Help me troubleshoot my kallitype

tnp651 · Feb 18, 2017

My first kallitype printed beautifully once I had the exposure and contrast controlled. Now I have nothing but problems. Here is a detail of a kallitype I made today. I prepared Arches Platine with 1 heaping teaspoon of fumed silica, using a foam roller with fairly light pressure for about 3 minutes.

For a 10x13" (25x33 cm) coated area, I used 32 drops each of SN and FO, plus one drop each of 5% ammonium dichromate and 50% TWEEN. Coating temperature was 68 degrees F (21 C) and the humidity was 36%. I used a rod to coat, and made only 3-4 passes to avoid disturbing the paper. Processing was in sodium acetate & tartaric acid, which worked fine on the previous kallitype. Rinsed in purified water, slightly acidified with citric acid; cleared in EDTA; gold toned 10 min; fixed in hypo for 3 minutes.

You can see that the image is grainy overall, Dmax is bad and the coating is uneven. Should I have spent more time coating? (it looked even when wet and after drying.) Used more or less sensitizer? Should I have used more fumed silica, or less? Should the paper have been more humid? Is my processing temperature too low? Too much TWEEN, or too little? Before I make more tests, it'd be nice to have an idea what went wrong. Thanks in advance for any advice.
Tom

pschwart · Feb 18, 2017

Make your first print without Tween, dichromate, or fumed silica. Including a step tablet can be very helpful. Evaluate then make corrections as needed -- one at a time so you can see the effect.
Nothing wrong with rod coating, but the chemistry is inexpensive, so you might want to try brushing.

tnp651 · Feb 19, 2017

pschwart said:
Make your first print without Tween, dichromate, or fumed silica. Including a step tablet can be very helpful. Evaluate then make corrections as needed -- one at a time so you can see the effect.
Nothing wrong with rod coating, but the chemistry is inexpensive, so you might want to try brushing.

Thanks, Philip, I'll report my results.

TheToadMen · Feb 19, 2017

What kind of negative did you use? Was the paper fully dry before you put the negative on it?
If not it might be the emulsion layer of the negative that sticked to the paper?

tnp651 · Feb 19, 2017

TheToadMen said:
What kind of negative did you use? Was the paper fully dry before you put the negative on it?
If not it might be the emulsion layer of the negative that sticked to the paper?

The sheet was dry. The Pictorico negative did not stick to the emulsion.
Tom

tnp651 · Feb 19, 2017

There's one more variable I forgot to report. My B&S "black developer" got pretty murky sometime last week and I replaced it with Colin Graham's suggestion of 75 gm sodium acetate and 3 gm tartaric acid I found here (there was a url link here which no longer exists) It seemed to match what B&S said was their formula (phone conversation with Leigh Sullivan). I have some 20% sodium citrate developer mixed, and perhaps I should try that before going further afield. Does anyone have a better formula for B&S black?

Andrew O'Neill · Feb 20, 2017

Fumed Silica is not necessary with Arches Platine.

tnp651 · Feb 25, 2017

After some investigation, I have the following results:
1. The formula for black developer, which I thought was B&S's, is wack. I've abandoned it. If you're keeping notes, the bad formula is:
75 gm sodium acetate
3 gm tartaric acid
Water to make 1 liter
2. I've ordered more of B&S's black developer, since I know it works. In the meantime, I've tested
Russell Young Brown-Black developer:
Borax 50 g
Rochelle salt 40 g
Distilled water 1 Liter
It works well but requires a longer exposure time. With gold toning, it's more of a neutral black than brown-black. Here's my first test with the longer time. I'll need to adjust the curve to get good images.

3. I'm indebted to Andrew O'Neill for the suggestion to eliminate the fumed alumina with Platine. I agree, it doesn't need it.
4. I've been over-acidifying my rinse water. l did a test, and 4 minutes in slightly-acidified rinse, followed by 2 minutes in 3% citric acid, clears Platine completely. Prints look spotty and horrible after clearing, but they come back completely after gold toning and 2 minutes in ammoniated hypo.
5. I hadn't known that my gold toner was exhausted, Mixing a fresh batch restored the deep blacks I wanted.

Thanks to all who responded. My kallitype investigations continue...
Tom

tnp651 · Mar 6, 2017

My challenges continue. I made a test negative with 9 images starting with the ChartThrob curve and progressively modifying it. Chose the one that was closest to my ideal. Printed the full image 9x12" with that curve and it's way dark! Perhaps a stop and a half darker. As far as I can tell my technique was the same, with these small changes:

1. Humidity in the darkroom rose from 36% for the test to 48% for the final print, due to running water in the sink. The temperature of the air and the developer remained the same.

2. I coated the paper with slightly less sensitizer for the full-size print (24 drops for the 8x10 test, 33 drops -- not 39 -- for the 10x13 I'm printing the 9x12 into. 39 drops looked too wet before.

3. I used one drop of ammonium dichromate and one of TWEEN for both the 8x10 and the 10x13

4. I'm replenishing the developer with fresh, identically-mixed developer, at 100 ml per 100 sq. inches of print. Note that I'm not adding anything more concentrated, just fresh stuff.

None of those things look like they'd cause my problem. Does anyone have a suggestion?
Tom

pschwart · Mar 6, 2017

The scans you have posted show a lot of grain and printer artifacts. If they accurately represent the prints, you might want to review your digital negative workflow. Not as much fun as printing, I know, but you can't make a fine print from those negs. Given the amount of processing time needed for each print, I think it makes sense to improve the negs. You can be thrifty and make 4x5 step tablets.
With better negs, you may not need any dichromate, another benefit.

tnp651 · Mar 6, 2017

pschwart said:
The scans you have posted show a lot of grain and printer artifacts. If they accurately represent the prints, you might want to review your digital negative workflow. Not as much fun as printing, I know, but you can't make a fine print from those negs. Given the amount of processing time needed for each print, I think it makes sense to improve the negs. You can be thrifty and make 4x5 step tablets.
With better negs, you may not need any dichromate, another benefit.

The scan is of a 4-inch-wide kallitype made from the neg, not the neg itself. As such it shows the graininess and paper texture typical of kallitypes.

No, I know I can make good negatives; I have at least one good kallitype. I've solved my spottiness issue and just need help figuring out the variation in density.
Tom

pschwart · Mar 6, 2017

tnp651 said:
The scan is of a 4-inch-wide kallitype made from the neg, not the neg itself. As such it shows the graininess and paper texture typical of kallitypes.

No, I know I can make good negatives; I have at least one good kallitype. I've solved my spottiness issue and just need help figuring out the variation in density.
Tom

Right, I assumed those were scans of actual kallitypes. Sorry, I am going to take issue -- the print defects are not paper texture, and the graininess is not characteristic of kallitypes. I will shut up now

tnp651 · Mar 6, 2017

pschwart said:
Right, I assumed those were scans of actual kallitypes. Sorry, I am going to take issue -- the print defects are not paper texture, and the graininess is not characteristic of kallitypes. I will shut up now

No offense taken.

Help me troubleshoot my kallitype

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency