How can I get a bit more contrast?

[Doremus Scudder]

Use your selenium toner 1+2. 1+20 is way too weak.

 

[darkroommike]

I have old Ilford filters set where it goes up to #7. Just printed with it two days ago due to specifics of the light on the negative.
Usually I print with #2,3,4 from modern Ilford filters set.

The old Multigrade filters used a different numbering scheme, I don't think you get a "7" contrast from a paper that was engineered to yield a top "5" contrast regardless of what filtration you use.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't think ...

I was not thinking either. I did #5 and it wasn't enough. I dropped #7 and it did what I need.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

As a true Canadian, you should know what "Punt" refers to: https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/kicking/definitions/

Thank you for education. I'm true new Canadian then...

 

[vdonovan]

Use your selenium toner 1+2. 1+20 is way too weak.

Thanks for the tip! I'll try it.

 

[Hilo]

What I miss in the OP is what kind of enlarger you use: which light source and which lens?

Previous posts and their solutions made a lot of sense, in particular stronger developer. Here some other suggestions:

Condenser enlargers may give more contrast.

If you use a bulb in your enlarger, try a stronger one. For instance a 250 watt instead of a 150watt. The stronger lamp has a "different colour" light and it has quite an effect on multigrade papers. With mine it means 1 full grade harder.

Later lenses tend to be harder. And EL Nikkor or Computar DL seem to give more contrast than, for instance Leitz or Schneider lenses. Having said that, a late Focotar 2 (50 or 100mm) clearly gives more contrast than older Focotars.

 

[removed account4]

My first thought!

Punting -- tossing the negative is a drawer...reshooting the image if possible...scanning the negative if that is the only way to pull what one needs from the negative.

But trying to print the negative is a great way to learn about the controls we do have in the darkroom.

+1

maybe stronger / less dilute developer would help too

Scanning is for total losers, BTW.

not really but everyone is entitled to their own opinion ..

 

[Doremus Scudder]

+1 on switching to a condenser source if you are using diffusion now and need more contrast. I omitted that from my list. Also, the suggestion to use a more modern lens is good if you're using an older one.

However, if your filters are good, a stronger bulb shouldn't make a difference in contrast, just in printing time; the right spectrum should be delivered to the paper by the filter, regardless of the color temperature of the bulb being used.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doc W]

Spinal Tap -- "Goes to 11"

All of the oldest Fender guitar amps had dials numbered 1-12. I played a gig a few years back in a local pub with a 1958 Fender Tremolux and smart-alec (in a nice way) young guy started talking with me about amps. He jokingly used the line about his amp going up to 11. I grinned at pointed to mine. When he realized it went to 12 on the dial, the look on his face was priceless.

 

[Vaughn]

Whoa! 12 !!!! Earplug time!

Since it is a one-of-a-kind negative, I might selenium tone it (but seleniun toning has its minumium effect of very flat
negatives, so even at a stronger strength one might not see a whole lot of contrast increase in selenium. I'd print a little dark at the highest contrast possible (maybe some old #6 Brovia!) and bleach back the highlights. Or if I was nuts, I'd enlarge onto litho film, contact onto more litho film, then contact that onto silver gelatin paper. Sort of depends on what one wants the image to look like -- try solarizing one of the steps or two. Why be normal? Sounds like a guy who develops his beer in film, or film in beer, should have a print developed in coffee. At least for the print you keep -- the family may wish something more conventional!

 

[vdonovan]

Why be normal?

This is the best advice I've ever received on APUG.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you say your negative is thin and flat, then intensifying may not make a difference. If you do try it, dilute selenium 1+2, or 1+3. As suggested, bleaching, dodging, or both may be a better option.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Another thought: You could make a very high quality 16x20 print on glossy paper then copy the print and add contrast with extra film development.

 

[Larry the sailor]

As a true Canadian, you should know what "Punt" refers to: https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/kicking/definitions/

I thought he was talking about a small flat bottomed boat.

 

[thefizz]

Not sure if you mentioned what developer you are using but Dr. Beers two bath might help strengthen the blacks.

 

[Loren Sattler]

Can you find a paper that acts contrasty? I use Ilford MGIV RC for proofs. It is 1/2 to 1 grade softer than Ilford fiber Classic. Maybe someone here can offer a paper advice on paper that acts very contrasty?

 

[HowieP]

Can you find a paper that acts contrasty? I use Ilford MGIV RC for proofs. It is 1/2 to 1 grade softer than Ilford fiber Classic. Maybe someone here can offer a paper advice on paper that acts very contrasty?

I just picked up a box of Ilford Multigrade Cooltone RC Paper and, wow, is it contrasty. Even though I like prints with the contrast amped up a bit, I'm spending most of my darkroom time trying to tame the Cooltone contrast a bit.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Not sure if you mentioned what developer you are using but Dr. Beers two bath might help strengthen the blacks.

The Beer's formulas do not seem to work very well with modern papers. Any change in contrast is marginal at best.

Judging from the description of the negative that the OP is trying to print it might be better to intensify it first. Before choosing an intensifier it is necessary to determine whether the negative is under-exposed or under-developed or both. There are 3 basic types of intensifiers: proportional, sub-proportional, and super-proportional. Each treats a specific problem. However none will create shadow detail where none exists. So no matter which method is used; a harder paper or intensification the OP may wind up with empty blacks in any print.

 

[M Carter]

Another option if you're equipped - make an SCIM mask (google it). You'd need some litho film and a way to register it (glass neg carrier, tape, push pins, but "ghetto" registration is covered around the the web).

 

[cliveh]

What type of enlarger are you using? Diffuser, condenser, point source?

 

[Jim Noel]

I'd rather not modify the negative, I'd rather do it in the print.

Then you should have exposed and developed the negative correctly rather than putting your question on here.

 

[vdonovan]

Then you should have exposed and developed the negative correctly rather than putting your question on here.

As noted above, I developed the film in beer. North Coast Brewing Company's Old Rasputin Imperial Stout, to be exact. Is that not correct?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

As noted above, I developed the film in beer. North Coast Brewing Company's Old Rasputin Imperial Stout, to be exact. Is that not correct?

That is your problem right there. You should have used Bud Light. Everyone knows p!ss will develop film....

You are on the right track. Sometimes though you can't really make a good print straight away. If it were me I would print it for the black then use a dilute bleach to gradually bleach back the highlights. One thing you can try doing is making a pencil mask for the highlights. Basically this involves taking frosted mylar and taping it over the negative carrier. Put the carrier on a lightbox then lightly pencil in the areas you want to dodge. I tape the neg into the carrier as well. Might just be enough to get you through.

 

[Vaughn]

That's the problem -- drink a few pints of that great beer, then in a short while (no pun intetended, of course), you'll have your developer!