Have you ever ran out of low contrast filter?

I have been shooting Tri-X (overexpose+overdevelop in Rodinal) and I have started to think have I ever exposed such negatives that even my low contrast filters cannot produce "correct" print.. And now that my LED system goes under the 00 filter ..

This is a bit provocative question, I know most of you want to expose & develop "correctly":

But should we really aim dense and a bit high contrast negatives generally?

Should we always overexpose? I think film likes light and wants to have a long bath in developer.

Somehow I have started to hunt for the grain since that is so beautiful when doing prints. 35mm format is perfect for this. And the grain is "only" thing in B&W begative films that distincts it from digital. Don't get triggered of this. But I mean I cannot get distractive grain even on 30x40cm (12x16") prints from 35mm.

I mean if we develop for the starndard, any mishap in exposing or developing makes the negative thin and low in contrast.

What are we afraid of? Grain? I think B&W prints should embrace the grain. It is not an enemy.

These are a bit more rethorical questions - to open an interesting discussion on the topic

As you know well filters are more of a partial cure than a permanent solution. In some cases they can be part of pre-planned intent for darkroom session, but typically more as a fine-tune element not get-out-of-jail tool.

I get grain effect with lower contrast negatives; printing with the #5 filter really brings it out. Lith print even better:

But to answer the question of what to do when you need less contrast with Multigrade paper would be to try a 'soft' developer.

ic-racer said:

But to answer the question of what to do when you need less contrast with Multigrade paper would be to try a 'soft' developer.

Click to expand...

Do we ever need to do that?

I just printed 10x12" with maybe 1.2x crop from 35mm negative. I can now see the same lovely lith "speckles" on normal print. I'm in love. I've found The Grain.

edit: one of my IG lith prints has the speckles visible really nicely, I think (click the next image the IG post):

vedostuu said:

....overexpose+overdevelop in Rodinal
....

Click to expand...

This is the problem. If your negs have too much contrast to print with a 00 filter. You’re over developing...quite a bit.

BradS said:

This is the problem. If your negs have too much contrast to print with a 00 filter. You’re over developing...quite a bit.

Click to expand...

You probably misunderstood my post. I wrote I never had this problem.

In my humble experience, it is the paper that makes the difference. Any film printed on rc pearl paper looks like garbage if compared to the same film but printed on fb paper. Yes there is grain and tonality and curves, but in the end you are looking at a paper.

Long ago I had a stash of ilfospeed-3 rc papers that looked soooo good, the matte finish was absolutely silky smooth to the touch and to the eyes.

Any, and I mean ANY(!) negative looked good on that paper. I believe that the same can be said for the beautiful Ilford Art-300 paper.

NB23 said:

In my humble experience, it is the paper that makes the difference. Any film printed on rc pearl paper looks like garbage if compared to the same film but printed on fb paper. Yes there is grain and tonality and curves, but in the end you are looking at a paper.

Long ago I had a stash of ilfospeed-3 rc papers that looked soooo good, the matte finish was absolutely silky smooth to the touch and to the eyes.

Any, and I mean ANY(!) negative looked good on that paper. I believe that the same can be said for the beautiful Ilford Art-300 paper.

Click to expand...

so your saying all my recent prints are trash? Haha just joking!!

cjbecker said:

so your saying all my recent prints are trash? Haha just joking!!

Click to expand...

Mine sure look subpar, but it’s a necessity. I’m going through a mountain of negatives of my kids, 12 years worth. So in order to be quick and efficient, I am cutting 5x7 rc papers in half and I print full frame 3.5x5 with an ez-el easel. It’s quick, easy to wash, and totally satisfactory. But none of the prints look as good as they should, or better said: as they would if they were printed on FB paper.

So guys/gals: have you ever ran out of your lowest contrast filter?

Or is it more common that you would need more contrast instead of low contrast?

Well it depends, and it’s always user error.

My friend Bob always over develops his films, and runs out of lowest contrast filters.

My friend Jimmy always under develops his films and runs out of high grade filters.

As for myself, I always aim for grade 2.5 and that’s what I keep on getting.


This makes it a 50/50 occurance. Bob would need a 000 filter while Jim would need a 7 filter. But both Bob and Jim never learn.