Difficulties w/ ilford RC pearl?

[crumpet8]

so I received some new paper for Christmas. Previously I've been printing on ilfords classic fibre paper and went to print some of the same negatives today on the RC pearl. Everything came out super grey?

Could this be due to old or tainted dev?

At school, all we have is hc110, which is maybe not ideal either (?) but so far I've had no real issues with it.

 

[BMbikerider]

RC paper from Ilford has a very long shelf life. I am using the last of a box of 12x16 which is about 4-5 years old. (I normally use Glossy). It is more likely to be the developer than the paper. What developer are you using? If it is Ilford Multigrade then they are made for each other.

You may find that you have to use a grade harder filter than that used for the fibre based paper.

The fibre paper does tend to give more intense blacks than resin coated. I have examples of both on the seat near me which shows this perfectly. The developing time for the papers is the minimum they suggest the paper should be devloped. I always develop for AT LEAST 75% more time. A well respected professional printer I know once said to me "you pay for the silver in the paper emulsion - make sure you use all of it"

 

[pentaxuser]

HC110 is a film developer and not an ideal print developer as far as I know. If you are saying that previous prints from the same negatives looked OK with HC110 and the Ilford paper was new at Christmas then it has to be old or tainted developer as you suggest.

pentaxuser

 

[crumpet8]

HC110 is a film developer and not an ideal print developer as far as I know. If you are saying that previous prints from the same negatives looked OK with HC110 and the Ilford paper was new at Christmas then it has to be old or tainted developer as you suggest.

pentaxuser

The dev is not from christmas. but has gone through about 15 rolls of film

 

[pentaxuser]

Is the quantity of HC110 that has been used for 15 rolls of film the same quantity of developer that you have used for the prints? At what dilution are you using the HC110 for the prints? That is to say, I think you are saying that you have made up a dilution of HC110( what dilution?) in what quantity (1 litre, 2 litres ?) and then used this same developer that has developed 15 films which has produced the grey prints?

pentaxuser

 

[crumpet8]

Is the quantity of H

pentaxuser

Hi, sorry, what youve guessed is correct. Its B solution and is about 3 litres. Same batch that developed about 15 rolls, used today to develop paper. Result - everything was grey...

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Paper has a different tonal range than film. Therefore a film developer is not ideal for making prints. It's unclear from the post whether the OP merely changer to pearl from another surface of the same paper. This should not have the dramatic effect that he observes. Either get the school to buy some print developer or sprint for a package yourself.

 

[crumpet8]

I have previously used fibre classic from ilford. Today I used Rc pearl. Hc110 dev b was also previously used with the fb paper, but it as a different batch to what I used today. Different batch, but it would still have had a few rolls developed through it.

 

[jimjm]

Your best bet is to use paper developer for paper, and HC-110 only for film.

 

[tedr1]

Also the exposure times (ISO speed) for Ilford FB and RC papers are different, the RC paper is "faster" than the FB paper by about one stop. Starting with a negative you have printed previously using FB paper when RC paper is used the exposure time should be 50% of the FB time.

For high quality results use fresh paper developer every time you print.

 

[MattKing]

Paper developers are much more active than most film developers. HC-110 is far from ideal for paper.
The emulsions for RC and FB papers have to be different because of the differences in the support. It is actually surprising that you got results that please you using HC-110 on the FB paper. I wonder how much better your FB prints might appear if you had used print developer

 

[bdial]

By "gray", do you mean it the print has no true blacks, or are you seeing gray highlights and borders?

The first would indicate a developer problem, generally that would mean it's exhausted or possibly overly dilute or not developed long enough.
Papers are usually used with a relatively active, high strength developer. A dilution good for film would not usually be ideal for paper. The second situation would usually mean the paper is fogged, either by age or being light-struck. To test for that cut a sheet in two, develop, stop and fix one half, and only fix the other. Wash and dry both, they should match. If the developed one has tone compared to the fixed one you have fogging from one source or another.

 

[crumpet8]

Got my hands on some paper dev today

bdial - I can't remember if there were true blacks, but my test strips had very little contrast and were just varying shades of grey getting darker and darker, without the contrast or whites to give it definition. I can try fish them out later today. Borders were still white so no fogging. Was a new pack, and was careful.

My previous RC (not pearl) prints were fine, so I assumed it was a dev problem.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

If you have white borders then the paper should be fine. You probably overexposed it or your enlarger has a bad light leak. Using film developer for paper isn't ideal, but there really isn't that much difference between the two. Still, you will get better results with paper developer.

 

[crumpet8]

If you have white borders then the paper should be fine. You probably overexposed it or your enlarger has a bad light leak. Using film developer for paper isn't ideal, but there really isn't that much difference between the two. Still, you will get better results with paper developer.

These negs are a bit thin, but I didn't expect such a change. The only differences were age of developer and paper type. Will try again tomorrow with some good paper dev was supposed to try tonight but ended up developing some sheets after shooting and ran out of time.

Will post a test strip from the RC pearl so you guys can see what I mean by grey

 

[crumpet8]

By "gray", do you mean it the print has no true blacks, or are you seeing gray highlights and borders?

The first would indicate a developer problem, generally that would mean it's exhausted or possibly overly dilute or not developed long enough.
Papers are usually used with a relatively active, high strength developer. A dilution good for film would not usually be ideal for paper. The second situation would usually mean the paper is fogged, either by age or being light-struck. To test for that cut a sheet in two, develop, stop and fix one half, and only fix the other. Wash and dry both, they should match. If the developed one has tone compared to the fixed one you have fogging from one source or another.

Test strip Pic attached

 

[bdial]

It's grey alright.

It would also be helpful to show us the negatives, un-reversed, as you mentioned that the negative is thin.
There is no reason the RC can't produce a print similar to your FB, I've routinely used RC for tests and proofs for my Ilford fiber prints, though the emulsions have diverged some in the last couple of years.
But, you have a few things working against you to figure out what's going on. That is, a thin negative, and using film developer on top of working with a different emulsion.

Please tell us the details of this test strip, paper or film developer? What filtration, if any, was used?
The problem with thin negatives is that the highlights need a very short exposure to stay bright, and that exposure isn't long enough to get a true black for the shadows. Increasing the contrast filtration helps, but there is a limit

 

[crumpet8]

Take a photo of the neg on some sort of light table? Or maybe even scan it in as a photo? What's best?

I'll have to look in my notebook later to check, but I believe it was contrast 2 (we have an annoying durst enlarger that only has a scale from 1-5 rather than individual adjustments). Ilford multigrade paper dev, 1.5 mins.

 

[MattKing]

Take a photo of the neg on some sort of light table?

This.

 

[crumpet8]

This.

Will do, Thanks Matt

 

[pentaxuser]

Stating the obvious, there is clearly something wrong. If I had only been shown the print and asked to comment I think I'd have said that the paper was very old. It somehow has the look of a paper that has lost most of its contrast.

Others might be able to decide on the problem from the picture and what you have said already but it might help if you list all the details you can about all of the ingredients again that were used in the very grey print including age of paper, age of developer( freshly made before printing) etc

We need to be able to eliminate each factor. For instance if the developer is new, was freshly made for that print at the right dilution and the right temperature and print developing time then we can eliminate developer as the cause.

It is laborious and may involve repeating information you have already given but unless it on one page and in one post then solving the problem is very difficult.

pentaxuser

 

[crumpet8]

Stating the obvious, there is clearly something wrong. If I had only been shown the print and asked to comment I think I'd have said that the paper was very old. It somehow has the look of a paper that has lost most of its contrast.

Others might be able to decide on the problem from the picture and what you have said already but it might help if you list all the details you can about all of the ingredients again that were used in the very grey print including age of paper, age of developer(

pentaxuser

The paper was bought new at Christmas, the dev was old (about 15 rolls of film already developed in it) and was Kodak hc110 sol. B. It must have been the dev as I mixed a fresh batch of ilford paper dev yesterday and the prints with the same paper were fine.

 

[MattKing]

The paper was bought new at Christmas, the dev was old (about 15 rolls of film already developed in it) and was Kodak hc110 sol. B.

Are you saying you are re-using HC-110 dil B?
HC-110 is intended to be used one time only - "one shot". Unless you are using it with the special purpose replenisher, which is no longer made (and fairly complex).
And it is a very bad idea to take developer that has been used for film and re-use it for developing paper. Or to do the reverse. In either case, the byproducts of use for one can interfere with developing the other.

 

[Dennis S]

That is probably why your test print was so bad was because of an underdeveloped negative. Read the instructions with the developer HC110 they are very clear on their limited life once mixed. Should just start over with fresh film developer and print developer and don't mix the 2. Yes I have used Rodinal diluted 1-10 for prints but it was only a temporary issue until I got new print developer. Also I see after 15 rls of film you are way past the end of any one shot developer. Negatives are too late to recover but be careful with your next ones.

 

[crumpet8]

Interesting, I thought hc110 at that dilution was reusable for developing film. I don't think my school would be ok with us using it a small a one shot developer, they don't seem to want to spend any more money on the darkeoom as is unfortunately... cons of the digital age :/

My negatives
Since I started printing have been much better as I am now developing and shooting with printing in mind. These negs were older from when I was only using a hybrid process (scanning). The dev. I judge on colour and how many rolls its been used for, so far so good with reusing. It usually gets thrown out after about 15-20 rolls.