Flat image without contrast

[tamborna]

Good evening to all,

my name is Andrea and I am writing from Italy: I am fairly new to analog photography and, today, I have tried to print by myself my first film.
You can see the result in the attachment of this message.

I am quite disappointed by the result of this print: as you can see (and as you can read in the title of this thread ) the image looks really flat, without any kind of contrast.

I was expecting something different even if I am quite noob with the enlarger (an old Durst C35 received from my father): what seems strange is that i exposed the paper (Ilford Multigrade) for soooo long (something like 25 sec.) to achieve this result.

My main doubt is about the lightbulb of the enlarger: should I replace it? Is it possible that, after many years, it become less bright?
I have others possibilities regarding my fault:
- Is possible that the red film below the enlarger lens is not so good? Maybe that's the reason of this foggy result.
- I would like to add some contrast (I used the Magenta and Yellow settings reported on the Ilford: Contrast Control paper, in order to achieve a grade 2 equivalent contrast), maybe increasing a little bit the aperture
- Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance for your help: would be useful, for sure.

Andrea

 

[Vaughn]

Looks to be a low-contrast scene to began with, so the results are not surprising when using grade 2 settings . Experiment by dialing in more contrast and see how that changes your image. Take it too far, then back up. It will be good experience.

PS -- my exposure times were usually aound 20 to 25 seconds...it gives one time to burn and dodge effectively.

 

[tamborna]

Looks to be a low-contrast scene to began with, so the results are not surprising when using grade 2 settings . Experiment by dialing in more contrast and see how that changes your image. Take it too far, then back up. It will be good experience.

First of all thanks for your fast reply. I have a question: what about the exposure? Do you think I should change it, maybe changing the aperture, or could be OK like that?

 

[Nodda Duma]

Kick it up to grade 4 and try there. 25 seconds isn’t bad at all, and about what I’d aim for if I needed to do some dodging or burning. My guess is that your enlarger lens is stopped down to f/11 or so? Try setting the lens to f/8 if you want shorter exposures, but honestly it’s not that big a deal.

When you change to grade 4, remake your test strip print to get the proper exposure. If print isn’t contrasty enough, go to grade 5.

 

[Vaughn]

First of all thanks for your fast reply. I have a question: what about the exposure? Do you think I should change it, maybe changing the aperture, or could be OK like that?

It will depend on what f/stop you are using now. Most lenses perform the best in the middle aperatures, so I aim for those. Changing exposure times have little to do with contrast, so pick the f/stop and exposure time that works best for you. Very short exposure times make repeatable dodging and burning more difficult (being off one-half sec makes only a litttle difference when the base exposure time is 25 seconds, but becomes significant at a base exposure of 5 seconds.) But if you wanted to open up one stop and use an exposure time of 12 or 13 seconds, that would work fine.

 

[jimjm]

Adjusting printing times and/or aperture will only make the print lighter or darker overall, not affect the contrast. Print times of 25 sec are not unusual for an 8x10 print when the lens is closed down a few stops.
As others have recommended, try a higher grade like 4 and see if the contrast gets better. A few more points I would suggest:

- Use fresh paper and developer. If these are old or expired, they can sometimes give grey or muddy (or no) results.
- Don't use the red filter below the lens. Compose your image on the base board first with a sheet of old photo paper, turn off the enlarger and insert your fresh paper - then expose the print.
- Possibly your darkroom is not really dark, or your safelight is fogging the paper? Test this by leaving an unexposed test strip on the counter with the safelight on for a few minutes, then develop normally. It should come out completely white.

 

[Vaughn]

...- Possibly your darkroom is not really dark, or your safelight is fogging the paper? Test this by leaving an unexposed test strip on the counter with the safelight on for a few minutes, then develop normally. It should come out completely white.

For a more definitive test; give the test strip a little expousre (light gray) first, then place a coin on it and leave it out for the average amount of time one usually has a piece of photopaper out -- then develop. One should not see the outline of the coin.

 

[pschwart]

A fog test is a good idea, but this soesn't look like fog to me. Print quality starts with the negative. There is no true black in the print, so I suspect you are having to back print exposure because the negative is severely underexposed. If this is the case, you can try a higher paper grade, but it may not be enough to compensate

 

[Sirius Glass]

Low contrast scene that was over exposed [the sky is dark, it should be lighter]. Print on higher contrast paper.

Welcome to APUG Photrio.

 

[tamborna]

Thanks to you all for the suggestions.
For sure I will try to increase the contrast to grade 4 (or 5, maybe?). Regarding the fog due to the bad light isolation or to the safelight I don't think so: I will check the isolation of the room, about the safelight I really hope that's fine (since it is brand new, like the paper and the developer - another thing to exclude).

I will try also with another film frame to check if this situation is linked with the bad contrast of the frame.

For the red filter below the lens...you confirm my hypothesis about the utility of that.

Thanks again: I'll post the result of those new test as soon as possible. If you have any other suggestions those will be really appreciated.

Andrea

 

[pentaxuser]

Try doing a genuine replica scan of the negative so that the scan is a good representation of the negative. That way we see exactly how the negative looks. The suggestions you have been given are all good but currently we are "punching the air" to an extent and need to narrow where the problem might be. An accurate scan of the negative will help greatly

pentaxuser

 

[tamborna]

Try doing a genuine replica scan of the negative so that the scan is a good representation of the negative. That way we see exactly how the negative looks. The suggestions you have been given are all good but currently we are "punching the air" to an extent and need to narrow where the problem might be. An accurate scan of the negative will help greatly

pentaxuser

You’re right, for sure.
Unfortunately I don’t have an adeguate scannero to scan my negatives: I will try to scan them and upload here.

 

[Sirius Glass]

You’re right, for sure.
Unfortunately I don’t have an adeguate scannero to scan my negatives: I will try to scan them and upload here.

Then take photographs of the negatives.

 

[glbeas]

Another avenue to check is the enlarger lens. If the equipment had been sitting for a length of time dirt may accumilate or fungus grow in the lens. Clean very carefully to avoid abrading the lens surface.
To check for fungus open the aperture of the lens all the way and hold it up to a light keeping the light just out of view. If you see haze inside you may need another lens if you cant get it cleaned.

 

[Bill Burk]

The red filter... was that your main problem in the first place?

As for photos of the negatives, a phone shot is good enough for us to tell what it “looks like”.

 

[tamborna]

Another avenue to check is the enlarger lens. If the equipment had been sitting for a length of time dirt may accumilate or fungus grow in the lens. Clean very carefully to avoid abrading the lens surface.
To check for fungus open the aperture of the lens all the way and hold it up to a light keeping the light just out of view. If you see haze inside you may need another lens if you cant get it cleaned.

I will check the enlarger lens and try to clean it.

The red filter... was that your main problem in the first place?
As for photos of the negatives, a phone shot is good enough for us to tell what it “looks like”.

This evening, when I'll back home, I will take some phone shot to the negatives: do you think that shot against light is the best way to do? Or is enough on a white paper?

 

[Molli]

If you can get a bright light source behind a piece of white paper (bright sunlight, a lamp) that would probably be best. Taping a piece of paper to a window with sunshine coming through it works well enough and leaves your hands free to hold up the negative and take a photo of it. My first 'light table' was a piece of glass from an old photo frame laid across two stacks of books with some tracing paper taped to the underside and a lamp underneath.

You didn't mention whether you're using Resin Coated or Fibre paper, nor what size print you're making. Twenty five seconds is about what I get for an 8x10 print, but I predominantly print small 5x7 prints for albums, in which case my exposures are more like seven or eight seconds.
With regard to the paper type, I ask because I was initially using old paper from retired photographers and, between the age of the paper and the fact that I was treating fibre based paper as resin coated, results were NOT good. I was pulling the paper out of the developer far too soon - result, dull grey prints with no true blacks.
So, fresh paper, fresh developer and at least a minute in the developer if it's resin coated and three minutes if it's fibre paper.

At any rate, I hope you start getting some results with which you're happy. I know how disheartening it can be to try something new and not wind up with something you like and enjoy.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

- Is possible that the red film below the enlarger lens is not so good? Maybe that's the reason of this foggy result.
Andrea

When you say red film below the enlarger lens, do you mean you are leaving the red filter in place during exposure, or only for focusing/composing? You should NOT be using the red filter below the lens during exposure. That could be the cause of your flat contrast, overall softness, and long printing times.

 

[pentaxuser]

When you say red film below the enlarger lens, do you mean you are leaving the red filter in place during exposure, or only for focusing/composing? You should NOT be using the red filter below the lens during exposure. That could be the cause of your flat contrast, overall softness, and long printing times.

Yes, it's an interesting thought. I had always thought that the red safety filter below the lens was sufficiently strong to prevent almost any exposure getting through. So that even at 25 seconds exposure as was quoted by the OP and assuming a normal exposing aperture such as, say f8, there would be almost no image at all. I use the red filter with my Durst when lining up my hand/card or other dodging tool for a few seconds without problems but maybe at 25 seconds with the red filter this would be the result.

The OP's response will be interesting

pentaxuser

 

[tamborna]

When you say red film below the enlarger lens, do you mean you are leaving the red filter in place during exposure, or only for focusing/composing? You should NOT be using the red filter below the lens during exposure. That could be the cause of your flat contrast, overall softness, and long printing times.

I used the red filter just for the composition, not for the exposure for sure!

Another avenue to check is the enlarger lens. If the equipment had been sitting for a length of time dirt may accumilate or fungus grow in the lens. Clean very carefully to avoid abrading the lens surface.
To check for fungus open the aperture of the lens all the way and hold it up to a light keeping the light just out of view. If you see haze inside you may need another lens if you cant get it cleaned.

After a check I have probably found the main issue: as glbeas said my lens was really dirty, especially on the inside. There was something on like an opaque film: I have opened the whole lens and now seems that thee projection of the film looks really better. Tomorrow I will try to make another print and, in any case, to upload the picture of my negative film.

I will keep you updated, anyway thanks you all for the support

 

[Sirius Glass]

I used the red filter just for the composition, not for the exposure for sure!



After a check I have probably found the main issue: as glbeas said my lens was really dirty, especially on the inside. There was something on like an opaque film: I have opened the whole lens and now seems that thee projection of the film looks really better. Tomorrow I will try to make another print and, in any case, to upload the picture of my negative film.

I will keep you updated, anyway thanks you all for the support

I just knew that you were smart enough to move the red filter to exposing the paper.

 

[mwdake]

I really likes this guys video and explanation of how to determine contrast and exposure time.



It might be of help to you as you learn.

 

[mrosenlof]

You should be developing your print for about 1 minute if it's RC paper, and 2-3 min if FB paper. Using the appropriate fixed developing time, do a test print (test strip) at various exposures to find your best exposure. Start with grade 2 or 3. I don't use the red filter at all. I compose the print and focus on the easel. If you want to be fussy, you can focus on a scrap of enlarging paper, but it's really not necessary. Focus with the enlarging lens wide open and then stop down two stops or maybe 3 for your exposure.

You should adjust your print exposure for the hilights in the picture, and then adjust the contrast to get the shadows where you want them.

This sequence should get you pretty close.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Two possible answers present themselves.

1. The negative lacks contrast. Try developing longer in the future.
2. The print was pulled too soon from the developer. Try extending development by 25%.

 

[tamborna]

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