High contrast print developers

[Tom Kershaw]

During a print session earlier today, I needed to dramatically increase print contrast from a rather flat roll film negative (subdued light during the in camera exposure), but with generous exposure (i.e. the information is there on the negative). However, even dialing 200 cc magenta on my Meopta didn't raise the contrast high enough. At some point I seem to remember reading that some colour heads are not able to achieve the very highest contrasts available with the variable contrast gelatin filters used in a black and white enlarger head.

The paper was Kentmere Fineprint Glossy in ILFORD Multigrade (1+14) with 5 minutes plus development time; 16"x16" print from 6x6 negative. A print made earlier in the session from negative exposed in more contrasty lighting printed fine at grade 3 / 4, so the developer was functioning (also freshly mixed).

In terms of achieving greater contrast via development alterations I can see at least two possibilities:

1. Increase concentration of standard developer working solution (e.g. ILFORD Multigrade, Fotospeed PD-5)

2. Use a purposefully designed high contrast developer; perhaps Tetenal Dokumol or Beers variable contrast.

Obviously I can try all these options, but I'd be interested to know if others had experience of extracting the most contrast out of a flat negative beyond increasing filtration to maximum. The subject centers on tonal variations in sand and stone (no sky), i.e. not a mountain scene, so dodging and burning wouldn't really be effective.

I realise the situation I've just described makes a good case for adopting a full zone system methodology.


Tom.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

Any developer with the pH raised by about 1 - 2 units will increase contrast rather rapidly. It will also increase fog and development rate so you need to watch those, and you may end up adding some bromide or BTAZ to antifog it down. These problems depend on the paper.

Dektol full strength is not bad though.

PE

 

[jim appleyard]

I've had a few negs like this in my day! Who hasn't? I remember one neg that was pritned flat even with the magenta dialed all the way. I ended up taking a #4 Kodak PC filter and holding it under the lens PLUS using the magenta filtration at max in the enlarger. Exposure time was long and the lens was wide open (f/2.8 35mm neg), but it did the trick and while it was not a perfect print, it was quite acceptable. That might work for you.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom;

Any developer with the pH raised by about 1 - 2 units will increase contrast rather rapidly. It will also increase fog and development rate so you need to watch those, and you may end up adding some bromide or BTAZ to antifog it down. These problems depend on the paper.

Dektol full strength is not bad though.

PE

BTAZ - Benzotriazole?

By 'Dektol full stregth' - do you mean using it as neat stock solution from the powered Dektol package(D-72)? - The more standard Dektol packaging in the UK seems to be a 5 litre liquid concentrate to be diluted 1+9 etc., as ILFORD Multigrade is presented.

Tom.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Oh, in the US Dektol is still a solid powder that is used 1:2, 1:3 and 1:4. So, the results may not be the same.

BTAZ is our industry photo engineer shorthand for Benzo Tri AZole.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Try Ilford PQ Universal diluted 1+4 for 2-3 minutes.

 

[fschifano]

The paper was Kentmere Fineprint Glossy in ILFORD Multigrade (1+14) with 5 minutes plus development time; 16"x16" print from 6x6 negative. A print made earlier in the session from negative exposed in more contrasty lighting printed fine at grade 3 / 4, so the developer was functioning (also freshly mixed).

There's not much to be realized from this paper in terms of developer changes. There can be some contrast enhancement, but not all that much. Around 1/2 grade or so is about the most you can expect. But you are correct about color heads not being able to allow you to exploit the full contrast range a given paper is able to deliver. I cannot acheive the lowest or highest contrast grades available from Foma papers with my Omega color head. For grade 5, I use the Ilford #5 filter and it is a noticeable difference from the full magenta setting on the enlarger.

Do you normally develop your negatives to print well at grade 3 or 4? After trying that for a while myself, I never could get a print that I really liked from such flat negatives. Now, I aim for a negative that prints well on the equivalent of grades 2 to 2 1/2 myself and things look a lot better.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

There's not much to be realized from this paper in terms of developer changes. There can be some contrast enhancement, but not all that much. Around 1/2 grade or so is about the most you can expect. But you are correct about color heads not being able to allow you to exploit the full contrast range a given paper is able to deliver. I cannot acheive the lowest or highest contrast grades available from Foma papers with my Omega color head. For grade 5, I use the Ilford #5 filter and it is a noticeable difference from the full magenta setting on the enlarger.

Do you normally develop your negatives to print well at grade 3 or 4? After trying that for a while myself, I never could get a print that I really liked from such flat negatives. Now, I aim for a negative that prints well on the equivalent of grades 2 to 2 1/2 myself and things look a lot better.

On the filtration issue: I may try printing the negative on my DeVere 5108 (also with colour head), to check whether the magenta is any "heavier". I suppose I could consider the Meopta Magnifax black & white head for prints needing significant contrast enhancement.

On the negatives: I tend to photograph in rather varying conditions in terms of contrast, light levels etc; so try and end up with a negative that contains the information needed. Often grade 2 is fine, but I have needed grade 1 on occasions. Virtually all my photograph is or has been on 120 roll film; although I have started to work with 8x10.

Tom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Try a developer like Ilford ID-14 it gives far a better increase in contrast than trying to tweak Dektol or PQ Universal.

ID-14

Metol 1.5 g
Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 75 g
Hydroquinone 12.5
Sodium Carbonate (anhyd) 37.5 g
Potassium Bromide 2 g
Water to 1 litre Use FS or 1+1


Ian

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Fineprint is a nice paper (I use it quite a lot) but doesn't do very high contrast

It runs out of steam at around G4

To get G4+ you need Ilford Multigrade Paper.

Also, I never use Multigrade Dev at 1+14, try it at 1+4 - it might give you enough of a contrast boost to get you where you need to be withour drasticaly changing your print colour

Good luck

Martin

 

[Gary Holliday]

Tom, if you are still considering the Dektol route, Silverprint sell the USA packets of Dektol (3.8 litres). It's normally diluted 1+2.

When I need high contrast prints, I use a strong dilution of Dokumol. 1+7 or 1+4 on occasions. The print can come up too quickly so I have some BZT to slow things down.

How is the pH of the developer raised?

 

[Ian Grant]

Dektol won't offer any advantages at all over PQ Universal. Dektol and ID-20 are very similar, ID-62 is the PQ version.

Ian

 

[Mark Fisher]

Multigrade has the highest contrast potential (or at least that is what my experience is). Alternatively, you could try lith printing with a paper that is not too "lithy". It is a different look, but you can definitely get a much larger contrast range out of the process.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

If you are using a VC head then the best way to get a grade or two more contrast is a below the lens #5 VC magenta filter. A deep blue 'tri-color' filter will also work.

A Rosco #59 Indigo filter, will give as much contrast as the paper is capable of.

For an older technology 2 emulsion paper like Kentmere your need a filter that cuts off at 475. For a modern 3 emulsion paper you need a cut off at 450nm.

 

[Ian Grant]

For an older technology 2 emulsion paper like Kentmere your need a filter that cuts off at 475. For a modern 3 emulsion paper you need a cut off at 450nm.

Modern Kentmere papers use the same technology as other Ilford made VC papers so unless you have a lot of old Kentmere paper it's now irrelevant.

Ian

 

[JBrunner]

You might also consider toning the negative in selenium. This will get you a little bit thicker printing neg, and that might help contrast to some degree. It won't buy you a ton, but it might be enough to make the difference. It's the first thing I do if I have a thin negative.

 

[Ian Grant]

Selenium toning in Kodak Selenium toner @ 1+4 can make a very significant difference, the visual effect is far less than the actual change of contrast caused by the shift in negative colour.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

You might also consider toning the negative in selenium. This will get you a little bit thicker printing neg, and that might help contrast to some degree. It won't buy you a ton, but it might be enough to make the difference. It's the first thing I do if I have a thin negative.

The negative isn't thin, it's actually fairly dense. Selenium toning negatives is something I've read about but not put into practice; however, I'll probably investigate paper developer and filtration options first. I have made proof prints from these negatives on ILFORD Multigrade IVRC Gloss in my Thermaphot machine with less difficulty in terms of achieving good contrast, however I was not being as critical...

Ian,

Have you compared ID-14 to Tetenal Dokumol?

Tom.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Modern Kentmere papers use the same technology as other Ilford made VC papers

That would be what I would have thought, but the Kentmere data sheet shows the spectral response of a two emulsion paper, while Ilford's has the characteristic three bumps of a blue/cyan/green VC paper.

I get my information from what I & K have published on their web sites ... I don't work for either of the two (or one) firm(s).

 

[Photo Engineer]

The spectral sensitivity of Ilford MGIV has two bumps. One in the blue region and one in the green region. It is a multicontrast paper with at least 2 emulsions. The Kentmere paper that I have has two bumps, but is graded. It probably uses the spectral sensitizer to gain speed for enlarging.

I have posted wedge spectrograms of the Ilford paper here.

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

If as Martin Aislabie says, Kentmere Fineprint achieves approximately grade 4 but little more; how will a high contrast developer effect the inherent contrast of the paper?

Tom.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You could probably eke out a true lith type image with the right developer, but it might be difficult. Some papers are self limiting in how much they will move when you play with development.

PE

 

[dancqu]

The Kentmere paper that I have has two bumps,
but is graded. It probably uses the spectral sensitizer
to gain speed for enlarging. PE

That's interesting; a Graded paper with two spectral
sensitivity peaks. I've never taken note of that.
Reminds me of Fuji's VC papers available in
two Grades. Any connection there?

The OP's dense negatives may benefit from a KRST
treatment. From what I've read a sulfide bath will
also up the contrast. OR, go Grade Four. From
MY comparison tests Slavich will deliver the
most contrast. Dan

 

[analogsnob]

In addition to the chemical suggestions above you might try printing with a condenser enlarger. The focused light will yield a print with accentuated contrast and minimum flair. The contrast increase comes from the callier effect and is a different look in ways other than contrast as well that may work in your favor for this negative.

Take care as cleanliness is a big issue.

 

[Martin Aislabie]

Dektol won't offer any advantages at all over PQ Universal. Dektol and ID-20 are very similar, ID-62 is the PQ version.

Ian

That’s good to know

It’s amazing what you find out in these threads from the resulting (keyboard) discussions

Martin