I just don't get it.

[soysos]

If you google the Kodak safelight test, you will find that they don't just expose blank paper to the safelight to see if it is ok. Paper takes a certain amount of energy to show exposure, and sometimes the safelight doesn't put out enough on its own, but in combination with print exposure it can be very clearly seen.

What safelight are you using, what filter, how old is the filter, and what wattage of bulb?

That is the Kodak safelight test. From the results I know that as long as I limit exposure to less that 8 minutes, fogging is not an issue. The thing here is I know it's not fogging, I get the same results using a drumb processor. As for the safelight itself, there is no filter just a tinted 15 watt bulb. I have no idea how old the bulb is since I bought it used and have never replaced it. My darkroom is so small that 15 watts is to strong unless I bounce it off a wall. I plan on getting a 7 watt bulb for it once this one burs out. I don't know the exact wavelength but it's an orange tint.

 

[removed account4]

how close is your safelight to where you do your photographic work -- open your paper, xpose it and develop it ?
its your safelight or your paper. my safelight is a "monster bulb" but it is so far away from where i do anything
it is extremely dim almost seems like it isn't on when it is.

i'd get a fresh box of paper, read the book simon wants to send you and see what happens after that.

don't get rid of your old paper though, use it for sunprints !

good luck !
john

 

[billdele]

Kodak dektol, diluted 1:1 from stock solution.

I haven't printed in a while, but my recollection is that Dektol is usually diluted 1:2 for paper, i.e., 1 part stock to 2 parts water.

 

[PKM-25]

PM me your home address and I will post you the MULTIGRADE printing book this will be a good step by step guide to restore harmony and your sanity.

You meant "Harmany", right?...

 

[soysos]

I haven't printed in a while, but my recollection is that Dektol is usually diluted 1:2 for paper, i.e., 1 part stock to 2 parts water.

That's what Kodak recommends but at 1:2 I get nothing but a gray mask. At 1:1 the images are still really flat but their at least recognisable. I think I'm going to try the dektol at stock strength and see what happens.

 

[PKM-25]

Nooo, not full strength Dektol, that is only going to steer you away from solving the problem. You are essentially needing to "Calibrate" your darkroom so that will take consistencies that are in line with what the manufacturers recommend.

For what ever reason, you are getting badly fogged paper somewhere in the process, the cause needs to be pinned down...

 

[Bill Burk]

When I did my safelight test I exposed half the sheet to the enlarger just to get a mask then exposed the sheet to the safelight in 5 sections in 2 minute increments. The results were no effect on the unexposed side, it came out white. On the exposed side it started fogging in the 8-10 min section.

Was the "exposed" side exposed to a negative, or just gray and you saw more gray in the 8-10min?

Expose whole sheet to negative, cover half... Expose the other half to safelight in 5 sections like you did... Develop in the dark.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

If you are getting the same result processing in a drum as you are in the tray, then it definitely is getting fogged before processing begins. You said that you have a bare red-tinted bulb, no filter? That is almost certainly the cause. I have a very small home darkroom (7' x8' x 6.5' tall), and although my safelight is as far from my enlarger in the room as it can get, I had to double-stack the filters on the safelight AND bounce it off the ceiling to get it dim enough not to fog my prints. Get thee to B&H Photo or Freestyle Photo and order yourself a proper safelight with the correct deep red filter and it will quickly pay for itself in non-wasted paper.

 

[soysos]

The problem isn't in the highlights. See that was a really bad scan. On paper the border, the reflector on th wheel and the Whitewall are all the white of the paper. The problem is the tires are a pale gray. The only way for me to get black in the print is to overexposed the highlights.

 

[cliveh]

The problem isn't in the highlights. See that was a really bad scan. On paper the border, the reflector on th wheel and the Whitewall are all the white of the paper. The problem is the tires are a pale gray. The only way for me to get black in the print is to overexposed the highlights.

Then could you do a good scan that shows what your print really looks like? As the right hand version of the 2 you have already posted looks fogged

 

[winger]

Don't do separate scans of each print. Put both samples on at once with a little bit of white paper in between. Then scan an area that encompasses both prints and the white paper. If you can also make that show the edges of the prints, that would help.
But a bare bulb that's orange and is of indeterminate age and time of use is a good place to start as far as replacing something. There are safelights at B&H that are fairly small and cheap, but that work well. This is the one I have - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/43177-REG/Doran_PRSL5R_Economy_Darkroom_Safelight_with.html I use two of them in a room that's about 10' by 15' and they're hung at ceiling level and aimed across, not down.
Since nearly everyone here is saying that fogging is the most likely culprit, please humor us and try to fix that first. I would also buy a fresh packet of paper, if possible.

Also, the one you did at school was done at f16, so do one at home at f16, not f11. It might be possible that you're waay overexposing the print and getting greys for whites. All the darker areas look like they just lots more exposure. Unless your home enlarger is the same type and same bulb as the school one, I'd expect some difference in the exposure anyway, but start with what you used at school and do test strips. Eliminate as many variables as you can by just changing one thing.

 

[Bill Burk]

Now I develop in Dektol 1:2 for three minutes... How long are you developing the print? Aha, you said it... One minute.

Try three (at 68-degrees F)...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Where are you located? If you're near one of us, maybe someone can come over and troubleshoot your process with you instead of lots of back-and-forth with well-intentioned but underinformed advice. Since none of us are sitting with you watching what you do, you're also probably leaving out something in your description of the problem that you don't think is important, when in fact it is the critical factor.

 

[soysos]

so far these are the best images I have been able to produce using a number 5 filter. I really don't see any sighns of fog the exposures are consistant. the compositions suck but they are the only ones to come out looking somewhat like they should. the problem is they're flat, and since I used my highest grade I can't give them any more contrast.

 

[cliveh]

Are the negatives very thin (under developed or under exposed)?

 

[soysos]

no not particularly. I had over exposed them by 1 stop since I was trying out a new developer (WD2D+) the negatives ended up coming out pretty typical.

 

[Nige]

Firstly, I reckon you need to go back a few steps and prove 2 things
1. you paper's not already fogged
2. You can develop the paper to max black

So, in total darkness, remove a bit of paper, rip/cut it in half and throw one half straight in the fixer and develop the other. Once both are fixed, they should be the same.
If that passes, try this:
Take a piece of paper out (& close packet) Put some coins on the paper or something completely opaque. Turn room light on for several seconds (thus ensuring maximum exposure of the paper). Develop in your Dektol for 1min. This should come out black with some white areas.

If that passes the test then work through whats been suggested.
A 'proper' safelight test. ( To do that you should really 'flash' the paper. That is another process that needs to be done with safelight off)

If you pass that 'test', examine enlarger lens, enlarger globe, enlarger mixing box. Maybe the globe or mixing chamber is covered in dust.

As mentioned above, somethings not right. You need to find it rather than trying to work around it.

 

[Bill Burk]

soysos,

I certainly understand the pain you are feeling, as I had something like this happen to me once, all my prints from a particular batch of paper came out gray. In my case it really was the paper and it really was gray. But it shook my confidence for a while.

Don't let this happen to you here. Something's wrong, it's not your darkroom skills in question. There's a fault and once you find it you'll get past it.

Is light spilling out everywhere from the enlarger? You could try to put your head down on the easel and look up. Cover the lens like with a lens cap and turn on the enlarger - look for light spillage. Is the lens hazy, in need of a careful cleaning?

Can you get a good dark black and pure white with the paper? This is where three minutes development recommendation comes in. Hope you get a chance to try a test strip developed for three minutes.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am really frustrated right now, I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I've had my darkroom equipment for several years now but it has yet to give me a decent print. I got fantastic results when I was in school using their darkroom, so I know its not my negatives or my technique, but when I try to do it at home they always turn out flat, lifeless. I'm using basically the same setup the school had, same 23c enlarger, same zeiss lens, same dektol developer. I just can't figure out what is so different about my setup compared to the school's.

You have to get into the negative and feel the mood before you start printing it. Unother words;forget technology and technique and let the negative guideyou.sounds vague ,I know but, I cannot put it into words;it's an emotional experience different with every print.That's why it is so much fun even after 50 years!

 

[sly]

There is fog, and there's fog. A slight fog (I'm suspicious of your safelight) could be causing you grief. When I was taking photography courses, one of the other students complained the safelight in the school darkroom was fogging his paper. The teacher poo-poo'd his claim, and none of the rest of us had noticed anything. Then he came to class with 2 prints. A window, taken from outside, mostly dark tones, but a lily on the sill made a lovely bright contrast. The first print he showed us was very nice. We all admired it. Then he showed us the one he had made in the dark, with the safelight off throughout exposure and development. There was fine detail and differentiation in the highlights (the petals of the flower) that were missing from the first print. There was no visible fogging of the borders of the print, and if he hadn't been determined to get the details onto the paper that he could see in the negative, and clever enough to figure out the problem when it had gone undiagnosed for who knows how long, we would have all continued printing with slight fogging for the rest of the year.
This was decades ago, so I don't remember now how the safelight problem was rectified. I've never forgotten though, those 2 prints side by side. Same exposure, same paper, but the highlights subtly fogged under the safelight. Lesson learned.

 

[Bill Burk]

I've been proved wrong before and I haven't tested to prove my theory...

But I think the print is underdeveloped and overexposed to make it look right underdeveloped (a vicious cycle).

Given more time in the developer, that same print exposure might turn all black.

But exposed less and given enough time in the developer... Might get those white highlights back.

Whether I'm right or not in this case with that guess... I think there is one problem and it will be found soon.

 

[Dennis S]

The "economy paper" is just that. It is not bad for contact prints but if you want quality prints you need quality paper to go with it. Learnt that lesson may years ago but it is still valid today. I have read all the posts and several people brought the paper issue up and you have not indicated you have bought new high quality paper. Eliminate the causes until you find the proper flaw in your work. A lot of times small things are overlooked

 

[pentaxuser]

I may have missed the answer to this question but why change from the time and grade of filter used in the school darkroom? If youds shown me the two scans and simply asked me why there was a difference without giving me any more info, I'd have said that the second one was overexposed and had too high a filter applied.

The facts almost fit this explanation except that at f11 it should have been 3.5 secs which would seen to account for the overexposed cause as 5 secs was used. Pity that what ruins my neat solution is that as grades 4&5 filters require double exposure then it should have needed 7 secs at f11 to account for the grade 5 filter but was only given 5 secs.

Maybe using grade 5 even if it was underexposed by 2 secs would still produce the darker effect but I don't know. Anyway can you say why you altered the grade to 5? If its the same enlarger, same bulb, same developer, same equally fresh paper then what does a home print look like at the same settings used at school?

pentaxuser

 

[anikin]

Check filters in your enlarger. They are most likely faded and don't allow for full color filtration. I had that happen with my Beseler enlarger.

 

[BetterSense]

Agreed that you have to buy new contrast filters for variable-contrast papers. Don't try to use some you bought used or found at a camera show. They only last a few years. I went through a few rounds until I figured this out and bought some new Ilford filters.