How can I get a bit more contrast?

River Eucalyptus

H
River Eucalyptus

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Musician

A
Musician

  • 1
  • 0
  • 33
Your face (in it)

H
Your face (in it)

  • 0
  • 0
  • 48
A window to art

D
A window to art

  • 3
  • 0
  • 51

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
199,250
Messages
2,788,563
Members
99,843
Latest member
nemo6168
Recent bookmarks
0

vdonovan

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
607
Location
San Francisco
Format
Traditional
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

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Have to tried toning or intensifying the negative?
 

jimjm

Subscriber
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
1,228
Location
San Diego CA
Format
Multi Format
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!
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Selective bleaching of the print may help a bit with too dark, muddy highlights.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,125
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Punt...
 

bence8810

Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
377
Location
Tokyo
Format
Multi Format
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
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
3,596
Location
Eugene, Oregon
Format
4x5 Format
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

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,728
Location
Iowa
Format
Multi Format
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.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
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

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
I have old Ilford filters set where it goes up to #7.
Is this the "Spinal Tap" solution? :whistling:
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

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,125
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Is this the "Spinal Tap" solution? :whistling:
...
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.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
Mmm... AA first got the visual data on film. :smile:
 

darkroommike

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,728
Location
Iowa
Format
Multi Format
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.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
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. :whistling:
 
Last edited:

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,125
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Spinal Tap -- "Goes to 11"

Scanning is for grocery stores...:cool:

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.
 
Last edited:

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,277
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

mike c

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
2,863
Location
Los Angeles
Format
Multi Format
Spinal Tap, that guy is dense, but what do you expect from a Rock and Roll guitar player.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,125
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
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.
 
OP
OP

vdonovan

Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
607
Location
San Francisco
Format
Traditional
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.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom