Flat image without contrast

[tamborna]

Here below you can see the result of my last print. The scan quality is really bad so forget it.

What do you think? From my point of view, there is no sharpness but maybe that’s due to bad focusing.

To help eliminnate one variable, take a piece of photographic paper out under safelight illumination, cover over one half, and use the enlarger with a negative in it to expose the other half in segments - 16 seconds, 32 seconds, 64 seconds and 128 seconds.
Develop the result and show it to us.

I will try your test but let my ask a thing: which aperture? 0% magenta and yellow, right?

Andrea

 

[Nodda Duma]

There’s only so many possible causes:

- Correct bulb for your enlarger? (Verify by confirming what bulb is installed against the bulb specified on enlarger label or online search of the enlarger manual). The standard bulb for the C35 is a R63 55W ES Reflector Bulb. Turn the lpower on and look at the bulb — confirm that it is as bright as a 55W bulb should be.
- No unintentional filtering — remove all filters even your contrast filters and make an exposure.
- Negative suitably exposed (looked good in the image above)
- Lens f/# set properly
- Paper right-side up
- Paper known-good: If it is not brand new, develop unexposed paper to check for fog and develop fully exposed paper (shine a light on a sheet) to check blacks. This will also indicate good developer
- Developer fresh and uncontaminated by fixer or stop.

Can you share pictures of your enlarger setup? There is something fundamental with your setup that needs to be corrected, which you may not think is important but we would most likely notice in photos in an instant. That includes with power turned on so we can see the image projected onto the baseboard (and the english word for the piece of equipment you need is an easel)


Regards,
Jason

 

[Bill Burk]

I wonder if you are developing the print enough.

A simple test to see how black your paper gets can be to take a small piece of your paper and expose it to room light for a few seconds and develop it.

Does that come out with a satisfying black?

 

[tamborna]

Regarding the light bulb I have tried to replace the original one with something that’s quite the same: my doubt, on that side, is the lumen of the original one compared with the replace but since I have tested the first with a dirty lens I’ll try it again.

About the developing time I am following the instruction for the PQ Developer that indicates 60sec for 1+9 dilution and that seems fine.

The next steps are:
- Share with you my setup in a picture with enlarger on and room in dark condition, maximum aperture and 0% of filtering and another one with the light on to show to you the general condition of the enlarger itself.

- Make a test to check if the developer and the paper are fine, just exposing a test strip without a film in the enlarger for different seconds to 5 to 60 on half of the paper

- Any other ideas?

Thanks again: this community is so helpful and great!

 

[Nodda Duma]

I did some digging (results here on Photrio), and your results seem typical for a Durst C35 when using its built-in filtering system:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/is-the-durst-c35-powerful-enough.8941/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/durst-c35-is-it-good.127497/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/durst-c35-bulb.88862/

The standard 55W bulb doesn't seem to pump out enough light for faster exposures, especially if you are using the built-in filter system. Read the links about bulb substitutions. I also expect that you will get shorter exposure times when you perform an exposure test with 0% filtering. If that's the case, just leave the filter system wide open and then obtain a set of Ilford Multigrade Filters, using them under the lens.

-Jason

 

[cowanw]

Please do what Bill Burk says and report.

 

[cliveh]

Forget the printing advice for now. You need to get your original camera exposure correct and develop the film to produce a good contrast in you negative. Printing will then be easy.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You might try a lower dilution and see what happens. Also leave the print in until you cant tell if its getting any darker, just to be sure the development is sufficient. From that point if you get better results you can work back and maybe get a better handle on whats happening.
From your description of the color it doesnt sound like the developer is oxidised, have you checked for cross contamination in your work process?

Prints should be left in the developer until there is no further increase in density. This method is referred to as "develop,emt to completions." There are several threads on this -- search the archives for a complete description of the method and why iit works.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

About the developing time I am following the instruction for the PQ Developer that indicates 60sec for 1+9 dilution and that seems fine.

The development time of Ilford Multigrade IV RC in Ilford PQ Universal is 2 minutes / 120 seconds @ 1+9 @ 20C!!!!!!

See: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/2011/product_id/710/
Page 3/5 left column, near the bottom.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1957/product_id/743/
Page 3/4 left column, in the middle.

If you have developed for only one minute, you have severely underdeveloped your prints, and probably you have overexposed in order to try to compensate. That would explain why you could not achieve neither good highlights or shadows.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Dear OP:

It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you are doin't know what you are doing and just spinning your wheels. Go to Amazon and invest in a book on enlarging I Suggest "
Lootens on photographic enlarging and print quality
by J. Ghislain Lootens (Author)

Amazon has used copies and the book is well worth the investment."

 

[pentaxuser]

Dear OP:

It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you are doin't know what you are doing and just spinning your wheels. Go to Amazon and invest in a book on enlarging I Suggest "
Lootens on photographic enlarging and print quality
by J. Ghislain Lootens (Author)

Amazon has used copies and the book is well worth the investment."

Gerald, good books are always welcome and clearly something is wrong but whether a book such as the above will solve his problem may be open to question right now. The OP has tried to solve his problem and responded to all our suggestions with updates

It may be that the "what's wrong" is as simple as indicated by RauschenOderKorn. It would be a pity if the OP decides that based on being told that he is spinning his wheels and not knowing what he is doing, he decides to just abandon photography.

We are still here for you, tamborna.

pentaxuser

 

[tamborna]

Dear OP:

It is painfully obvious that you don't know what you are doin't know what you are doing and just spinning your wheels. Go to Amazon and invest in a book on enlarging I Suggest "
Lootens on photographic enlarging and print quality
by J. Ghislain Lootens (Author)

Amazon has used copies and the book is well worth the investment."

I will check for sure this book but man...I think that suggestions can be given in many different ways and, IMHO, your is not the best one: I am here to understand, and I’m doing my best for that. I am here, more than anything else, to learn and improve my skills like, I suppose, everyone here.

After saying that, coming back to which is the main problem, I have checked what RauschenOderKorn linked like the links from Nodda Duma: regarding the light power I moved to the old bulb just to understand if, with a clean lens, something has changed (I hope so!). About the developing time I am a little bit confused on the bottle of my developer is written 1min with RC paper (see the photo below). What the...?!

 

[removed account4]

I am back.
The video posted by mwdake is really useful: I saw it in italian a long time ago.

This evening I made another test with another frame from the film: the result is the following one (I’m sorry if that’s not scanned but just a photo...of the photo ).

As you can see, the results are a little bit better: seems I am on the right way. As previously said, the enlarger lens was really dirty and that, probably was the cause of the "foggy" effect. Right now, what don't convinced me was the fact that, to something near to the "correct exposure" I used the maximum aperture (f2.8) with more or less 30sec of exposition: this seems too much on paper but the result is not so bad.

My question is: how do you define your "starting values" for your first test strip? I mean...I have tried with f8 and up to 30sec of exposition with 5sec intervals and Magenta&Yellow filter on 0% but i barely saw the print on the paper hence I have changed the settings as written above.

I have to try again but what suggestion could you give to me? My main problem, besides the one presented before regarding the contrast, is that I haven't any easel and that leads to a difficult positioning of the paper: that's the main reason I used the red filter before exposing.

Thanks again for your help.

Andrea

hello andrea

do 2 test strips same print ...
the first one with a grade 3 1/2 filter the 2nd at 4
do a big swath of the mountain and houses.
focus on a scap piece of the paper you will print on lens wide open then 3 clicks to close the lens down..
10 seconds each exposure do about 5 x...
put them in fresh developer mixed/dilute like the package says. put your timer on for 3 full minutes ...
test strip in, face down, use tongs flip the paper, submerged it and
flip it, 5 times.
then face up so you can watch it, and rock the tray with the developer until
the 2 minutes is up. rocking the tray is one of the most important things you need to do.
strip in the stop bath then in your fixer. repeat this routine for test strip #2, and for ALL your prints.
after your test strips are in the fixer for 1 min, put them in water to rinse them and examine them
in room light.
pick the one where the whtie , just turned white is OK
do another test strip for the exact time you decide on, but a bigger strip to get an idea if it is right ..
then make your print. flip it in the developer 5x and rock the tray just like you did before.

what might be going on is you aren't agitating the print and making sure it is devloping completely.

after you do this a few times you will get the hang of it. it won't be perfect
you will notice the face isn't light enough but you can fix that if you want to learn about
"dodging" ( giveing a part of your exposure less light )
if you want an experiment ... when you are making your print's exposure glide your hand over the print slowly
where you want it to be lighter .. that's dodging... you might notice when you do that, the face &c is perfect
BUT the edge of the print is too light ... then .. you burn the edge in ( turn on the enlarger and give teh edge a little
mor light, blocking everhting else.
you can use anything to burn and dodge ... hands, fingers, pencils, cardboard scraps, coathangers with tape on them
so they look like lollipops, .. pretty much anything and the more you do it, the batter you get ...

one thing you might notice is with RC paper usually the print starts to begin to appear on the paper at about 20seconds with FB paper about 45seconds.

have fun !
john

 

[Bill Burk]

I see you found a range of print development time, 45 seconds to 3 minutes... I would say go for three minutes!

When it comes to time in the enlarger, your Durst has a reputation for long exposure times with its original 55 watt lamp. So allow for your exposures to be 60 seconds, or 90 seconds or more if you have to... But first try the longer developing time and see if it doesn't get you closer right away.

Then you can refine your camera exposure (probably fine but you will want to keep it relatively close to correct) and film development time (probably could develop longer to get more contrast in your negatives so you can use less magenta filter)... This will all work together to give you better prints with less print exposure time in the enlarger...

 

[MattKing]

I will try your test but let my ask a thing: which aperture? 0% magenta and yellow, right?

Andrea

Hi Andrea
The aperture and filtration doesn't matter much, although a contrast grade 2 is a great target.
All that matters is that you end up with a strip which goes from light to black.
Sometimes you might end up with an exposure that is too light throughout.
Other times you might end up with an exposure that is too dark throughout.
I'm hoping you will try a few until you end up with a strip that starts from quite light, and ends up with a strip that is really black.
If you get that, it will tell you that your light source and developer is okay.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I like long exposure times because it allows time for burning and dodging.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Andrea,

have you been able to get a good print?

The first steps in the darkroom usually are difficult, especially if nobody can show you and you have to learn from the books. But: This forum is full of requests for help / anecdotes of blunders. I bet almost everybody on this forum has been standing in the lab enhoying a wtfwhatisthat-moment.

 

[CMoore]

What part of Italy do you live in...maybe one of our members can give you some help.?

 

[Vincenzo Schioppa]

Hi guys, i have the same Problem, @Andrea i'm from Italy, if you can read this please contact me here. I'm getting crazy too.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well the OP was last seen on May 15 2018 so he asked a lot of questions, got a lot of answers but after intense activity in just over a week from start to finish he then vanished.

It would have been nice it he had solved the problem but I am left with the impression that he did not and it would look as if he gave up presumably on the basis that this analogue photography is just too much trouble. What a pity

Vincenzo it might be quicker to tell us in detail what your equipment is, what your process is in detail and show us your problem in the form of a negative as well as tell us if this is only one negative that you cannot get a good print from or more than one. At the risk of appearing to asking you to tell us things that you do not consider important, I think we need more information than knowing you have the same problem or what you think to be the same problem

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Vincenzo Schioppa]

Well the OP was last seen on May 15 2018 so he asked a lot of questions, got a lot of answers but after intense activity in just over a week from start to finish he then vanished.

It would have been nice it he had solved the problem but I am left with the impression that he did not and it would look as if he gave up presumably on the basis that this analogue photography is just too much trouble. What a pity

Vincenzo it might be quicker to tell us in detail what your equipment is, what your process is in detail and show us your problem in the form of a negative as well as tell us if this is only one negative that you cannot get a good print from or more than one. At the risk of appearing to asking you to tell us things that you do not consider important, I think we need more information than knowing you have the same problem or what you think to be the same problem

Thanks

pentaxuser

Hi my EQT is

DURST C35

MULTIGRADE IV Paper

PQ UNIVERSAL DEVELOP
ILFOSTOP
RAPID FIXER
all brand new and fresh

NEGATIVE FILM from ILFORD and DEVELOPED IN LAB (i already had from the lab the photos, so to start my first darkroom test i wanted to use some correct exposed and developed negatives, to see the differences)

so actually i didn't see how the lens is, after that i've started from 0 filter grade (M/Y) and exposition to 2-4-6-8-10 and the picture was much dark at f5.6
i made a new test at f8 but with Magenta at 20 and 10 sec. TOO BRIGHT! So after that a lot of test more, ncreasing decreasing filters, but all of these just grey and not WHITE OR A CONTRAST BLACK

where i am wrong? Where i can restart again and make test?
i think the room is really dark and i don't know where i can be a solution. Thanks!

 

[glbeas]

How old is your paper and do you know how its been stored? Old paper can give bad results like that, especially the developer incorporated type, mostly Ive seen it in old Kodak Polycontrast.

 

[Vincenzo Schioppa]

How old is your paper and do you know how its been stored? Old paper can give bad results like that, especially the developer incorporated type, mostly Ive seen it in old Kodak Polycontrast.

Is Brand New, arrived to me from Amazon in few days after my purchase.

 

[grain elevator]

It doesn't read like you've tested anything systematically. So you did a "test at f8 but with Magenta at 20 and 10 sec. TOO BRIGHT!" It's completely normal that you need to try more than two exposure times and that the paper will need longer exposure after you changed to a harder filtration. Did you then give more exposure? What happened?
To exclude these factors, do a safelight test. And also take a bit of paper that was exposed to room light for a while, and develop it for several minutes. That's how black your paper goes. Take a second bit of paper that's been exposed to room light, and develop it for the time the maker recommends or whatever time you've developed so far. Don't forget to agitate the paper in the developer. If it doesn't reach the same blackness as the first bit, you need to develop longer (or warmer). After you're certain that you're developing long enough, if your prints don't reach that black where you want it, you need to give them a harder grade or longer exposure.

 

[koraks]

You need to start making test strips. Try this:
* Set all filters to 0 (no magenta or yellow; cyan is never used anyway)
* Set aperture to f/5.6
* Cut a piece of paper approx. 10x15cm (size is not critical at all)
* Tape the piece of paper inside the image area on your baseboard/easel. It's nice if it covers light and dark areas of the image at the same time.
* Expose for 2 seconds
* Place a piece of carboard on the paper so that it covers a 1 cm narrow band on the edge of the strip.
* Expose for another 2 seconds
* Move the piece of cardboard so that it covers a 2cm band of the strip (so basically move it a centimeter onward)
* Expose for 4 seconds
* Move cardboard again 1 cm
* Expose 8 seconds
* Move cardboard 1 cm
* Expose 16 seconds
* Move cardboard 1 cm
* Expose 32 seconds
You now have a piece of paper that has adjacent bands exposed respectively for 2 seconds, 4, 8, 16, 32 and 64 (i.e. 1 stop increments starting at 2 seconds).
* Place piece of paper in developer. Develop for the amount of time indicated on the developer package. This is usually between 1 and 2 minutes. the development time should be chosen in such a way that no change in the image occurs anymore when development is done. THIS IS IMPORTANT. Don't stop development when the image is still changing. Paper needs to be developed 'to completion', otherwise there will be problems with contrast and maximum density (weak blacks).
* Stop, fix, wash briefly and dry the paper.
* Evaluate results.

> If none of the bands contain a pure, deep black, exposure was insufficient. Do the test again with a larger aperture or longer exposure times. (However, with the settings above, you should almost certainly have a good black somewhere on the test strip).
> If the 2-second band already has a pure black, choose a smaller aperture (e.g. f/11) and redo the test.
> If contrast is too low in all bands, increase magenta filter. Don't increase it just a little; add 30 or 50 units so that the difference is significant. Re-do the test.
> If contrast is too low in all bands, decrease magenta (if it's not 0) or increase yellow (if magenta is already 0).

If this systematic approach to making a test strip still gives too low contrast, and you are 100% sure that the developer is diluted in the right way and the paper is fresh, then the negative is too low in contrast. If you are 100% certain that the film was developed correctly, the only option left is that you underexposed the film significantly. Try a different negative that looks more contrasty if you hold it up to the light. If none is available, shoot some new film, carefully metering the scene, develop it (or send it out to have it developed) and go back to making test strips.