Enlarger giving long exposure times?

[Pieter12]

In considering comment #2, I found this rather confusing set of instructions that might make sense if I had any idea what the enlarger condenser set-up looks like:

 

[Hilo]

Pieter12, yes, this could well be the problem. Can you make a better scan of this info?

 

[AgX]

In considering comment #2, I found this rather confusing set of instructions that might make sense if I had any idea what the enlarger condenser set-up looks like:

The manual with that text and the respective photos and legends makes it pefectly clear to me that at the left side of the enlarger condensor-head is a drawer containing condensor lens-element 1 which at shorter focal lengths is to be exchanged by another drawer containing lens element 2.
In certain situations there is even no lens-element used in that position, but either of the two drawers pulled out and the opening closed by a cover, depicted too.

"Additional" lens-element in the legend means being added to the enlarger kit or having to be acquired, not meaning being additional to the existing condensor set-up. There is no lens-element added to the condensor, but at best substituted.

 

[Don_ih]

In the original post, he showed the medium format condenser, so he was likely using that.
Also, if you look at the negatives in the original post, they're almost dark purple.

 

[Pieter12]

Pieter12, yes, this could well be the problem. Can you make a better scan of this info?

Unfortunately, that is what I found searching the internet. It doesn't look like there is anything higher res available.

 

[petrk]

Here you can find some description:
http://rangefinder.ru/download/manuals/Magnifax_4a-pdf-5828.pdf

 

[Madhava]

It has been a long time since I used Ilford WT paper developer so I cannot remember whether it was clear when fresh but clearly if WT is also meant to be clear then what the OP has shown us is not. It has gone the colour that I have seen in MG developer that has "aged"

Could it be that part of the reason for what seems to some of us as a long exposure time is down the fact that to some extent longer exposure might be needed to make up for partially exhausted developer. If the developer is now 3 months old and the container is now partially empty then unless steps were taken to exclude the air inside the container this may have affected it.

Just a thought

pentaxuser

Yes, I feel this is contributing to the long the long exposure times, or should I say rather the longer dev times..... WHat would you recommend for keeping air out?

 

[Pieter12]

should I say rather the longer dev times

1.5 minutes development does not seem unreasonable for RC paper, it is what Ilford recommends.

 

[Madhava]

Two minutes seems awfully long to me. I usually expose an 11x14 in ~32 seconds (5 stops of time). That's using a Beseler 45, PH212 (150W) bulb, 50mm lens at f8, Ilford MGIV #3 filter. That is 2 stops less than the 120 seconds (7 stops) you are seeing.

I would chalk it up to a combination of factors: the paper is slower; the enlarger puts out less light; pulling the print a bit early in a slow developer - warm tone developers take a long time; a preference for dark/low key images. If each factor contributes a 1/2 stop / 40% increase in time and is not really noticeable on its own, when added together they produce a 2 stop / 400% increase in time, which is decidedly noticeable.

Thanks, what you said is actually quite helpful. Upon reading what you said, something sparked a question in me..how long should I really be developing the print for....? Based on my tests I was only dev tray for 1.5 minutes (*face palm*), when in fact Ilford's recommendation is 2.5-5 minutes dev time (can even go up to 6 mins)...Go figure... You live and you learn aha. I should be able to reduced the exposure time and dev for at least 2.5 mins with decent results. The dev has been exposed to quite a bit of oxygen and hence why the colour has turned more yellow...should probably keep the bottle as air tight as possible.

 

[Madhava]

1.5 minutes development does not seem unreasonable for RC paper, it is what Ilford recommends.

Regarding FB paper 1.5-3 minutes is the recommendation for Ilford Multigrade. The recommendation for Ilford Warm Tone Multigrade is 2.5- 5 minutes.

 

[mshchem]

Regarding FB paper 1.5-3 minutes is the recommendation for Ilford Multigrade. The recommendation for Ilford Warm Tone Multigrade is 2.5- 5 minutes.

And warmtone papers tend to be slower, more silver chloride. You are making a 10X enlargement. Should take a while. I use minimum of 2 minutes even with RC. Longer development times usually yield a more consistent repeatable result. I don't go past 3 minutes with my old standby favorite developer, Ilford Bromophen.

 

[koraks]

That negative isn't a negative...it's a piece of opaque plastic!
The P3200 negative showed later wasn't thin either, and moreover seemed to have significant base + fog. I assume it's a different piece of film than the one in the photo above? Looks different to me in any case.

If you find exposure times too long, try fresh film that's been stored and processed properly. It can easily make 1 stop difference with the P3200 negative and 2-3 stops of improvement over the almost-black negative in the photo above.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

That negative isn't a negative...it's a piece of opaque plastic!

I got lots of TMZ like that, probably has something to do with being attic stored and 20 years past expiration. Still gives 'good grain' (there is an obscene joke in there somewhere) though the image is a bit thin even exposing at ASA500; maybe 200 would be a more realistic number.

But, yeah, I agree, that level of fog is good for two stops on it's own.

Interestingly, 20 year old Tech Pan is clear as glass between frames with no fog and no loss of speed. In a few years the TMZ will be slower than the TP.

Maybe the OP could try a simple experiment: with no negative in the carrier determine the minimum exposure time to get max-black on the paper, giving it 5 minutes in the developer. If it is in the range of 20-30 seconds (or shorter) there is nothing wrong with the enlarging equipment.

 

[koraks]

I've developed very outdated 3200 as well, both TMZ and Delta. Yes, it does come out very, very fogged, unsurprisingly. But usually not as purple as the film in the photo I quoted. I'm also not sure if that film is the TMZ that was shown later on in the thread, which still looks fogged, but a lot less so than the one above. Anyway, there's quite some fog going on all over the place - like you said, I don't doubt there's some good grain somewhere in between the fog as well

 

[Hilo]

About keeping ready-to-use developer: there exist these flexible plastic bottles that you fill and then you can close them making sure there's no air in there.

Alternatively, you can get brown glass bottles and something called Vacu Vin which sucks out the air . . . This I do with liquid concentrated developer and it works well.

I keep the chemicals I use in 5 or 10 liter containers. But the developer never longer than a couple of weeks, whether I use it or not.