by extending developing time to 6 minutes in very fresh developer or by using developer at a higher than normal dilution, such as using Dektol straight. .......

I have had good results gettng very high contrast by developing MG paper in lith developer, (Not "lith printing" but carrying the development all the way to completion) when max magenta or #5 fliter is not enough.

Next time I'll do a step wedge to quantify it, but I suspect the ISO(R) is pretty small.

 

[Ian Grant]

Paper is not usually developed to anywhere close to completion at all.

It's possible to take most papers up close to a grade in Contrast by choosing a more specialised Contrast developer, but you'd need to mix yourv own.

With a Soft working developer Adaptol or Selectol Soft (discontinued) and other development controls then contrast can be dropped by closer to 2 Grades.

It makes no difference whether it's a fixed or variable grade paper.

Ian

Generally you can't increase contrast as paper is developed to completion. A small amount is possible by extending developing time to 6 minutes in very fresh developer or by using developer at a higher than normal dilution, such as using Dektol straight. Adding a hefty dose of S. Carbonate can increase the contrast at the shadow end and you can get a slight increase in highlight contrast with the addition of a bit of P. Bromide or by bleaching the print - however both these effects are slight.

You can reduce contrast by overexposing and under developing. If you try to reduce development time with regular developer the development will be uneven. Low contrast developers are just slow working developers that allow you to pull the print early but with the print having enough developing time to develop evenly. Leaving a print in a low contrast developer long enough results in the same developing to completion and the image contrast will be the same as ever. Diluting a regular print developer can help a bit with lowering contrast, but the chemical ratios won't be ideal. Water bath development is a better technique if you don't have a low contrast developer available.

 

[Ian Grant]

I did hear of controlling contrast with graded papers with Dr. Beers method.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/drbeers.php

I'm not sure it will work with VC papers.

Works with VC papers as well.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I have had good results gettng very high contrast by developing MG paper in lith developer ... to completion

It would be interesting to see the HD curve.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Didn't know that

Works with VC papers as well.

Ian

Hey Ian,

Learn something new every day.

There's also SLIMT. Never had a need to try it but saw the APUG thread on it.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Ian Grant]

Latent image manipulation is an interesting area, I did a lot of research into it in the 70's & 80's, and a dalliance more recently but there are far easier and more predictable ways to achieve similar results which is why it's never become common place as a technique.

Ian

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

That's why

Latent image manipulation is an interesting area, I did a lot of research into it in the 70's & 80's, and a dalliance more recently but there are far easier and more predictable ways to achieve similar results which is why it's never become common place as a technique.

Ian

That's why there so little information on the Internet about SLIMT. I saw one article mentioning you you SLIMT process negs too. From what you tell me, the unpredictable nature of the process would make me a little nervous. Controlling contrast in the photography has always been a challenging puzzle.

 

[archer]

I really don't know where this notion of unpredictability using SLIMT, for contrast reduction in printing, comes from. I have been using the process for more than 40 years and find it completely predictable and repeatable and much easier to control with better results than any other method I've used and I've used them all from masking to flashing and while I may obtain similar results with other methods, nothing is simpler than SLIMT once you have established, through testing, the parameters for the materials being used. I have not used the process for film, as there are other alternative process with which I am familiar and have never had a negative that required that much manipulation.
Denise Libby

 

[Ian Grant]

Perhaps the word predictable is misleading. I was thinking more about the stages in reaching final exhibition prints where the changes brought about by switching paper grade, flashing, and development controls are extremely predictable.

I'm not saying that Latent image manipulation is unpredictable or unrepeatable, my experience is the same as yours, that it is predictable but that some degree of testing is required, and that different papers don't behave the same way.

SLIMT or other methods of Latent image manipulation may be a useful tool for some, but there are many other ways of working to control & tame contrasts, whether it's masking, flashing, two bath development, or split grade printing.

Ian

 

[ChuckP]

Are you saying that through development only it's possible to change the contrast of a paper while maintaining the same maximum black density? Or are we just using a softer working developer and pulling the print before the max black is obtained? I've always used the Dectol/Selectol Soft method and can definitely see the differences but I've never measured a print to see if the max black remains the same.

Paper is not usually developed to anywhere close to completion at all.

It's possible to take most papers up close to a grade in Contrast by choosing a more specialised Contrast developer, but you'd need to mix yourv own.

With a Soft working developer Adaptol or Selectol Soft (discontinued) and other development controls then contrast can be dropped by closer to 2 Grades.

It makes no difference whether it's a fixed or variable grade paper.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Are you saying that through development only it's possible to change the contrast of a paper while maintaining the same maximum black density? Or are we just using a softer working developer and pulling the print before the max black is obtained? I've always used the Dectol/Selectol Soft method and can definitely see the differences but I've never measured a print to see if the max black remains the same.

Yes it is to some extent possible to change the contrast through developer, dependingon the image it may well change the maximum black, but then changing paper grade whether fixed or variable may also change the maximum black. It depends what your exposing for.

However as I only work wirtn aram tone papers then maximum black isn't a quality that's usually required. But typically when using a harder grade of paper then bringing the highlight contrast down with a softer working developer and also flashing the Dmax's are very similar.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

True, paper is "never developed to completion" - you could develop it for 6 years and it still isn't "to completion."

But we all know what it means. There is a point of diminishing returns after which not much happens. Developing past that point isn't normal practice and generally speaking there isn't any good reason to develop for any longer.

As paper is left in the developer it gets darker. However, the change in contrast is minimal to non-existent. If exposure is decreased to compensate for the darkening the resulting print will be close to identical to a print that doesn't have extended development. If left in for a very long time, with a corresponding reduction in exposure, the only noticeable change will be a decrease in deep-shadow contrast at OD 1.9 and above that will be countered by an imperceptible change in overall contrast.

We have all underexposed a print and just left it in the developer for a long time in the hope the result will be salvageable. If the exposure shortage is moderate then the resulting print is acceptable with no effective change to print contrast. Unlike film, underexposure and over-development does not increase print contrast.

But what do I know? ... So see Henry, 2nd edition, pp 89-90; and Mees revised edition 1954, pp 907-908.

Mees: "...the effect of developing time is shown only by a movement of the [H-D] curve parallel to itself ..."

 

[Ian Grant]

The problem is using the tern "Completion" because the word implies that no further development can take place and gives a false impression that over development by 30 seconds or a minute doesn't make any difference.

There is a more finite time with bromide papers and the ideal is the time for a a piece of heavily over exposed paper to develop to a maximum black, although often an extra 20% or so is given for consistency. This differs with chloro-bromide papers because warm tones imply a Dmax lower than the highest possible Dmax which would give more neutral tones and there's also more inherent flexibility on exposures and development times.

Completion is too absolute a term, it's fine for bleaching, toning etc where a finite point is reached relatively quickly and the processes are also done partially, but the only times any emulsions are developed to completion are in colour & B&W reversal processes or re-development toners.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Although paper contrast can't be increased by over-development, it can be decreased by under-development. In this case exposure has to be increased in an attempt to get a respectable D-max from the paper. Whether one likes this look is a matter of taste and thus not debatable.

If paper is under-developed as normal practice it will seem that contrast can indeed be increased by extending development time. The amount of possible contrast increase is directly tied to the amount of underdevelopment that is considered normative.

"Development to completion" is development to maximum contrast without going to excess. Paper is normally developed to completion - where normal is set by Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Mees, Henry & Co.. The time to develop to completion is two minutes for RC and three minutes for FB. Almost, but not quite, full contrast can be achieved in 90 seconds and two minutes, respectively.

A drawback of developing to less than full contrast as normal practice is that contrast is now very dependent on development agitation, temperature and developer activity. Repeatability becomes an issue and an impediment to reliably producing fine prints. Development manipulation should be reserved for small changes in print contrast with graded papers and when it is needed to salvage a pathological negative.

 

[Ian Grant]

If we take the case of a Bromide paper under-development means a weak print and no maximum black (if the images need one), The optimum development point gives the best contrast, past that over development alters the mid tones in particular.

That optimum development point is NOT completion, what your saying is the same as I am but the terminology and use of "Completion" is erroneous. Your talking about development to reach a maximum Dmax, that is usually 2-3 minutes, but the print will continue building up considerable mid tones and then base fog if left for 4 or 6 minutes. It's a balance but it's NOT completion.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Paper is not usually developed to anywhere close to completion at all. ...

Thanks, I thought I was alone with that opinion.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks, I thought I was alone with that opinion.

Ralph, I think there's a huge under estimation on these forums of what can be done with development controls. It's something I find rather surprising as it was the bedrock of many fine art printing workshops for at least 30 years.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have understood that people use different developers for contrast control with fixed graded papers, which makes sense to me.

But which difference does it do with VC papers? Will you get similar result by increasing/decreasing contrast with the enlarger light, or is the developer/paper combination a whole different game?

E.g. will Dektol mixed with Selectol Soft give the best of both worlds, crisp contrast and smoothness in light tones, as some are doing? Or will I be able to get same tone with a little less contrast with the enlarger light with Dektol only?

First step, in the package of paper there is information and a chart explaining the filter combination for various dichroic filters or variable contrast filters that you can use.

Once you have that down then you can look into developers.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

Steve, too much is missed out as well.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

All the stuff you can do with developers using graded papers can also be done with VC papers. These things may be less necessary, with all those filters available for use, but they certainly do work when you want to use them, for whatever reason. Sometimes a five filter doesn't give enough contrast, as I often do prints that are super high in contrast, approaching that of halftones. I don't brew a special developer, but I will add carbonate solution to my developer to bump the contrast up a bit. I have also used A+B halftone film developer for high contrast results, however, it poops out very quickly, so I find it to be a pain in the butt to use. This is pretty much my entire use for contrast-increasing developers. Most of the time, using higher filters works fine for me. However, I find that using developers to lower contrast often produces much more pleasing results than using the lower filters, so I use Selectol Soft or add a bromide solution to whatever developer I am using.