How important is it to have the correct Chem temperature for contact prints

[ndwgolf]

When making contact prints, is it important to have the developer and fixer at 20 deg, like developing film??

Neil

 

[voceumana]

Not as important as the film--you can always reprint a negative but you can only develop the film once.

Usually room temperature is adequate--68 to 76 F, 20 to 24 C. I tried to develop a print in a very hot darkroom, near 38C and I had to shorten the developing time to about 20 seconds--it's the only time I've seen the grain in paper.

If you have to be very far from 20 to 24 C, I'd suggest looking for a specialized developer. It is more important that the fixer be at the same temperature (or very close) than for it to be at 20 C.

 

[bvy]

Contact prints or enlargements, the process is the same. Temperature is less critical as development is more or less to completion.This assumes you're using traditional, off-the-shelf materials. Follow the manufacturer's recommendations.

 

[removed account4]

it depends on the developer
some are "optimized" at 68ºF
ansco130 ( contains glycin ) works
best at 72ºF ..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Not as import as with film. One has a lot more temperature latitude. I never worry about it with black & white prints. All the chemicals temperature should be about the same.

 

[Leigh B]

It's important to keep all solutions at the same temperature throughout the process.

It's desirable, but not essential, to keep that temperature at the recommended value.

- Leigh

 

[eddie]

I think it's important, if you want the proofs to give you information for later enlarging. While a few degrees shouldn't matter, it helps if you make "proper proofs". Same temp, same fstop, same enlarger height. Once you make a "proper proof" subsequent contact sheets will yield a lot of information. My enlarger column is marked, so each sheet is the same distance away from the light source every time. It will only take a few sheets to nail down your proofing time (which is minimum time to maximum black, using the area between your negatives). Well worth the effort, in my opinion.

 

[Maris]

When making contact prints, is it important to have the developer and fixer at 20 deg, like developing film??

Neil

No. Paper must be developed to completion. "Pulling" the paper before it has fully developed is a mistake. Completion is seen when more development does not cause any further change in the image. In ordinary darkroom work this happens in one or two or three minutes depending on your paper, developer, and temperature. Very extended development, five or ten minutes or more, just builds fog and is not ordinarily useful. Temperature control is irrelevant for developing paper. Temperature control for developing film is not as precise and easy as changing the developing time to compensate for different temperatures. It is good to have all processing solutions at about the same temperature.

 

[eddie]

I have to disagree, Maris. "Completion" will take longer at 15C than at 30C. If you always use 20C (or thereabouts) for all your printing, (both proofs and prints), "completion" will be consistent as a matter of time, rather than the inconsistency which a visual evaluation will introduce. Making a proper proof isn't difficult and, like everything else in our form of photography, consistency and reproducibility is the key to freeing ourselves from the technical so we can focus on the aesthetic.

 

[removed account4]

I think it's important, if you want the proofs to give you information for later enlarging. While a few degrees shouldn't matter, it helps if you make "proper proofs". Same temp, same fstop, same enlarger height. Once you make a "proper proof" subsequent contact sheets will yield a lot of information. My enlarger column is marked, so each sheet is the same distance away from the light source every time. It will only take a few sheets to nail down your proofing time (which is minimum time to maximum black, using the area between your negatives). Well worth the effort, in my opinion.

exactly

when you want to be able to be consistent and REPEAT your printing sequence, whether it is a sheet of negatives or a 8x10 print ..
its best to have a routine that is the same. depending on the dilution of your developer and the type of paper ( rc/fb &c. ) your print may take different times to
fully develop. a lot of people leave their prints in the developer for too long thinking they are developing them the right amount of time because they
read how one should never pull a print out of the developer until it is developed to completion when they are really just turning all their whites to grey.
its like 1 min for RC prints and 2 min for FB ... not like 5 or 10 mins
developers work best at certain temperatures its might be best to read what the manufacturer suggests
rather than people on the internet ..

 

[eddie]

The question is, after carefully metering a scene, exposing the film, and carefully developing the film, why would you want to introduce an uncalibrated step into your workflow? Googling "proper photo proof procedure" will get you a quick and easy way to standardize this part of your regimen.

 

[BHuij]

I honestly don't bother even measuring my developer temperature. It's always just room temperature, which varies from usually low 60s in the winter to probably high 70s or low 80s in the summer. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

+1

 

[removed account4]

The question is, after carefully metering a scene, exposing the film, and carefully developing the film, why would you want to introduce an uncalibrated step into your workflow? Googling "proper photo proof procedure" will get you a quick and easy way to standardize this part of your regimen.

no kidding eddie
i mean there are people on this website who are control freaks about
virtually every aspect of making a photograph. and to think some
may suggest it doesn't matter what temperture your print making temperatures are.
sounds really strange and contradictory to me.
personal iso's zone system calibrations, densitometers, then
carefully meter a scene for an hour, wait for perfect light
then n+/- development in a regimen using upscale film processing equipment
or specialized developers and agitation schemes and to think that's the end of their
carefulness is kind of weird..
next thing you know they're going to use expired film and some crazy developer like coffee ...

 

[Arklatexian]

I think it's important, if you want the proofs to give you information for later enlarging. While a few degrees shouldn't matter, it helps if you make "proper proofs". Same temp, same fstop, same enlarger height. Once you make a "proper proof" subsequent contact sheets will yield a lot of information. My enlarger column is marked, so each sheet is the same distance away from the light source every time. It will only take a few sheets to nail down your proofing time (which is minimum time to maximum black, using the area between your negatives). Well worth the effort, in my opinion.

+1

 

[Arklatexian]

I think it's important, if you want the proofs to give you information for later enlarging. While a few degrees shouldn't matter, it helps if you make "proper proofs". Same temp, same fstop, same enlarger height. Once you make a "proper proof" subsequent contact sheets will yield a lot of information. My enlarger column is marked, so each sheet is the same distance away from the light source every time. It will only take a few sheets to nail down your proofing time (which is minimum time to maximum black, using the area between your negatives). Well worth the effort, in my opinion.

+1

 

[Maris]

I have to disagree, Maris. "Completion" will take longer at 15C than at 30C. If you always use 20C (or thereabouts) for all your printing, (both proofs and prints), "completion" will be consistent as a matter of time, rather than the inconsistency which a visual evaluation will introduce. ......

eddie is right, "completion" certainly takes longer at lower temperatures but I reckon the end result is the same if one has the patience and the attentiveness to watch the paper develop to the desired point. Consistency is important and temperature changes are not the only thing that can affect completion time. Any batch of developer loses strength with each sheet of paper. After the first sheet the second sheet will require a slightly longer developing time to "complete". And later sheets will need even more. The technical way around this inconsistency is factorial development attended by all its complications.

Why make things difficult? It could be argued that in a visual medium like photography the only thing that is infallibly valid at all times is visual evaluation itself. Otherwise why trust what we see?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

There are a couple of things to comment on here.

First, the temperature question: Most print developers work just fine over a fairly wide range of temperatures (say 18°C-25°C or so). As with all chemical reactions, the higher the temperature, the faster the reaction (in this case, development) will take place. So, for a given degree of paper development, times will vary with temperature. Summertime darkroom temps higher? - Develop less and vice versa. Zone VI made a nifty compensating development timer that adjusted the time automatically depending on temperature. It adjusted the length of the "seconds" shorter as the temp rose and longer as it fell, so one could simply develop for the same "time" on the clock regardless of temp. I have two of these that will only come up for sale some days after I die... if they can pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Next, the "proper proof": I make proper proofs (contact sheets) of all my negatives to have a record and to check exposure and development. However, I don't think arriving once at a proper-proofing time and then subsequently using that for all proofing is a good idea. I determine the time it takes to reach max black with a test strip each time I proof. This takes everything that might have changed since the last time I proofed into consideration, including the temperature of the developer...

Note: The OP is likely not "proofing" negatives, but interested in making finished contact prints from 8x10 negatives, in which case this entire discussion about proper proofing is superfluous.

Finally, we have "developing to completion": While I think this is a good term and points out well the difference between paper developing and film developing, it is not as cut and dried as many like to believe. First, "completion" here really means, "to a point where the contrast gradient of the paper is no longer changing rapidly." Note that max paper black depends on exposure, so developing to completion does not mean reaching max black. The point where contrast increase levels off is when the vast majority of the exposed silver halides have been reduced (developed) to metallic silver. It is worth noting, however, that extending development time past this point can have beneficial effects. Depending on the paper, you can get an increase in contrast or paper speed or both. Most modern papers (unfortunately) don't show an increase in contrast with extended development. Most do, however, show a definite speed increase for quite a while before the unexposed whites (e.g. print borders) begin to fog. I find this a wonderful tool for making small adjustments in print exposure (or, more accurately, paper speed) when printing. With fiber-base papers, I standardize on 2'30" development "time" (with my Comensating Enlarging Timer). If I feel the need to tweak exposure by a little, say 10% or less, then I'll usually just adjust the development time. Even 15 extra seconds often makes a noticeable difference. Two minutes is about minimum and 4-5 minutes is about tops for me, as fog usually starts to set in by then. Still, that's a rather large range of developing times and corresponding paper speeds to work with.

Try it sometime: make three identical prints and develop them for 2, 3 and 4 minutes and do a comparison.

Best,

Doremus

 

[eddie]

Why make things difficult? It could be argued that in a visual medium like photography the only thing that is infallibly valid at all times is visual evaluation itself. Otherwise why trust what we see?

I understand what you're saying but, I think, the ability to use a visual evaluation requires a lot of experience. Evaluating under a safe light isn't ideal. It also requires one to be able to accurately predict the effect of dry down changes.
If the OP is talking about proof sheets, absolute adherence to standardization is probably not necessary. If, as Doremus believes, the OP is referring to contact prints as the final work, consistency is very important (assuming he wants repeatability).

 

[Maris]

I understand what you're saying but, I think, the ability to use a visual evaluation requires a lot of experience. Evaluating under a safe light isn't ideal. It also requires one to be able to accurately predict the effect of dry down changes.....

Well said! I've been contacting out 8x10 negatives for about four decades and there is a learning curve especially in the first year. And safe light is truly bad for evaluating results. I use a dim incandescent bulb always at the same distance and the same angle to look at what's in the fixer tray. The inspection light is calibrated so that a contact that looks good wet under dim light will also look good in room light after it dries down.

 

[eddie]

Maris- I've been doing this for over 40 years too. I will also take liberties in areas experience has shown me I can. I got the impression this was all new to the OP, which is why I stressed my position on standardization.
In addition, consistently making proper proofs can inform one of other problems in the chain. I've been alerted to shutter problems because of unanticipated results in proofs.

 

[removed account4]

Maris- I've been doing this for over 40 years too. I will also take liberties in areas experience has shown me I can. I got the impression this was all new to the OP, which is why I stressed my position on standardization.
In addition, consistently making proper proofs can inform one of other problems in the chain. I've been alerted to shutter problems because of unanticipated results in proofs.

+ 1