How to get those velvet blacks

FL at CC · Jun 13, 2020

Hey everyone!

Just looking for some good advice/opinion on how to get those really pleasing velvet blacks which really make a good fibre based print look it's best. I've come to realize that my blacks aren't that great, compared with other photographers I know and works I admire.

I typically use between grade 2 and 4 contrast (using grade 2 and 2 1/2 lately). My preferred developer is Bromophen 1:3 at 22-23 deg C with around 80ml of sodium carbonate solution for black boost. Paper stock is Fomabrom 111. There's never been a problem with image tone, rendering etc - just the blacks are only 80 per cent there. Even after using a 1:9 selenium they don't really seem to improve, it doesn't have that nicely deep and immersive tone.

I've considered making up some Ansco 130 as I've heard many good things - would this be a good starting point? Any recommendations will be super appreciated!

Warm regards and have a great weekend!

NB23 · Jun 14, 2020

Are you comparing and judging the prints from those you admire by looking at them Live or on the internet?

About blacks, I’ve noticed that the fresher the paper, the blacker are the blacks. I’ve used some papers that were so fresh that I felt the blacks were out of control, but it was amazing.

Are your papers very fresh?

FL at CC · Jun 14, 2020

The prints I'm comparing are for the most part those I've seen in person (i.e mounted and hung).

In terms of the paper freshness it's mostly a mixed bag, some is around a year old and others used are brand new and opened for the first time.

FL at CC · Jun 14, 2020

Does increasing the paper grade have a drastic influence on the blacks? Or is it mostly a case of simply getting the exposure/development down pat?

jimjm · Jun 14, 2020

Personally, I've found that having a well-exposed negative goes a long way towards getting rich, deep blacks while also maintaining mid-tones and highlights in the print. This can have a bigger impact than changing papers or developer.
I can often get similar results from different papers, once my contrast settings are dialed in. Not to say that certain papers and developers can't make a difference also.
Increasing paper grades/contrast can deepen the dark tones, but you may lose mid-tones and detail in the highlights.
A big part is also the quality of light in the original scene. If you've got a flat lighting situation, it's going to be tougher to get deep tones in the shadows.
Both of these prints were on Ilford MG FB paper. developed in Ilford MG developer. Both were printed at about grade 3 in a diffusion enlarger, and it was fairly easy to get dense blacks without much fuss or manipulation.

grain elevator · Jun 14, 2020

FL at CC said:
Does increasing the paper grade have a drastic influence on the blacks? Or is it mostly a case of simply getting the exposure/development down pat?

Yes and no. Different grades should be capable of the same blacks, but if your grade is too low for your negative, you might make a prints without or only tiny areas of real black.
Are you agitating while developing? Is your developer not too cold? Are you developing to completion? Prints need to be developed until there's no more visible change, and then some more because you can't see that well under safe light! The result of taking prints out of the developer when they look about right is usually weak black. Develop a test strip in room light for 5 minutes, then you'll know what blacks your paper is capable of.
Another possibility is that you're using matte or satin paper, those don't go as deeply black as glossy papers.

FL at CC · Jun 14, 2020

grain elevator said:
Yes and no. Different grades should be capable of the same blacks, but if your grade is too low for your negative, you might make a prints without or only tiny areas of real black.
Are you agitating while developing? Is your developer not too cold? Are you developing to completion? Prints need to be developed until there's no more visible change, and then some more because you can't see that well under safe light! The result of taking prints out of the developer when they look about right is usually weak black. Develop a test strip in room light for 5 minutes, then you'll know what blacks your paper is capable of.
Another possibility is that you're using matte or satin paper, those don't go as deeply black as glossy papers.

My thoughts exactly - I typically develop no less than 3 1/2 minutes and onward (falling short of overdeveloping the print at risk of looking muddy). I also go as warm as 25 deg C in the developer. I'm using both a combination of glossy and matt papers in this case. In recent times I'm trying to avoid resorting to increasing the paper grade to encourage me to think more of my development as opposed to playing with exposure/grade excessively.

Doremus Scudder · Jun 14, 2020

I agree with the above. Your problem is likely an underexposed negative (or possibly underdeveloped), not your printing. If you have good contrast in the midtones, try giving your film another 2/3 stop exposure (i.e., rate the film two film-speed numbers slower), make a few negatives and print them.

FWIW, I use Bromophen (or ID-62 mixed from scratch) and Foma 111 (along with many other papers) all the time and get good blacks.

Remember, black in a print is easy, just expose longer. However, if everything else is too dark and muddy when you do that, then the negative is the problem.

Best,

Doremus

George Collier · Jun 15, 2020

Do you know for a fact that the paper (and developer) you are using can produce a deeper black?
Are the prints you are comparing yours to prints of the same paper?
Also, selenium toning can deepen the sense of black in some papers.

NB23 · Jun 15, 2020

Fresh developer, Fresh paper, the kind of paper (i highly recommebd ilford art 300 for this look), Good printing skills (burning in all the blacks), contribute to healthy blacks.

Anecdote: as I was printing, the lightbulb in my focomat IIc died. I changed it for a fresh bumb. What happened next was quite amazing: the subsequent prints showed higher contrast and, especially, all the prints required twice less exposure. This meant that over time a lightbulb loses intensity, and that intensity works on the contrast.

If you want optimal Settings, use a NEW lightbulb. The one you are presently using might be well past its optimal stage.

craigclu · Jun 15, 2020

My blacks improved after switching to 130 with benzotriazole as the restrainer. Evan Clarke had posted his experience with it and I found it to work, too. I mix the benzo in alcohol at 1% for easier dosing. Hopefully, a paste from my spreadsheet will not scramble here:

Water at 125° F 750 ml
Metol 2.2 g
Sodium Sulfite 50 g
Hydroquinone 11 g
Sodium Carbonate 80 g
Benzotriazole 1% 15 ml
Glycin 11 g
Water to make 1000 ml

John Bragg · Jun 16, 2020

Probably preaching to the converted, but keeping the taking and enlarging lens clean is important. Also use a lens hood even when you don't think you need one. Keeping flare at bay this way is an often overlooked way to keep contrast up.

craigclu · Jun 16, 2020

John Bragg said:
Probably preaching to the converted, but keeping the taking and enlarging lens clean is important. Also use a lens hood even when you don't think you need one. Keeping flare at bay this way is an often overlooked way to keep contrast up.

I was helping to resurrect our local high school darkroom some years back and was pleased with the decent equipment that had been kept intact and awaiting new users. Everything looked pristine and had been covered so it wasn't even very dusty. A first session had me disappointed with the bland, flat prints that were being produced. For the next session, I brought some personal enlarging lenses and the results were dramatically better from those optics. The school's enlarging lenses were all decent 6 element German (Rodagon and Componon S) and at my cursory glance, seemed clean and new appearing. When inspected with strong point-source lighting, a very, very faint haze was apparent. It drove home to me the major effect that even minimal flare could have on printing.

bernard_L · Jun 16, 2020

craigclu said:
It drove home to me the major effect that even minimal flare could have on printing.

Yes, but wen printing, lens flare affects the (print's) highlights; while the thread's topic is about the blacks.

markbau · Jun 16, 2020

This probably doesn't need to be said but unless you are printing on gloss paper you aren't going to get great blacks, laws of physics!

George Collier · Jun 16, 2020

One other thing, about flare - as mentioned above. I always wear black clothing when printing. Your body can reflect light from the easel back to it.
Also, all the walls around the enlarger area are best painted black, etc.

logan2z · Jun 16, 2020

George Collier said:
Also, all the walls around the enlarger area are best painted black, etc.

I considered doing that but I wasn't sure if that would really have any practical benefit. Also, it could prove damaging to my health since my dry space is in a spare bedroom and my wife may not take too kindly to me painting the walls black in there I may try some flat black paper that can easily be removed, however.

jimjm · Jun 16, 2020

logan2z said:
I considered doing that but I wasn't sure if that would really have any practical benefit. Also, it could prove damaging to my health since my dry space is in a spare bedroom and my wife may not take too kindly to me painting the walls black in there I may try some flat black paper that can easily be removed, however.

I bought several large sheets of black foamcore board and cut them to size to cover the walls closest to the enlarger. Easy to cut holes to fit for outlets, switches, etc. You can use some pieces of blue painters tape to hold them to the walls without damaging the paint.

grain elevator · Jun 16, 2020

Black walls and clothes will help the highlights, if anything. I wouldn't worry about it, but include it in your safelight test (do it with the enlarger on for your usual print times). I have found a lot of visible reflection has little effect, I like to preflash paper anyway, so I'll just need to preflash a bit less if I get concurrent flashing from reflections. But if you need the steepest of highlight gradations, it might be more critical.

MattKing · Jun 16, 2020

Burlap or anything else with a darkish, non-shiny surface will work fine.

George Collier · Jun 17, 2020

Velvet like fabric is best for reflection, but any fabric can generate dust.
I like the foamcore idea, dull the surface with steel wool if needed.

bernard_L · Jun 17, 2020

Once again. (post #14 above, seems ignored). The last 7-8 posts revolve on eliminating enlarger and darkroom flare. Yes, that is important. But not for what is the OP's question and the thread's title. The prime victim of enlarger flare is highlight integrity on the print.

NB23 · Jun 17, 2020

A lot of good info seems to be ignored.

But then again, we are talking about a bedroom makeshift darkroom, therefore the printmaking will never be of very high quality. Like operating a bike repair shop in the middle of a hairdressing salon.

KenS · Jun 17, 2020

My 'first' thoughts might be that you film is somewhat under-developed such that you are not getting enough 'density'
in the lighter areas to 'create' the difference you need to see in the final print.

Ken

Ron789 · Jun 17, 2020

Have you ever tested the paper/developer/process you use?
I suggest: take a small test strip, turn on the white light in your darkroom, expose it for a few minutes, keep all the light on, develop the test strip. The result will be the deepest black that your paper/developer/process can produce.
Is that the kind of black you're looking for, but never get in your prints? Then there is work to do on your negatives and exposure/ contrast etc.
Is the test strip not black enough? Then you need to look for improvements in paper/developer/process.

How to get those velvet blacks

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency