How can I get a bit more contrast?

[vdonovan]

I'm printing a very thin flat negative. With a short exposure time, even under a #5 contrast filter, the shadows are not *quite* dark enough. I can't give it more exposure in that the highlights will turn muddy.

How can my shadows get a little bit more black, either in the printing process or by treating the print afterward?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Have to tried toning or intensifying the negative?

 

[vdonovan]

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

 

[jimjm]

Vince -

Using standard developers and papers, there's probably not much more than you can do if the print can't be helped by selective burning and dodging. Obviously, there won't be any way to recover shadow detail that would have been in the negative with a normal exposure. Toning the print in selenium may intensify the darker tones a bit. You may want to consider a Lith print, which only requires lith paper and developer. This may give you a satisfactory alternative to a muddy print (been there, done that) and here's a good tutorial if you're not familiar with the process:
Dead Link Removed

Good Luck!

 

[silveror0]

Vince, you might try the split-grade printing technique. It's described very well in Way Beyond Monochrome Ed.2; here's a link to the chapter on basics: http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/WBM2/TOC_files/BasicSplitGradePrintingEd2.pdf

 

[MattKing]

Selective bleaching of the print may help a bit with too dark, muddy highlights.

 

[Vaughn]

Punt...

 

[bence8810]

I'd bleach as well. Print on Grade5 so that the black are black and then bleach. Usually highlights bleach faster than black and you need to be quick to grab it from the bleach when it's nearly ready - it will bleach a little more even after removed.

Good luck! Last resort would be the selective bleaching with a brush...
Ben

 

[bernard_L]

you might try the split-grade printing technique

?? The OP states that he has maxed out with the #5 filter. Plus, split grade printing achieves the same end results as normal printing, just in a different way that some find more convenient.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Split-grade printing won't help if you're already using the #5 filter. What might help is a #47 blue filter, which will ensure that you're getting only blue light to your print and therefore max contrast from the VC paper.

One of the first things I'd try, however, would be to expose and develop a print with your safelights off to ensure that you're not getting lower contrast due to safelight fog.

Also, some brands of paper are contrastier than others. You might try another paper if you have one.



Other things to try:
Stronger, higher-contrast developer. Straight Dektol or LPD will give a tad more contrast than diluted. Intensifying a negative is not so difficult. If you have a neg developed in a non-staining developer, a 5-minute treatment in selenium toner diluted 1+2 will give you a 1/2 to 1 step contrast increase. This is very gratifying sometimes. If you have a pyro-developed negative, then bleach/redevelop is the way to go.

Selenium toning the print will bring up the D-max a little. Print for the whites and tone a print and see if it helps enough.

Bleach in a rehalogenating bleach of potassium ferricyanide and potassium bromide until the silver image is completely gone (only a faint dye image will remain). Then, redevelop the negative to completion in a staining developer (e.g., PMK, Pyrocat). This will add stain image to the redeveloped silver image giving more contrast. This technique is gratifying to use as well.

Bleaching highlights as mentioned above can give more contrast to a print and is a good tool, especially if there are only a few areas of real highlights that can easily be bleached up locally (clouds, specular highlights, etc.).

There are other intensifiers, but they are more toxic and less predictable; I don't use them.

Best,

Doremus

 

[markbarendt]

I'm printing a very thin flat negative. With a short exposure time, even under a #5 contrast filter, the shadows are not *quite* dark enough. I can't give it more exposure in that the highlights will turn muddy.

How can my shadows get a little bit more black, either in the printing process or by treating the print afterward?

Burn and dodge

 

[darkroommike]

Try copying the negative, if you put the negative against a black background with only top lighting you get a positive image. This is how the ambrotype worked. Or make a low contrast positive print and then copy the print and develop the negative to a higher contrast.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

 

[MattKing]

I have old Ilford filters set where it goes up to #7.

Is this the "Spinal Tap" solution?
To the OP: If it makes you feel any better, most of us have been where you are now, and may end up there again.
Vaughn's suggestion may end up being the best one.

 

[Vaughn]

Is this the "Spinal Tap" solution?
...

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.

 

[Arvee]

Burn and dodge

Right answer! That's how AA solved that problem.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Mmm... AA first got the visual data on film.

 

[markbarendt]

Mmm... AA first got the visual data on film.

Moonrise was improperly exposed, under as I remember so ...

 

[darkroommike]

AA early on used Mercury intensifiers but was using Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner as a more benign intensifier later on, I recall reading (sorry, no citation) that he used KRST on the "Moonrise" negative to get a bit more oomph for later prints. Examples: the Making of 40 Prints I think is where I read it first.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Is this the "Spinal Tap" solution?
To the OP: If it makes you feel any better, most of us have been where you are now, and may end up there again.
Vaughn's suggestion may end up being the best one.

No idea what you are talking about and "Punt". Scanning is for total losers, BTW.

 

[Vaughn]

Spinal Tap -- "Goes to 11"

Scanning is for grocery stores...

Ansel used Kodak toner formula IN-5, a silver-based toner. He did write he wished he had given the film an additional half-stop exposure...not quite as much of a problem as the OP has with his negative. But I get the impression the extra half stop would have just made it an easier negative to print to get the image he was after (as did the partial intensifing)...he did not have to give any tonal quality up to pull the print off.

 

[MattKing]

No idea what you are talking about and "Punt".

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

 

[mike c]

Spinal Tap, that guy is dense, but what do you expect from a Rock and Roll guitar player.

 

[Vaughn]

It is the classic mockumentry of a rock band.

I have selenium toned the upper half of a 4x10 negative. The results were not dramatic, but just what I needed to balance to tonalities of the two negative halves. The bottom half was the Merced River with snow and the far bank, and the upper half was the woods.

 

[vdonovan]

Thanks all for your comments. I worked on the print today using a combination of methods suggested:
1. The spinal tap method: I tried stacking two #5 filters in the filter drawer. Compared to a print made with a regular #5, it did seem to give a tiny bit more black, though not much. It definitely didn't yield a #10 filter...
2. Developer concentration, temperature, and agitation: I doubled the concentration of the developer (Ilford Multigrade), brought it up to 70 degrees, and agitated briskly. This also helped a little.
3. Selenium toning: six minutes in a 1:20 concentration. This also helped a little, not a lot.

All three together gave me a better print. While it's not as contrasty as I'd like, it is acceptable. This is a portrait of a friend who has passed away. His family saw a scan and has requested a print, so I'd like it to be a good one. The negative is thin because the film was developed in my friend's favorite beer, as an experiment in alternative developers. It turned out to be one of the last photos taken of him.