How to control the contrast of graded paper?

[Graham06]

I am the happy owner of a box of Bergger Silver Supreme Portrait Mat paper and I love it. I just did a contrast test using a Stouffer step wedge, and it is a lot "faster" than Ilford Warmtone FB. I developed it in Ilford Warmtone developer 1+9 dilution, and then tried two day old 1+19 developer. The contrast was noticeably different ( got about 2ish more non-black wedges ) and now I wonder what other tricks there are for contrast control.

I was assuming I would just have to take photos that print well at grade 2 ( or whatever the paper is) but it looks like I have a few more options. So:
How does one further control contrast in graded paper?
( developer dilution it seems.
maybe different developers?
can one mess with the negative somehow?
does one ever make multiple intermediate negatives with different contrast?)
How do I give the various contrasts I discover the right number? (e.g is "grade 3" a well defined thing?) I just received my new Printalyser Densitometer, so the answer is probably in the exposure math I have to learn to take best advantage of it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Ansel Adams' The Print has a description of various methods of changing the contrast of paper. Don't expect too much control, though.

 

[MarkS]

I found the most effective way to deal with this issue was to have two different developers in the sink line.
One, your normal print developer. Two, a low-contrast paper developer like Ansco 120 or (long-gone) Kodak Selectol-Soft. Develop your print in the regular developer; review. If too contrasty, try one minute in each developer. If still too contrasty, two minutes in the low-contrast developer. Vary as necessary to get the result you want.
Photographer's Formulary offers several low-contrast print developers, of course you could mix your own.

 

[Bill Burk]

A lot of negatives print well on Grade 2.

Keep a stock of multigrade for the others.

You will be able to figure out which of your favorites print well. And you’ll be able to make new ones that do - using the P-D

 

[Pieter12]

I’m not sure if they are still available, but there used to be some paper developers that would print harder or softer. Diane Arbus used a combination of developers to achieve different contrast from her negatives.

 

[koraks]

can one mess with the negative somehow?

Sure. Bleach, or intensify. It's a bit haphazard, mostly, though. Usually it's a better bet to aim for a specific density range in making the negative from the get go.

(e.g is "grade 3" a well defined thing?)

Yes, and no. Paper grade correlates to ISO-R, but there's a bandwidth and manufacturers use their own definitions mostly. One manufacturer's grade 4 may be another's grade 3, for instance. A rule of thumb is that grade 3 is ISO-R 70-90 (see e.g. https://www.rogerandfrances.com/paper-grades/). This means a negative contrast range of 0.70 logD to 0.90 logD, i.e. 2 1/3 to 3 or so stops, or roughly 1:5 to 1:8.

 

[BMbikerider]

When I started printing ... ahem!... Last century (1960's) when graded papers were still king, we had to learn a lot and develop skills involving dodging, and burning in to get the results we wanted. Then there was the techniques of pre flashing, or using neat developer applied by a 1" paint brush to coax out reluctant highlights, or plain water baths to hold back deep shadows.

The simple graded emulsions of the older papers were very good and did and would take a lot more abuse than even the current MG ones. Really dense blacks - I mean on the lines of a 'black cat in cellar type of black' and pure white highlights.
Papers from the likes of Agfa were superb, those from Kodak such as warm tone Bromesko were wonderful there was never anything like them before or since. The main downside was, if you tried to 'push develop' and over 'cook' them by more than a couple of minutes, the paper would stain very badly. With MG This is a distant memory.

I found that at that time, Ilford graded papers were for me, in the 'also ran' category, but with the advent of MG types that all gradually changed.

 

[Castrillo]

I agree with MarkS and there is also this formula: Dr. Roland F. Beers, which is another version of the same thing.

 

[koraks]

I agree with MarkS and there is also this formula: Dr. Roland F. Beers, which is another version of the same thing.

For those wondering about this; Photographer's Formula published a convenient pdf on this. The formulas of the developer are also posted on various other online outlets.

https://www.digitaltruth.com/products/photoformulary_tech/Dr.%20Beers%20Variable%20Contrast%20Paper%20Developer%20[02-0120].pdf

Welcome to Photrio @Castrillo ! Looking forward to seeing your further contributions!

 

[TomR55]

I wonder how responsive today's papers are to Beers and its variations. Many years ago, I printed on Kodak Elite and Oriental Seagull papers. I used a variation on Dr. Beers--I think it was called Dr. Pratts?. Using various ratios of Parts A & B, I might have been able to achieve 1/3 to 1/2 a grade. But, from what I'm reading in current discussions, modern papers might not respond as dramatically to this method.

 

[soysos]

Contrast control developer. One I’m familiar with is ID-14. I use VC paper, but find that it works well to compensate for some minor light leaks in my darkroom. Anyway, the more you dilute it, the less contrast you’ll have. So at 1:2 it’ll develop at box grade. 1:3 reduces contrast by 1 grade, 1:1 increases it by one grade.

 

[faberryman]

I haven't used graded papers in a long time. When I did, to adjust contrast, I used the next grade up or down, or if between grades, a lower contrast developer. At the time, I developed in Dektol and Selectol-Soft. I moved pretty quickly to variable contrast paper.

 

[jtk]

Masking, flashing, and of course adjustment using you-know-what.

 

[GregY]

Back in the graded paper era, i used two trays of developer, Dektol and Selectol-Soft. Even when fine quality VC papers came into existence (One of my big favourites was Brilliant when it was produced in France by Guiilemot & Boespflug), I still used graded papers as well. When the negative and paper match, ....the results can be top notch. My last two top favourite papers were Forte Fortezo graded (also used by Jay Dusard) and Ilford Galerie. I still have some of each and develop them in Ansco 130.

 

[snusmumriken]

I was recently flicking through an old darkroom notebook and was stunned to discover that 25 years ago I was routinely using Dektol and Selectol-Soft to tweak the contrast of graded Foma or Oriental Seagull paper. I had forgotten everything about it. Seems to have worked, though: I can match, but not improve on, those prints using MG paper.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You don't need to get fancy with developers. Ansco 120 works well and is a good start but if you need more than that to decrease contrast there are other ways.

One is to use stand development. Put the print in the developer and leave it sit. It is the simplest method.

You can overexpose the print then pull it early. Doing this will decrease contrast and will also typically warm the print tone. You won't make it to max black though and it is difficult to get two prints exactly the same.

Another is to use water bath development. Put the print in the developer for a bit then move it to a water bath and let it sit. You can go back and forth until the print is acceptable. You'll need to experiment. This method extends the time you spend developing the print by quite a bit.

You could also try a SLIMT bleach. That would do it too but that is more complicated. It works by printing for the highlights then bleaching in a super dilute bleach before developing the print. The bleach acts on the latent image opening up the shadows.

You could also try contrast masking but that is a pain and time consuming. I avoid it. On the upside, you only have to do it once.

It is more difficult to increase contrast in my experience. Using a strong developer and decreasing the exposure only gets you so far and it usually isn't much.

 

[pentaxuser]

You could also try a SLIMT bleach. That would do it too but that is more complicated. It works by printing for the highlights then bleaching in a super dilute bleach before developing the print. The bleach acts on the latent image opening up the shadows.

Tim Rudman describes this in his Master Printing Course book( one of the best printing books I have read) and he gives some specific guidance in how to do it. He shows examples as well which I have always found amazing. It doesn't sound as if it is that difficult but I have never tried it

If anyone is committed to single grade paper or has some then it is worth considering. What it does not do as far as I can tell from Tim Rudman's description is increase the grade so if you have grade 3 paper then it will reduce that to grades 2,1 and 0 but not get you to grades 4 and 5

pentaxuser

 

[Graham06]

Ansel Adams' The Print has a description of various methods of changing the contrast of paper. Don't expect too much control, though.

Thanks all for the helpful replies.

I just looked through that chapter, and in addition to the suggestions in this thread, he mentions using the ratio of mid-tone emergence time to full development time (he calls it the factorial system) as a way to control contrast a little and also to help keep conditions similar across the replacement of aging developer:
you note the emergence time and if you want higher contrast, develop longer ( use a higher factor) or less time for lower contrast.

He also mentions paper flashing as a way to control contrast, in addition to using different developers to get slightly different contrast

 

[DREW WILEY]

Within reason, longer paper development will increase contrast. Also a certain amount of control is possible in toning. Ansel taught exposing and developing the neg itself to match the paper grade (Zone System); and other than resorting to Selectol soft or two-bath development, didn't get into more sophisticated controls like masking. Today we have a much better selection of VC papers, and very few graded options. And even back when we did have a big selection of excellent graded papers, they differed brand to brand between what this or that specific grade actually meant. For example, right now I'm working with my last stash of graded paper and it's EMaks Gr 2, but about the same contrast as most Gr 3 papers from other former manufacturers, including Ilfobrom Galerie, Seagull G, and Brilliant Bromide.

The problem with less aggressive or softer developers is that they also induce warmer image tones. I never did like the greenish Dektol or Selectol tinge in many of AA's prints.

 

[Graham06]

Ansel taught exposing and developing the neg itself to match the paper grade (Zone System);

I know I don't have the skill to make all my negative hit the right grade exactly, but it occurs to me that another option I have if I am taking a photo I hope to print on my Bergger paper is to take multiple photos at different exposures. Makes it more likely that one of them will land at the right contrast. Not ideal, but might sometimes be helpful.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Exposure alone doesn't determine contrast; development does. So, make multiple negatives of the same scene, develop one, print it and then, if it doesn't fit the paper contrast range well, develop another one fore more or less time as indicated by the print and try that. Refine with the third neg if you have one.

Do try the Beer's or the two-developer (one hard, one soft-working) for intermediate contrast. If you're just making one print, Beer's works well; you start soft and add the hard stock solution as needed to get the contrast you need. With two developers, you simply vary the time in the first, softer, developer and the second, contrastier one. You don't need Dektol or Selectol Soft specifically, just about any combination of hard and soft-working developers will do the job.

An occasional negative intensification in selenium toner can be gratifying. This works on just about any negative except those developed in PMK and some other staining developers. Five minutes in selenium toner diluted 1+9 or a bit stronger gives about a Zone contrast increase.

The above tools and the Zone System were all I ever needed for 99% of my printing when I worked regularly with graded papers.

Best,

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

The ZS, in its many renditions, works best with sheet films because you can develop each of them differently if needed, or in similar batches. But when you shoot a roll film, there is frequently going to be a shot or two out of step with the others; and that's why variable contrast papers are such a blessing.

Bracketing exposures using sheet film gets expensive fast; and outdoors at least, the nature of light,clouds, and winds might shift too fast to even allow it. With roll film and MF gear, it's more realistic. But once you find your groove, bracketing is rarely needed
anyway, unless you're testing some new film or developer.

 

[jtk]

The ZS, in its many renditions, works best with sheet films because you can develop each of them differently if needed, or in similar batches. But when you shoot a roll film, there is frequently going to be a shot or two out of step with the others; and that's why variable contrast papers are such a blessing.

Bracketing exposures using sheet film gets expensive fast; and outdoors at least, the nature of light,clouds, and winds might shift too fast to even allow it. With roll film and MF gear, it's more realistic. But once you find your groove, bracketing is rarely needed
anyway, unless you're testing some new film or developer.

ZS does classically relate most easily to sheet film (that's what teachers like to say) but roll film including 35mm does also allow individual-roll zone treatment. As well, neither masking nor flashing call for sheet film. .

 

[Graham06]

An occasional negative intensification in selenium toner can be gratifying. This works on just about any negative except those developed in PMK and some other staining developers. Five minutes in selenium toner diluted 1+9 or a bit stronger gives about a Zone contrast increase.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that. That is a helpful thing to remember in other circumstances too.

 

[DREW WILEY]

jtk - I'm multi-format myself, though was exclusively large format for three decades. But sheet film does have real advantages, not only in being able to develop each sheet as needed; but IF on dimensionally-stable PET base (versus acetate), it's far more appropriate in relation to masking or any other kind of registered printing. Acetate film base, which most roll film is, and at least some color sheet films, can sometimes be hell to work with if masking is involved. But that's sorta an advanced topic beyond this thread itself.