Ho to get it BW on prints? Really BW.

[Ko.Fe.]

My wife told me this weekend what most of my prints are grey and nothing stands out like black and white. I'm desperate to make her accepting my prints, otherwise I'll have to step into house renovations projects, which I'm totally incapable off.

But I have no idea how to do prints with rich black and white, like white. I could get it done by manipulating of scans in PP, but I don't like computerised route.

I sorted out safelight for now. Paid for regular metal box and Kodak filter, tested it. It is fine.

My prints have all of the details on skin and in the shadows. If I'm trying to print on fresh (I believe not fogged) RC MG paper with lot more contrast, but shadows turning into black and faces are turning white with no skin details.
My most contrast prints are coming with very old Agfa-Brovira #4 FB 5x7 paper. Faces contains skin, but black is more deep. I could get enough of the contrast at same old paper but #2 (contrast grade) version as well.
On 8x10 (fresh RC or old 8x10 FB) I can't.

Would it be my basic, little Vivitar enlarger itself? I have good lenses for it. I'm still waiting for lens board to be able to try D5 beast for first time.
Should I simply ditch RC papers and find fresh analog to Agfa-Brovira single grade FB paper?

 

[Rick A]

You could try longer developing times for your negatives for more contrast. Properly exposed and developed negatives should give you what you seek.

 

[ic-racer]

Underexposed negatives don't print well no matter what you try. Perhaps this is the case.

 

[LarsAC]

Can you show some examples ?

Lars

 

[cliveh]

It sounds like your negs are too thin and you need to increase exposure in the the camera and/or film development time.

 

[Ron789]

I looked at the photo's you published here and those look OK to me, with plenty contrast. Like the photo with the sheep: inside the barn it's really dark, black, and the meadow in the back is really bright, white.
So that means your negatives have good contrast.
Are these scans from prints or scans from negatives? And did you manipulate them on the computer to increase contrast before publishing them on APUG?

 

[Dr Croubie]

If you can't get complete black and white high-contrast at grade 5, make sure that you're using fresh paper and fresh dev. If you still can't, try fresh film in fresh dev and agitate the hell out of it. After that, a newer coated enlarger lens can get more contrast, even going to a condensor instead of a diffusor. And if you still can't, try getting a different 2nd opinion.

 

[Paul Howell]

[My most contrast prints are coming with very old Agfa-Brovira #4 FB 5x7 paper. Faces contains skin, but black is more deep. I could get enough of the contrast at same old paper but #2 (contrast grade) version as well.

On 8x10 (fresh RC or old 8x10 FB) I can't.

Would it be my basic, little Vivitar enlarger itself? I have good lenses for it. I'm still waiting for lens board to be able to try D5 beast for first time.
Should I simply ditch RC papers and find fresh analog to Agfa-Brovira single grade FB paper?[/QUOTE]

Bravira # 4 is rather high in contrast, I think at time grade 4 was the highest, other manufactures had up to 6 grades. So with VC you need to print with #5 filter as most VC top out at grade 4 which was likely grade 3 in Bravura world. Salvich grade 3 or 4 will come the closest to Brovira grade 4.

I doubt the Vivitar enlarger is the problem, issue is under developed negatives or choice of paper and developer.

 

[markbarendt]

But I have no idea how to do prints with rich black and white, like white.

Fiber paper isn't the answer, RC paper generally provides darker blacks.

So, for a given paper grade, two things control max black: exposure and development. Want darker blacks, more exposure or more development. More exposure is the easier of the two.

White is also controlled by exposure, it's essentially an underexposure of the paper.

The contrast range or hardness of the paper controls what you might call grayness or snap.

Harder contrast will reduce the range which will print and "reduce grayness", some details may disappear into solid black or white so burn and dodge may become more needed if those "now hidden" details are important.

 

[frank]

Expired materials (film, paper, developers) don't help. Try fresh.

 

[Rick A]

I don't scan negatives, but I do know that negatives that scan well are usually under exposed. Try exposing film at half box speed and developing at normal time.This should give you super easy to print negatives. Also, make sure you use fresh printing materials, at least until you become proficient enough to know how to use them.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Expired materials (film, paper, developers) don't help. Try fresh.

Add to the list worn out enlarger lamps - This is a real issue with halogen lamps, so if paper/developer/film is all OK, buy a new lamp.

 

[markbarendt]

...but I do know that negatives that scan well are usually under exposed...

I believe that to be an urban myth.

The reason I think this is that disposable cameras rely on EI float (over and under) to work, and they generally work very well. My guess is that the grand majority of frames from disposables are overexposed (ISO400 or 800, 1/100, f/11ish, regular daylight) and scanned.

There are also pros, like Jose Villa, that follow the overexpose and scan route essentially as part of their business model.

And I've done/do it myself.

Underexposure on the other hand is almost always a compromise at best.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you can't get complete black and white high-contrast at grade 5, make sure that you're using fresh paper and fresh dev. If you still can't, try fresh film in fresh dev and agitate the hell out of it. After that, a newer coated enlarger lens can get more contrast, even going to a condensor instead of a diffusor. And if you still can't, try getting a different 2nd opinion.

Also try longer exposure times. You may be developing to completion and there is not enough exposure to get to black.

 

[gone]

Filters for contrast, exposure times for whites.

 

[RobC]

you haven't told what method of filtration you are using on VC paper. Is it dichroic head or is it Ilford or Kodak filters in filter drawer or under the lens. This makes a difference. Also, if its a dichroic colour head are you using single colour filter or both combined at same time.

Ilford/kodak filters are balanced to maintain print time on a highlight value a bit lighter than a caucasian face. Start at G2 and do test strip to get the right tone on something a little little lighter than a face. Then adjust Grade up or down and do another test strip including the face and something in dark shadow. You may need to tweak print time a little. Repeat until you get the right balance.

If you are using dichroic head with combined Y+M filters then the print time balance point could be anywhere but is usually somehwere around a middle tone so start at G2 setting and do a test print to get something that should be a middle about right. Then adjust contrast and do another test strip. You may need to tweak print time. Repeat until you get the right balance.

Note:
dichroic heads can be a real pain. You must use paper manufacturers recomended Y+M figures for your enlarger. Some enlargers use Kodak 200 unit scale and some Durst 130 or 170 unit scale. You must know which your enalrger uses. I don't know for your enlarger.

What you should NOT do is just arbitrary amounts of Yellow and or Magenta filtration becasue print times will jump all over the place if you do that.

 

[Jim Jones]

Make sure the photo paper is adequately developed. I'd rather leave it in the developer too long than not long enough. Maximum density in the print should be determined by exposure, not putting the print in the stop bath when it looks dark enough under the safelight. Dirt or fungus in an enlarging lens can also cause a lack of contrast.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Many people pull prints before they are fully developed because they fear they are becoming too dark. This results in poor blacks and lower contrast. Print exposure should be adjusted to conform with the manufactures time recommendation for the print developer. Try cutting back a bit on print exposure and develop fully preferably to completion. Search the APUG archives for an explanation of developing to completion.

 

[removed account4]

My wife told me this weekend what most of my prints are grey and nothing stands out like black and white. I'm desperate to make her accepting my prints, otherwise I'll have to step into house renovations projects, which I'm totally incapable off.

But I have no idea how to do prints with rich black and white, like white. I could get it done by manipulating of scans in PP, but I don't like computerised route.

I sorted out safelight for now. Paid for regular metal box and Kodak filter, tested it. It is kk
My prints have all of the details on skin and in the shadows. If I'm trying to print on fresh (I believe not fogged) RC MG paper with lot more contrast, but shadows turning into black and faces are turning white with no skin details.
My most contrast prints are coming with very old Agfa-Brovira #4 FB 5x7 paper. Faces contains skin, but black is more deep. I could get enough of the contrast at same old paper but #2 (contrast grade) version as well.
On 8x10 (fresh RC or old 8x10 FB) I can't.

Would it be my basic, little Vivitar enlarger itself? I have good lenses for it. I'm still waiting for lens board to be able to try D5 beast for first time.
Should I simply ditch RC papers and find fresh analog to Agfa-Brovira single grade FB paper?

hi KoFe
sounds like your processing isn't fine tuned to your paper.
have you done an exposure a d development printing thing where you bracket your
exposures and developed your film and
male a contact sheet or enlargement from your negatives to get a " full scale" print ?

it might help ...
what you do is but a couple of fresh 24 exp rolls and a sleeve of fresh paper and fresh print/ film developer ...
bracket your exposures and bracket your development..
3 rolls .. and develop them as recommended and +\- 30%

contact print the negatives then make enlargements of the ones you like the best ...
then expose a roll with the rules you set foe yourself and see how they look ..

good luck !

 

[markbarendt]

Filters for contrast, exposure times for whites.

Good advice.

It is workable the other way too though. Filters for contrast, exposure times for blacks.

And well, Filters for contrast, exposure times for mid-tones, can work too.

These rules of thumb give you a good place to start, a place to trouble shoot from. Sticking with one of them allows you to gauge what changes as you adjust contrast.

My choice of peg point varies depending on the subject matter, for example my portraits are generally pegged to a facial tone rather than say a black locomotive or white cloud behind the subject.

 

[NB23]

Start with FRESH paper.
FRESH developer.
FRESH fixer. Fixer plays a big role in making blacks black.

The rest is technique (burning, dodging, the right filters)...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you for replies!

I'm not using too thin negatives. I measure light if not sure about exposure. And I'm using massive developing chart and common sense for developing
Mixing from Ilford MultiGrade concentrate by 1:9 to 1L and print about dozen 8x10 or twenty maximum of 5x7.
Same for fixer, Ilford Rapid concetrate, fresh mix always.
I have very simple Vivitar enlarger. Condenser and Ilford contrast filters for MG RC or no filters for FB single contract.
I know why prints come gray or turning black. I'm trying to nail exposure to be able to keep print in developer for two or more minutes.
Lenses are fine. Latest EL-Nikkor 50 2.8 and clean Fuji 75 F4 for 6x6.

I'm not sure if I'm matching prints and prints scans I have in the Gallery. Too different on the screen and on the print.

I selected bunch of prints where I didn't screwed contrast badly. And asked my wife to select from them. I took picture of some she was OK with. Some FB, some RC.

It seems what she likes it balanced.
I will keep her selection and exam it under day light.
Four prints are from FP5+ @1200, the rest is box speed and different cameras (some with AE), films.

As much as I want to keep the rest ( most are family pictures) it seems to be better to recycle them and re-print new ones with better contrast.
Looks like it as part of the problem as well. Too much prints with wrong exposure, contrast.

 

[RobC]

condenser enlargers print with higher contrast than diffuser enlargers but not so much that you can't manage it with printing contrast adjustments.

Since you are using Ilford filters you should set print time, as I suggested above, on a highlight value by producing a step wedge which gives the right tone for that highlight using G2 filter. Then if contrast is too low or too high change filter and do step wedge again and see if contrast is better. The highlight tone you used should stay quite close to same tone when you change contrast but you may need to adjust the print time to keep it the same tone.
Repeat adjusting in half grade steps until you get the level of contrast you require.

Note:
If you you used push development for the film exposed at 3200 you may get very contrasty negatives which will be much higher contrast than the normally developed negatives and may require using G1 or even less contrast filter. All depends on the contrast in your original subject.
If you didn't use push development for the 3200 EI film then your shadows may well be blocked out and very thin in the negative. They will be very difficult to extract any detail from. All depends on what exactly you metered, what the subject contrast was and whether you used push development.

The prints don't look so bad. I was expecting them to be much worse than that from what you said. And its difficult to tell from a photograph of a photograph how well they are printed or not.

 

[frank]

Select a lower criticism level on the wife's control panel. In the pic of your prints, they look fine. Maybe she wants you to do more work around the house.

 

[winger]

Select a lower criticism level on the wife's control panel. In the pic of your prints, they look fine. Maybe she wants you to do more work around the house.

That was kinda my thought, too. From the photo, they look fine to me. Everyone's eyes don't see things exactly the same.

Maybe take one of the ones she doesn't like and print it a few times - some with less contrast and some with more - and ask her whether that improves it for her. And make sure she knows that the important parts are whether you as the artist like them and whether they depict people and situations you're going to want to look at in 10-20 years. Sometimes, it's not about the technique, but the subject.