First ever enlargements - red and brown problem

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Mike. It will be interesting to know how you get on with getting to the correct filtration. It has been a number of years since doing RA4 and I was using Fuji paper which may now be superseded but I think most of my prints including those with people were in the region of the low 90s for Y and low to mid 80s for M.

I think I was using Fuji Crystal Archive then. So if I am right then the Y was similar to your first filter of 90Y but way above your M of 50 which has some correlation possibly with your red cast at 50M but do not take my filtration as gospel of course

pentaxuser

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Okay, so I used up the last few sheets of my paper supply getting closer.

I ended up closest with M65 Y70 C20 (though not quite what I was hoping for)

I wasn't getting deep blacks no matter what I did (even on overexposed prints, the shadows were a bit washed out) - so I tried a technique in my darkroom book: close down a stop then increase develop time by 30%. This didn't turn out like I had hopd and was my last attempt.

I wasn't having these issues when I was taught a couple of years back and don't have the experience to know why my blacks are muddy.

I also regret making an arbitrary choice of negative, perhaps not the best choice for practice, but the experience is worthwhile.

I'm going to order a pack of paper now..

Sorry for the quality of this image!

 

[pentaxuser]

From left to right print 2 looks very close to what I think it should be. The blacks don't look particularly muddy but yes there is a kind of muddiness in the prints overall but this could be due to the contents of the scene . They don't sparkle as much as you might have hoped for. It might be that fresh paper will help and a scene on a bright day with a person showing a reasonable amount of skin and a range of colours The lady and her dress with dark brick in the background may not be ideal

You might want to overexpose the film by a stop but I'd stick to the 3' 15" for the film and I'd use an in-date film as well

pentaxuser

 

[Mike Chalmers]

Thanks @pentaxuser

Print 3 from the left is closer to what I'm after, more detail in the skin etc. Definitely somewhere between the two.

I always use in-date film and am able to get the results I want from scanning the negatives directly, so I think it's in the enlarging that something's not quite there.

I know it's not a good image to properly analyse but I'd like the blacks to be at least as black as the black items behind and the colours to be significantly more vibrant. See my website for the kind of contrast / saturation I'm aiming for..

Anyway, pack of paper ordered and next week I'll give it another go.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have had a look at the pics on your website and assuming these are all scans of enlargement prints from C41 film then the key question is what has changed in this latest print compared to these previous pictures? Something clearly has.

pentaxuser

 

[Mike Chalmers]

They're not; they're negative scans.

I just need to figure out how to get in that ballpark with enlarging.

 

[koraks]

am able to get the results I want from scanning the negatives directly

That doesn't say much. Even pretty hopeless negatives often scan perfectly fine.
Weak blacks in a color print are caused by one (or both) of two things: insufficient exposure or problems with development. Insufficient exposure you sort of ruled out, but it's still possible that your negatives do not have the required contrast, which makes you end up with not enough exposure in order to get the midtones and highlights where they need to be before the blacks kick in. Problems with development can arise due to problems controlling time and temperature, or problems with the chemistry itself. RA4 developer can be a bit finicky sometimes; in replenished systems used in a small-volume home setting, the pH may drift due to long storage times and over- or under-replenishment (it's kind of difficult to get and keep it spot on). Furthermore, oxidation can be a problem depending on your workflow, and if that happens to too large an extent, replenishment will not help sufficiently as you'll run into the pH problems mentioned before. In one-shot systems (which I personally find wasteful and giving more problems than they're worth), problems can occur if the ratio developer:starter is incorrect or stock solutions go bad during prolonged storage times.

In my experience, the most failsafe approach is properly replenished RA4 developer with frequent checking of the pH and adjusting it if necessary through the addition of either acetic acid (which may not be the best choice, but it seems to work quite OK and is easily available) or sodium hydroxide.

Provided the negative is correctly exposed and developed and the RA4 developer is in good order, getting in the ballpark of a good print isn't much work and quite straightforward. If you find yourself struggling with this for too long, I'd suggest backtracking the process of making the negative and the RA4 chemistry.

 

[Mike Chalmers]

@koraks thanks for your response.

That doesn't say much. Even pretty hopeless negatives often scan perfectly fine.

I understand, I believe it is a good negative and at the very least I should be able to get in the ballpark of my intented image.

it's still possible that your negatives do not have the required contrast, which makes you end up with not enough exposure in order to get the midtones and highlights where they need to be before the blacks kick in

This is a good point and I should really push the exposure much further to test this.

Provided the negative is correctly exposed and developed and the RA4 developer is in good order, getting in the ballpark of a good print isn't much work and quite straightforward. If you find yourself struggling with this for too long, I'd suggest backtracking the process of making the negative and the RA4 chemistry.

I mixed new chemicals and used them once per print and know that the temperature was accurate. I'm not using starter as it says it is unnecessary, but could this be an issue? You've helped me develop (pun) a plan for troubleshooting:

- test even longer expsoures
- test with new paper (see if paper is issue)
- test with different negative (something high densiy perhaps)
- if all fails, get new chemicals

This is as much a reminder for me as anything, but I'll post how I get on next week just in case it benefits others like me just starting out.

 

[koraks]

If you expose at box speed, proper development should give correct contrast. Of course it's possible that you're underexposing, so it would be more of a matter of checking if your metering technique is appropriate.

If the chemistry says that no starter is necessary then that cannot be the issue. I use minilab chemistry myself which requires a starter (or thorough seasoning).

Even old paper generally still gives proper contrast, but it's sometimes fogged. Kodak endura has a bit more punch than Crystal Archive. Crystal Archive II (non "supreme") tends to give mottled blacks that are a bit brown instead of jet black. I don't care for it. I'd stick to the Supreme.