Grey Prints

[CollinB]

Any time change leaves it gray ...
I run into this whenever the paper developer is depleted.
A simple fix.
Could be something else, but that's my experience.

 

[ROL]

Sounds like the same things I'm dealing with, started printing one week ago. So far I have not gotten real "punch" in the blacks and pure enough whites for my taste. To much of the picture is in the grey area. I'm printing on Ilford Multigrade IV RC deluxe with Durst CLS 500 head. Tried to increase magenta, but with the same exposuretime the picture only got brighter, not more contrast as I expected.

Don't know if I should increase exposure, increase development, decrease development, decrease exposure, more magenta, more dodging, more burning and so on.

This probably won't help the OP (some kind of fogging?), but this step by step visual of Making a Fine Art Print may be helpful to you – if you start with a negative with sufficient contrast of say, 5 to 8 zones.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi andyaitken,

The lighting on b is better and more interesting than the lighting on a. So you will probably get a better print more easily from b.

push any further beyond say 1min 20 secs and borders begin to turn grey also.

If you can't develop for 2 minutes without getting gray borders, this sounds like a problem with safelight, unless your darkroom isn't really dark. You probably will get better results in pitch black, working at night. Of course by the time you read this it will be morning. It looks like the literature recommends 2 minutes developing time.

Many people rave about f/stop times for test strips. Instead of 4, 8, 12, 16 seconds make your test strips in f/stop times. That means picking times that are like changing f/stops, times like 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 seconds.

A series I use is third-stops. 13, 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50 seconds. I stop down my enlarging lens to an aperture around f/11 that tends to give me 32 second exposure time.

I prefer test strips to determine exposure time. I just use the meter to hold my setup about where a 32 second exposure makes a good print. I set the meter on a shadow (clear spot). I turn the dial until the lights say OK. I leave the meter dial alone after that. The next negative I put in the enlarger, I change the aperture on my enlarger until the meter lights say OK again. Now this print is 32 seconds too.

Or at least my test strip series around 32 will find an exposure that is good.

Good luck

 

[Andrew Kleinfeld]

I know of three ways to get unsatisfactory grey prints:
1. stale developer, especially if you buy liquid developer that may have gotten stale in the store instead of mixing it from powder;
2. developing for less than two minutes;
3. fogged paper, so that it's all too dark unless you underexpose (a little benzotriazole in the developer can fix this).

 

[andyaitken]

This morning I have been in the dark room again and based on the discussions here have seen an improvement. In terms of tonal range and contrast (I will post the results, just waiting for the prints to dry). First of all I used no filteration and ran test at 5 second steps, this indicated that 30 seconds again was the best appropriate exposure. Ran this and printed, the print had improved but was still of the desired out come (again, limited contrast range within a bracket). Therefore, I then ran a test strip with a grade 5 filter in this was better and indicated around 23 seconds, so then ran that. Again, improved but not completely satisfactory results. So then , I ran another print at 15 seconds, which so far is the best to date this was developed for 1 minute in a new mix of Pq Universal 1+9.

Whilst this is the best result so far it is still not great and could be improved further I think. When it is dry I'll post.

 

[K-G]

If you can't develop for 2 minutes without getting gray borders, this sounds like a problem with safelight, unless your darkroom isn't really dark. You probably will get better results in pitch black, working at night. Of course by the time you read this it will be morning. It looks like the literature recommends 2 minutes developing time.

I agree that it can be a safelight problem but defect paper may also be a possibility. To find out what it is, make a test like this.

1. In a completely black darkroom ( no safelight ! ) prepare two teststrips of paper and place them somewhere around where you have your enlarger or the developing trays. Cut of one corner on one strip in order to be able to separate them.
2. Cover one half of each teststrip and turn on the safelight. Let it be turned on for about 5 - 10 minutes.
3. Turn off the safelight and put the strips in the developer.
4. After one minute, take up the first strip and transfer it to the fixer.
5. After two and a half minute, take up the second strip .
6. Turn on your main light after the second strip has been in the fixer for at least 30 seconds.

If the covered ends of both strips are clean white, the paper is OK .
If the covered end of the one minute strip is white and the same end on the two and a half minute strip is grey, then you have a paper problem.
If the exposed end on one or both strips is darker than the covered end, then you have a safelight problem.
If the covered end of the two and a half minute strip is gray and the exposed end is even darker, then you have both a paper and a safelight problem.

The description may look complicated, but it is actually a rather simple test. While the darkroom is completely black, also look around for stray light that may be leaking in somewhere.

I hope you had a good nights sleep. that is often the best way to find new ways to solve problems. Good luck !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[andyaitken]

Hi, apologies for taken so long to upload the images (now the negative scan and last print, in the technical gallery) had to go out. As can be seen on the last developed print which was i5 seconds exposure and 1 minute processing in the PQ Developer there is a grey cast outside of the border which may, and given what else has been said here lead me to believe either a safelight issue or developer possibly as I back in for the rest of the day I will give the test ago and see what happens.

Once again thank you all for your contributions so far.

 

[mwdake]

I think you should determine the minimum exposure needed to obtain the maximum black for your paper.
This time will be your exposure time then you control the contrast by changing the grade filter.

I have seen several posts on this forum explaining how to do this, a search should find some.

 

[removed account4]

are your negatives so dense that if you put them down on
a sheet of newsprint you can't read the numbers through the film ?
it sounds to me like you have dense negatives, and you aren't giving them enough light to print ...

 

[Bill Burk]

I see 2 minutes recommended minimum time on the datasheets for PQ Universal developer and either FB or RC paper.

 

[bdial]

The grey border is fogging, if the paper is fresh, then it's likely due to the safelight, light leaks or the package was open in white light.
It looks rather severe for safelight fogging, but you could try exposing a sheet without any safelights on to see if the border is white. Or test for fogging by taking two unexposed sheets or cutting one (without safelights) into two pieces. Develop and fix one piece, and only fix the other. If the paper isn't fogged, they should match very closely. If that works, do the safelight test as described.

 

[Bill Burk]

...defect paper may also be a possibility....

Is there any way you can get some new paper today?

I had very similar prints from "garage sale" paper. I was fooled into wasting a lot of time on it too.

It should be very easy to see. Develop a strip of this paper in pitch black for 2 minutes without having done anything at all to it.

If it comes out gray, then you are down to a paper or developer problem.

 

[glbeas]

From the look of the scanned neg you have thin negs with poor shadow detail. This can be an underexposed, underdeveloped, or both, negative. This will be hard to print and you will get best results with higher contrast grades. If multigrade doesn't get there you may need to find some grade 5 in single grade paper.
Also be aware if the paper is quite old and stored in a hot place you will suffer both contrast and speed loss as well as increasing the chance of fogging from the heat. Even if you just bought the paper you might still have this problem. Test the max black by covering a strip on one end, turning on the lights for a few seconds to thoroughly expose it then develop as normal. If you still get grey looking black you might need to chuck the paper.

 

[pentaxuser]

If you simply changed the safelight bulb with another of the same wattage and there was no evidence of fogging before then it would seem unlikely that the safelight has suddenly become unsafe. Equally if you have previously not experienced greyness and the darkroom is the same as it was then light leaks seem unlikely as well but a good look around for leaks after say 10 mins in the room in total darkness is worthwhile, although unless sunshine is streaming through gaps then this may not be the real issue.

Evening light towards dusk if it gets say under a door so the slightest glow appears only after several mins is unlikely to be the main cause of the issue.

Has the same box of paper that is giving grey prints previously given OK prints? If so how long ago was this?

Do you have a neg that previously gave good prints? If so do you recall what the grade and exposure was. As I said, try this neg again at the good exposure and grade and see what happens.

I don't fully understand how this analyser of your works but have the print problems and the analyser arrived together?

Until you arrive at the cause of the greyness problem, I wouldn't use the meter at all.

Clearly if you once produced good prints then something(s) has/have changed. Try listing the changes and examining and eliminating them one by one.

If the PQ dev was OK a few days ago then it is unlikely that it has suddenly died. However if you tray develop then make up fresh dev for each session. I think you are doing this anyway but dev in trays is only good for one session or at least it is not worth attempting to use it again until you have found the cause of the problem.

pentaxuser

 

[markbarendt]

Took a look at the shot in question and your notes here.

First, rule out the safelight (& lightleaks) completely by turning it off.

It isn't that tough to work in complete darkness, I do this all the time for color work. This also gives me the ability to see other light leaks. The wind sometimes moves the materials I've used to black out my darkroom.

No extraneous exposure, no gray edges.

Second, at 1-minute, I think your development time is probably too short.

I use LPD, my normal time is "about" 2-minutes. For me LPD has a threshold time where the image becomes a really usable at about 1.5 minutes at my normal temp.

I can easily stretch out to 3-4 minutes with no grey borders to fine tune the print. Between 1.5 and 4-minutes I find that it is truly a fine adjustment, I can get a usable test print anywhere in that range but I only alter my normal time when I'm darn close to right.

I'm betting that PQ works very similarly in this respect. Given Ilford's recommended 2-minutes I'd guess that 2.5-3 would be a great target/normal time.

Third, find the exposure that gets you the black you want at your development time.

Getting this right was my biggest leap in quality. This helps me so much that I now normally try to shoot a reference shot of my incident meter in every fresh lighting situation. This gets me a black, a white, and a gray point. Without these reference points I waste a lot more paper.

Forth and final for me is adjusting contrast.

If the rest is right this is much easier, in fact if everything else is right the adjustments here are much smaller for me.

 

[andyaitken]

I think we are getting there!!!!

There is I think an occasional light leak. My dark room is actually in the attic, the main room or working area is about 20' long and about 18' wide this is an open area that is screened on one side by the wall and chimney breast and on all other sides with dark cloth. The main reason for the screening cloth is that we have recessed lights in the bathroom ceiling that obviously protrude with their ventilation tubes into the attic space although this is screened off. Wind comes in through the eaves and has blown the cloth (I sat alone in the darkroom, and watched this happen) this in turn allows daylight through. In the instance of last night etc, halogen light from the ceiling lights, if ther is slight movement of the cloth at the right time light can seep occasionally into the dark room. The area is actually at the opposite end of the room to where I am working but when I move from the enlarger to the wet bench I have the now exposed paper in my hand behind my back, (this is to protect against any light leaks coming from the safelight which is on the wall, behind the bench which is in front of me) if, as is the norm I walk alongside the front of the bench then this by default points the paper towards this leaking area.

I have now secured this problem.

I have now produced a new image that was run at 6 secs at grade 5 filteration, developed for 1 minute and it looks to be going in the right direction ( I will post again when dry). I still have doubts about the developer as it seems difficult to develop past one minute, but will give it another go shortly.


During this entire process of over the past dialogue I have also now not used the Photometer.

Many thanks for help guys, this would have been a very slow and painful exercise without all your help. Just posted the last 6 second print in the technical gallery, I have also run this at two minutes development and the grey spills in to the white borders, so perhaps the developer is on its last legs.

 

[pentaxuser]

Always nice when progress is made but two things spring to mind.

1.Unless some extraneous light is getting to the dev tray and print while developing, I am unclear why 2 mins developing should give you greyness spilling onto the white borders. There may be something else involved but I have no idea what.

2. If the neg scan is a good representation of the actual neg as it looks to the naked eye, it doesn't look as if this neg should need grade 5. I am no expert in negs but it looks to be the sort of neg that wouldn't require more than grade 3 or 3.5

Grade 5 is a "rescue" last resort grade for a very poor neg. Your neg doesn't look to fit the very poor category.

Maybe others with more experience of reading negs will comment.

You might want to wait until darkness tonight and persuade the rest of the family not to put on the bathroom lights while you try another print to see what difference it makes.

From your description of the set up and distances I'd be surprised if the upward glow of the bathroom lights was strong enough to affect the paper but only you know how strong the glow is and how much it penetrates past the curtain when the wind blows.

Keep going. I think you will solve the problem yet


pentaxuser

 

[andyaitken]

Pentaxuser

I like you was surprised given the layout and distance that the light would be strong enough to cause any contamination, and I am still not convinced that it is a problem, as I would have thought it would have diffused by then. But, it was worth eliminating anyway. And yes I agree about the grade 5 filter as I do not think that the negative is actually that bad. But for the moment it is getting mre in the right direction. I will try later as you suggest to see if I can get a better image, although the current one is in some ways better that the scan which is too bright in certain areas nose etc.

The Developer issue is the one remaining problem the grey taht spilled when I did run the last image for two minutes was comparible to the grey you see around the borders in "Problem image" in the gallery. And i still don't know why.

 

[pentaxuser]

I am getting ahead of myself here but if the dev is the problem then my suggestion would be that when you buy new stuff ( presumably 5L quantity) you decant it into empty 3L winebags. Once you have drunk the wine, the bag can be taken out of the box without damage and the dispenser tap removed with a thick bladed knife such as a carving knife. Clean out the dispenser and bag, add the concentrated dev in 2 x 2.5 L amounts, let the bag lie on a flat surface until the dev comes to the neck. Replace the dispenser and re-fit into the box. There is now no air in the bag and it collapses as you dispense the dev so no air enters.

I have had great success with both paper and film dev this way. Of course you or someone has to drink the wine first. It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it

pentaxuser

 

[andyaitken]

pentaxuser, PE and everyone else who has helped

Thanks for the advice, I'm more of Guinness man. However, I have just posted the last update print in the technical gallery called "Finally there". This was exposed for 4 seconds at a speed of 6 and filter of 3.5 then and wait for it, developed for two minutes 10 seconds. So the more check everything again and again and get rid of those bloody light leaks.

Once again thanks to you all for helping, it has been of considerable assistance.

But this print is truer to the negative but I think I prefer the darker 6 second print. Your thoughts.

 

[eddie]

What does "a speed of 6" mean?

 

[K-G]

If you get gray borders when developing for two minutes , I doubt that it is a developer problem. Exhausted developer should result in difficulties to reach maximum black and also give you less than expected contrast in other exposed areas. As the border does not get any exposure at all , it sounds more like defect paper. Either it is to old, has been stored under wrong conditions or if it for some reason has been exposed to X-ray scanning during shiping ( there is an other thread going on concerning this problem ) . Try to get some new fresh paper and make a new test. Be sure to check the expiry date for the paper. Please don't see this as an attempt to stop you from emptying the winebags that pentaxuser suggests, but save a few £ for the paper and cure the hangover while waiting for paper delivery.
Cheers !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[andyaitken]

In this context given the last days fiasco with an ancient MassoDax Photometer, which I am now largely ingnoring but I left the speed index at six, Whiich is were I started as I was using this instrument to gauge the exposure time etc. However, I believe it refers to the speed of that particular negative from which it is gauged via a light sensor placed in the middle of the negative. However, if I had dialled it down to 0 again I don't think it would have made much difference.

 

[eddie]

I'm not familiar with your MassoDax, or what the speed index means...
I do have a few observations, though:
First, congratulations for achieving the print, and having the patience to work through your problems.
Second, 4 second exposures will prove to be too short, as you start to dodge and burn. I think you'll want to increase your exposure time. What size are you printing, and what f-stop are you using?

 

[2F/2F]

Let me know if I have it right, please: You develop your prints for one minute, because if you go any longer, the edges get gray?

If that is the case, I would say you are running into safelight fogging and/or light leaks. And your underdevelopment to avoid it from showing up is also not helping the contrast of the prints. I develop fiber paper in PQ for at least 2 minutes, and I prefer 3 if doing anything but quick prints.

I would do a print entirely in the dark (just like color printing) and see what happens. That will rule safelight fogging out as a potential source.

Also, look into getting a roll of rubylith film from a printing supply house. Screen printing shops usually have it. Basically, it is an acetate base with a peelable thin film of red safelight filter material stuck on it. You can cut it to whatever size and shape you want and place it over windows, cracks, lights, etc. I have a sheet over my basement window, and I also hang flaps of it over the edges of my sliding door when printing during the day. I would run into the occasional light leak before I started doing this.

I've also had similar problems as yours when I had a leak in my 0C safelight filter. It had been taped over, but light penetrated the black tape.

I use all red light. Not only do I prefer the hue, but it also is completely safe for any paper except my old panchromatic paper (or color paper, of course).