first print in a decade using durst m600; troubleshooting help?

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
hi all! after a break of about 10 years, I'm developing again in a (very) DIY home darkroom.

made my first prints last night and was hoping you fine people could help me troubleshoot some of the issues.

as you can see this one is very gray and not enough contrast.

also troubling was that I was getting some where even 3 seconds of exposure was too much, at f 11.

I'm using a 70s Durst M600 enlarger and Oriental Seagull VC-RC II paper. I'm not super familiar with either yet.

So I think I have two main questions, unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible as I am very, very rusty.
  • I'm assuming I need some kind of magenta filter to increase contrast. are these generally interchangeable, do I need one specific for the enlarger I've got? How is it used?
  • What could be causing the way too short exposure times? The bulb I'm using is the recommended wattage, using dektol diluted 2:1 w/ water for developer. Even at f22 it was unsustainably short.
  • Bonus question: some of my negatives came out completely dark (ie completely white negative), but it seems to be down to the camera itself. could the light meter be wonky? I was using auto exposure (boo).
many thanks and apologies for any 'stupid questions'..
 

fiddle

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
371
Location
NYC
Format
Multi Format
Im a complete newbie when it comes to printing myself, so Im sure much more experienced printers will chime in.
-My first thought, is the negative very thin? If its thin, not much contrast between clear parts and the image,, will be very low contrast and short times.
-Yes you need contrast filters, look up ilford contrast filters, depending on the enlarger, some will be gels, others are held in plastic to mount under the lens. Higher the grade, higher the contrast.
-I have many old thin negatives, only way to get anything out of them was grade 5, highest contrast, and still were short times.

Hope this helps.
Now for someone that knows more....
 
OP
OP

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
thanks!!
Re negatives
fiddle said:
-My first thought, is the negative very thin? .
Click to expand...
Looking at the negative itself, you're right, I can see that it's not super contrasty. However, there are other photos on the same roll that are very high contrast, like ones taken with flash. that leads me to believe that the other may be under exposed? maybe the automatic light meter on the camera is broken. will try it manually with a portable light meter in the future..
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,533
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
That looks like a pretty small print, so short exposure times are to be expected. I would venture your exposure time will increase with a VC filter in place, especially a grade 4 or 5. I think Ilford MG paper without any filter (white light) is a grade 3.
Filters are available to use below the lens should fit any enlarger. If your enlarger has a filter drawer, then you would need ones that are the right size for the drawer or slot.
 

jimjm

Subscriber
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,223
Location
San Diego CA
Format
Multi Format
This image you've shown here is not the ideal subject matter if you're trying to test your camera's exposure accuracy. It appears to be an outdoor scene in sunlit snow, which is much brighter than the average subject. If you're shooting on auto or program, the camera will underexpose the image, which will give you a thin negative overall. This is because the meter is influenced by the bright reflections of the snow and it's going to set too high of a shutter speed and/or too small of an aperture on your camera. Unless you can get closer to take a meter reading off your main subject, the donkey, you would have wanted to use exposure compensation to overexpose the image by 1 or 2 stops. This would have given you a denser negative with better contrast between the snow and the donkey.
Also, your print exposure time is short because this is a thin negative. Every enlarger is different, but for me to make a 5x7 print from a "normal" negative usually involves exposures between 5-15 sec at f:8.
 
OP
OP

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
Andrew O'Neill said:
Get yourself a contrast filter pack from someone like Ilford. Then taylor your film to your paper, unfiltered. What film are you using? Developer?
Click to expand...

would an older ilfospeed filter work? (happened to find some used).

I was using Kentmere 400 and Dektol - but my next roll will be Ilford. I bought a bunch of different BW films.
 
OP
OP

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
jimjm said:
If you're shooting on auto or program, the camera will underexpose the image, which will give you a thin negative overall.
Click to expand...
Ah! that makes a lot of sense. Other photos from the same roll that were inside and taken with flash seem fine. dumb of me to trust the auto setting!
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,799
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
ninochka said:
would an older ilfospeed filter work? (happened to find some used).

I was using Kentmere 400 and Dektol - but my next roll will be Ilford. I bought a bunch of different BW films.
Click to expand...

Is it a pack of filters for various contrast? Filters do wear out, so test it to make sure they give you varying degrees on contrast. Is there a reason why you are using a print developer for film? I have used Ilford MG developer when I was out of film developer... used very diluted 1+49. I'd get a dedicated film developer and film. Stick with them until you are quite familiar.
 
OP
OP

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
Andrew O'Neill said:
Is it a pack of filters for various contrast?
Click to expand...
yes, just from the 80s it seems! I'm willing to test them, they're cheap. getting stuff shipped to canada is expensive.

Andrew O'Neill said:
Is there a reason why you are using a print developer for film? I have used Ilford MG developer when I was out of film developer... used very diluted 1+49. I'd get a dedicated film developer and film. Stick with them until you are quite familiar.
Click to expand...
oops, no, the dektol is for paper. for film I used Ilford ID-11.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,799
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
ninochka said:
yes, just from the 80s it seems! I'm willing to test them, they're cheap. getting stuff shipped to canada is expensive.


oops, no, the dektol is for paper. for film I used Ilford ID-11.
Click to expand...

Tell me about it! Luckily I live very close to the US border so I can drive over and pick up at a postal outlet in Blaine... that saves big time in shipping costs.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,170
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,158
Format
4x5 Format
MattKing,
Can you qualify, how problematic? I don’t think it would be at all bad.
Except that, when you are just learning you have self-doubt and don’t need to add obstacles which could confuse a new user like possible uneven contrast spacing and exposure spacing.
Because as long as you use more yellow you will make lower contrast prints and more magenta you are making higher contrast prints.
So I would say, use them they will work. Newer filters would be better, because if you are close and just want more contrast you can change the filter to a higher number and maybe the print time will stay the same... with the old filters you will have to check every time you change filters. That’s because the new filters are matched to the paper, while the old ones are just generally using the same colors.
 

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,769
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
Notwithstanding the other good advice above, make sure the internals of your enlarger are clean are reasonably dust free (mirror, condensers).
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,170
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Bill Burk said:
MattKing,
Can you qualify, how problematic? I don’t think it would be at all bad.
Click to expand...
Well...
As I understand it, Ilfospeed Multigrade RC paper (and one would assume the corresponding filters) was made between 1978 and 1983/4. So those filters could be more than 40 years old. In 1983/4 the product was improved and the name was changed to Multigrade II, which means that I think that there was no longer any use of the word "Ilfospeed" in the name.
In addition, half grades were introduced in 1983/4 and the capacity to achieve a full grade 5 became possible.
I am reluctant to encourage someone to try to learn printing using 40 year old, potentially unevenly dis-coloured filters, which were designed in the first place for paper that has not been made for 35 years. And I am particularly reluctant because of the fact that the OP is relying on internet help, rather than in person help.
If he/she was my neighbour, I could easily help him/her determine if the results using the old filters made them dependable enough for use while learning. But I am 3000 miles/5000 km away.
So not impossible, but rather problematic.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,158
Format
4x5 Format
MattKing,

Good reasoning.

ninochka, I got so flustered trying to get the right filter to make a good normal print, that I went back to “graded” papers. That’s the kind of risk, that you will become frustrated when you could have had a good time with the right set of filters and the same effort.
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,158
Format
4x5 Format
I would add one item to your hunt/shopping list.

An 0.60 (2-stops) Wratten No. 96 neutral density filter.

This will “double” your time so 6 seconds instead of 3 seconds, without making it so dark that you can’t see.

I use one “all the time”.
 

John51

Member
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
797
Format
35mm
No internet in the 70s but the camera mags would have a problem solving page or two.

I can't remember any reports of exposure times being too short.

Is this my memory being faulty or has something changed between then and now?
 

jvo

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
1,743
Location
left coast of east coast
Format
Digital
welcome to photrio...

as you are starting out again, i would stick to one film and developer; one paper and developer. get things "dialed in" so your producing stuff you like. stick with the same materials for a year, then maybe change one thing and see what happens. modern day materials will produce for you - if you work them.

(this was the best advice i ever received! it also the hardest to do, because you think that this other developer is better; other film has finer grain, sharper; fix the problem - looking for the holy grail.)
 
OP
OP

ninochka

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
8
Location
Ottawa
Format
35mm
As an update... I think the culprit was my camera (plus lack of filters).
I developed these thin negatives using some vintage ilfospeed filters and got OK results. Not bad.

Then I developed another roll of film that I shot with a different camera - a simple pentax point and shoot. Developed the same way, and these turned out gorgeous and contrasty!

I had been shooting a second roll with the Nikon, and developed it the other day. Very underexposed, low contrast. This leads me to believe that the light meter built in on my Nikon is broken (I have a hand held one form the 70s, but I'm not sure I trust that either), or something else is wrong with the camera itself..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…