How to use water bath with AZO/Amidol for Contrast Control

[pawlowski6132]

OK, I'm starting to feel really stupid. I read Michael Smith's article, Ansel's coverage in The Negative and a few other articles and, I can't understand how to use a water bath to control print contrast.

My question is still...if I have a negative that does not print with enough contrast on Grade 2 paper, can I use a water bath to increase the contrast. If so, how?

Or, perhaps, that is not the purpose of the water bath.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and pity.

 

[payral]

Print four times the same negative on Lodima (same grade, same exposure time) and develop one 1 mn with Amidol, an another 45 sec in Amidol plus 15 sec water bath, next 30 sec in Amidol and 30 sec water bath and last one 15 sec in Amidol and 45 sec in water bath.
You will understand what's the use of water bath.

 

[c6h6o3]

My question is still...if I have a negative that does not print with enough contrast on Grade 2 paper, can I use a water bath to increase the contrast.

No. Water bath development only reduces contrast.

Michael says that you can increase it somewhat with Canadian Grade 2 Azo by developing it for up to 4 minutes, but I've never tried it. You might contact him for a better explanation. Better still, why not just buy some Grade 3 Lodima? In any case, I second Philippe's recommendation about the water bath contrast test. You'll see it immediately.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Water bath processing is for reducing contrast. What I do usually is develop until the image emerges and then move the print to the water bath and let it sit without agitation for twice the emergence time, and then if I think it needs to go back into the developer, I put it back in.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Joe, the water bath doesn't increase the contrast. It reduces it.

Let's say you have a negative that's so contrasty that it doesn't print well on grade 2. What does that mean? It means that if you choose an exposure time long enough to get good highlights, the shadows will be too dark. If you choose an exposure that gives good shadows, the highlights will be too light. The difference between the densities of the highlights and shadows on the negative is higher than the exposure range of the paper, and as a consequence you cannot find one single exposure time to give good shadows and highlights at the same time. Normally you would either use a lower grade of paper, or a lower contrast filter, but with Lodima you have no such options (assuming you're already using grade 2).

What you need is a method that gives you good highlights, but without allowing the shadows to get too dark. That's the water bath technique. It works very well with amidol because it's an extremely powerful developing agent.
In order to get good highlights, you must give them enough exposure. There's no way around that. So, you expose for the highlights. Then insert the paper into the developer and carefully watch the progress of the image. When the shadows get close to the desired density, quickly remove the sheet of paper from the developer, immerse it into a tray of plain water, and leave it there without agitation for the rest of the development time. The image will continue to develop proportionally to the amount of developer adsorbed in the emulsion. The shadows exhaust the developer very quickly, so they will soon stop developing and won't get too dark. In the lighter areas however, there's still plenty of active developer that continues to work until the highlights are fully developed.

Now you understand why I said on the other forum that a plain water "stop" bath won't actually stop anything if you use amidol.

That's a rough description. You have to experiment to find a proper exposure time (it's not necessarily the exact same time that gives good highlights with normal development), to learn how to assess the progress of the development so you know exactly when to snatch the print from the developer, and so on. You'll have to waste some paper first. And you shouldn't expect miracles; it works, but only to a limited degree.
I don't know what more I could say about it. I've learned it from Michael and Paula, so I can't really tell you anything that's not already in their articles.

 

[c6h6o3]

I've learned it from Michael and Paula, so I can't really tell you anything that's not already in their articles.

Did you learn about it from reading his articles or having him show you how to do it in a workshop? Joe really should have someone show him.

 

[c6h6o3]

You have to experiment to find a proper exposure time (it's not necessarily the exact same time that gives good highlights with normal development)

Yes it is. At least it always has been for me. Once I pin down the minimum exposure necessary to yield good highlights, I examine the shadows and overall contrast of the print. If the contrast is ok or maybe a little on the harsh side and the shadows have no detail, I'll use water bath to soften the overall look and reclaim the shadow detail I've lost with straight development. But in no case will I alter the exposure when using water bath, because that would affect the hightlights, and that is already set.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Did you learn about it from reading his articles or having him show you how to do it in a workshop?

He showed it to me in a workshop. But, as far as I can remember, he didn't show me anything that wasn't already explained in his articles. I had read and understood the articles beforehand, and what I saw during the workshop was almost exactly what I was expecting to see. The technique is really simple once one understands how and why it works.

You have to experiment to find a proper exposure time (it's not necessarily the exact same time that gives good highlights with normal development)

Yes it is. At least it always has been for me.

Well, I've only tried it a couple times, so I may have done something wrong, who knows... But I noticed that if I gave the highlights the same exposure they turned out just a bit too light. Not by much, but noticeable nevertheless. In theory they should develop the same in the water bath as in the developer, but in practice the developer adsorbed into the emulsion seemed to somehow "run out of gas" just a bit earlier. Increasing the exposure a little seemed to do the trick.
Admittedly, my negatives were too contrasty by a fair amount, so I needed to snatch the print from the developer very early on. Maybe the emulsion had no time to adsorb enough developer...

 

[c6h6o3]

But, as far as I can remember, he didn't show me anything that wasn't already explained in his articles.

What struck me when I saw it demonstrated that I hadn't realized before was the importance of speed. It should take only 1 second or so to snatch (the perfect word to describe this action) the print from the developer tray and get it into the water in one smooth motion. If you don't do it really fast the process won't be consistently repeatable. You also need to make certain that you don't agitate the water too much.

I should also point out that I don't use water bath development strictly for shadow control. Sometimes I just need a contrast somewhere in between grades 2 and 3. Some of my best prints are only slightly lower in contrast than their straight developed proofs. A subtle difference can be the critical one separating an exhibition print from a throwaway.

One of the most valuable lessons Michael Smith taught me is that only the best possible print from a negative is acceptable. Water bath is a wonderful tool for wringing that last 1% of quality out of a print.

 

[Vlad Soare]

Indeed, speed is very important, as is the lack of agitation in the water bath. I've just read the article again, and you're right - these aspects aren't particularly stressed. I hadn't noticed that. :confused:
When I read the article for the first time I tried to understand and to imagine how I'd do it, and I somehow knew that it must be done as quickly as possible, and with as little agitation as possible. Speed is to prevent streaks. Lack of agitation is to prevent the developer from diffusing out of the emulsion. It seemed so logical and natural to me that I didn't realize I hadn't actually read it. So when Michael demonstrated the technique nothing surprised me.
I guess I was mistaken. I could have sworn I had learned all the details from that article. :confused: