How to get blacker blacks?

[stradibarrius]

Rather than chasing my tail I am going to mix some fresh Dektol and make the MAX black test strip so I have a base to start from.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Rather than chasing my tail I am going to mix some fresh Dektol and make the MAX black test strip so I have a base to start from.

Those are words of wisdom!

 

[tim rudman]

Rather than chasing my tail I am going to mix some fresh Dektol and make the MAX black test strip so I have a base to start from.

I only just came in on this but you MUST establish your max black with fresh chemicals and developed to completion (no early snatching) first.
then follow the excellent advice given for establishing correct contrast - or use split grading which will do that for you but is another technique you would have to learn.

If you still are not satisfied with the depth of blacks with that paper you can only change paper or dev (not likely to help much as you are using a good combo) - or intensify the print - not yet mentioned. This will give blacks to die for, but may have other effects too.

Tim

 

[jerry lebens]

David's advice is excellent.

However, I'd also check that you aren't contaminating your developer, by using poor technique ; that your enlarger isn't spilling light into the darkroom, thus degrading the contrast ; and, lastly, that your enlarger isn't spilling light into your darkroom, again degrading contrast.

Regards
Jerry

 

[jerry lebens]

Ooops! Sorry, didn't reread before posting!

Thirdly, check that your lens is clean and not diffusing light, again degrading contrast.

Regards
Jerry

 

[stradibarrius]

On the Dektol package, Kodak recommends 1 min for RC paper and 2 min for FB? What do you recommend? I have been using 3 min.

 

[glbeas]

That depends on the paper. Most RC brands will top out at a minute at the recommended temperature and will develop very little more. Highlight fogging can occur if overdone. FB papers I've developed 2 to 5 minutes depending on the brand. I like giving it more time than the spec sheets say, I find it gives the blacks a bit more depth on many papers.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

That depends on the paper. Most RC brands will top out at a minute at the recommended temperature and will develop very little more...

That's not my experience. I can't find a 'top out' point. In my tests development continued after the shadows reached Dmax. With midtones and highlights getting continuously darker. Dr. Henry has a graph in his book showing the effect. Highlight fogging happens after that. I think the term 'developing to completion' needs to be reconsidered.

...FB papers I've developed 2 to 5 minutes depending on the brand. I like giving it more time than the spec sheets say, I find it gives the blacks a bit more depth on many papers.

This is my experience too. Ilford, for example, told me that their spec was written for commercial labs, where speed is of the essence.

 

[tkamiya]

I think the term 'developing to completion' needs to be reconsidered.

I don't mean to contradict but wouldn't you say bulk of development process is done in first 30 seconds or less and after that, the rate of development slows down significantly? It looked as if at 60 seconds mark, the process has slowed to a point where it appear to have stopped.

I've tried 60 seconds and 90 seconds, and saw no difference. Then, I left the paper in for 10 minutes and saw a significant difference.

Thanks as always for your input!

 

[glbeas]

That's not my experience. I can't find a 'top out' point. In my tests development continued after the shadows reached Dmax. With midtones and highlights getting continuously darker. Dr. Henry has a graph in his book showing the effect. Highlight fogging happens after that. I think the term 'developing to completion' needs to be reconsidered.
.

Any recollection of which brands? The only RC I've used that didn't top out was the old Oriental paper, man that stuff was good!
Seems like the manufacturers have mediocracy as a goal, so many times something really good shows up it and gets killed after a while for some reason or another and the lesser products seem to just go on forever.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, maybe we need to define what is meant with 'top out' or 'develop to completion'. If it means 'reach Dmax', then yes, that does happen fairly quickly. However, if it means 'no further development' for any of the tones in a print, then no, I was never able to find the point in time when development stopped with RC or FB. It seems to continue beyond highlight fogging.

As one can see from the attached graphs, development actually never stops for any print tone that has not reached Dmax yet.

The attached test results are for Ilford MGIV-RC&FB, but I have done the same test with Agfa and Kodak papers with similar results.

 

[stradibarrius]

So my 3 min. sound about right or not long enough????

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So my 3 min. sound about right or not long enough????

3 minutes sounds about right for FB paper. I use Ilford MGIV-FB with factorial development for which I time the first appearance of midtones and multiply this time by a factor of 6 to find the total development time. Using this method, I usually end up with 3 minutes in fresh and up to 4 minutes in nearly exhausted developer. Factorial development is useful to compensate for developer exhaustion as well as for temperature fluctuations.

 

[Marco B]

As one can see from the attached graphs, development actually never stops for any print tone that has not reached Dmax yet.

The attached test results are for Ilford MGIV-RC&FB, but I have done the same test with Agfa and Kodak papers with similar results.

Very interesting Ralph, thanks for posting this, I didn't know this, or at least hadn't seen it so well shown.

However, two questions:

- To what extend might safelight fogging influence the results you graph out? Are these graphs from papers developed in absolute darkness? Considering no safelight is actually truly "safe", I would expect at least part of this issue related to slow safelight fogging with the extended times in the developer.

- Am I right the "0.00" value / line is for the "blacks", while subsequent higher numbers are the negative densities of the "highlights" in your graphs (just to make sure I do really interpret them right)?

Marco

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Very interesting Ralph, thanks for posting this, I didn't know this, or at least hadn't seen it so well shown.

However, two questions:

- To what extend might safelight fogging influence the results you graph out? Are these graphs from papers developed in absolute darkness? Considering no safelight is actually truly "safe", I would expect at least part of this issue related to slow safelight fogging with the extended times in the developer.

- Am I right the "0.00" value / line is for the "blacks", while subsequent higher numbers are the negative densities of the "highlights" in your graphs (just to make sure I do really interpret them right)?

Marco

Marco

Your interpretation of the values is correct. My (red) safelights are tested to be 'safe' for up to 32 minutes. These tests show developing times up to 6 minutes. Consequently, safelight fogging can be ignored.

 

[Marco B]

Marco

Your interpretation of the values is correct. My (red) safelights are tested to be 'safe' for up to 32 minutes. These tests show developing times up to 6 minutes. Consequently, safelight fogging can be ignored.

Ralph, thanks for the answer, your remark does make me ponder a bit on though.

I started thinking: in most cases, safe light testing is described by having a piece of DRY paper (so not lying in the developer) being exposed to the safe light's light for an extended period of time. This mimics working conditions during the exposure and any subsequent burning actions.

However, now wondering about it, how sensitive is paper to fogging while being submerged in the developer? I could imagine there is a difference... although I can't really remember ever having read about it.

Is there something you can say about it: fogging of a dry piece of paper versus fogging of a piece of photo paper emerged in developer, both receiving exactly the same amount of light?

Marco

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph, thanks for the answer, your remark does make me ponder a bit on though.

I started thinking: in most cases, safe light testing is described by having a piece of DRY paper (so not lying in the developer) being exposed to the safe light's light for an extended period of time. This mimics working conditions during the exposure and any subsequent burning actions.

However, now wondering about it, how sensitive is paper to fogging while being submerged in the developer? I could imagine there is a difference... although I can't really remember ever having read about it.

Is there something you can say about it: fogging of a dry piece of paper versus fogging of a piece of photo paper emerged in developer, both receiving exactly the same amount of light?

Marco

Marco

First of all, safelight testing is done with dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.

Now to your main question, dry vs wet. Try the following test. Exposed a dry piece of paper to what would result into a medium gray (most sensitive part of the characteristic curve). Then, place another piece into a shallow dish filled with water and let it soak for a few minutes before you give it the same exposure. Develop both. I did this with Ilford MGIV-RC and was not able to detect any difference.

That said, I have the habit to turn the paper face-down in the developer. Consequently, it is a bit more protected than usual.

 

[Ian Grant]

Aren't "dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper" the same thing ?

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Aren't "dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper" the same thing ?

Ian

Sorry if I didn't say it right.

First of all, safelight testing is done with dry, pre-exposed paper, because already exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.

in other words:

Safelight testing must be done with pre-exposed paper, because pre-exposed paper is more sensitive to additional exposures than unexposed paper.

 

[stradibarrius]

OK, I took the sage advice from this forum. Mixed fresh Dektol and did a test photo. It was the tried old Dektol that was killing me.
Of all of the prints I have done up to this point, last night was the first time I feel like I achieved "some" success. What do you think of the "print" ? The composition is fair but I think I achieved some good tonal values, enlarge focus etc.
No touch up of any kind has been done...this is a straight scan.

Learning to scan prints opposed to negatives needs some work...

Please C&C

 

[MattKing]

stradibarrius:

Looks good to me.

Most importantly, how does it look to you!

The scanning process can interfere with discussions of this type, but if I was going to evaluate the print itself, I would be looking at the following issues:

1) Are the details and contrast in the mid-tones pleasing to you;
2) Do the bright parts of the image "sparkle", with visible detail; and
3) Is there texture and detail in the shadows?

Matt

 

[kipkeston]

Would you mind showing us the original negative with the fresh batch of dektol?

OK, I took the sage advice from this forum. Mixed fresh Dektol and did a test photo. It was the tried old Dektol that was killing me.
Of all of the prints I have done up to this point, last night was the first time I feel like I achieved "some" success. What do you think of the "print" ? The composition is fair but I think I achieved some good tonal values, enlarge focus etc.
No touch up of any kind has been done...this is a straight scan.

Learning to scan prints opposed to negatives needs some work...

Please C&C