I wonder what went wrong.... printing problem

[tkamiya]

I'm wondering what went wrong.

Please see the attached picture first. They were printed in the same darkroom, same lens, and the same enlarger. Developer used were scratch mixed D72.

The right image was printed on Adorama branded RC Pearl paper. Contrast was #2. The leaf was dodged and top left corner were burned in. Please note, texture of the wood is very evident. It look high contrast. But the filter used was #2.

The left image was printed on Adorama branded FB glossy paper. Contrast was #5. No dodge and burn, yet. Please note, it lacks contrast, especially for #5 filter. Forward part of the wood does not have the bright white embedded in it.

I am wondering what went wrong here. I've been using these paper for long time, and they usually behave normally, pretty close to Ilford MGIV. I never had to go beyond 2 1/2 to get good contrast. Neither of paper are new. I had these for 3 years or so and were kept at the same location in human comfortable environment.

I can pretty much rule out developer being bad because maximum black is about the same on both. Another thing I've noticed is, going from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 (in contrast), I've noticed some change but going from 3 1/2 to 5, I've noticed very little difference. However, I shouldn't have to go even to 3 1/2 to get the same contrast as what I can achieve on RC with 2.

I'm very aware, RC and Fiber acts differently. Emulsion may also be very different. But, I've been using these paper for quite a while and this is the first time they are behaving oddly.

After going through 8 sheets, I'm taking a break. If anyone have an opinion or ideas, I'd like to know. Thanks!

 

[NedL]

I don't know but I definitely agree that the left image does not look like #5 contrast, especially with a negative that prints like the right at #2. My first thought was that the developer might be exhausted or you got the filters mixed up while printing. It's a mystery for sure!

I've never tried Adorama FB paper but agree the RC behaves like MGIV only faster.

 

[snapguy]

Old paper. Different kinds of paper. And how old is your filter set? The filters do sometimes die with age.

 

[tkamiya]

Yes, Adorama RC is really quick....

For heck of it, I grabbed an Ilford MGIV WT FB Glossy (phew) and printed it with 2 1/2. It looks just a tad softer than one on the right.

So, I think it's the paper. I've NEVER printed higher than 2 1/2 or 3, so maybe it doesn't go that high.... or maybe there is a chemical fogging.... (it's not new) Or maybe response curb shifted.... is that even possible?

 

[tkamiya]

Filter is about 4 years old. Ilford below the lens type.

 

[Bill Burk]

tkamiya,

The shadow under the leaf tells me the difference between #2 and #5 because the left-hand print is practically black which I'd expect from higher grade. The burning you did in the upper-left corner of the right-hand print did more to darken the corner ... than the difference from Grade 2 to Grade 5. I personally like the right-hand print best because the shadows remain open under the leaf (maybe it's a better print because you took time to print it with burn and dodge).

 

[ic-racer]

The one on the left looks like it was printed on higher contrast paper. Dodging and burning are more often needed and more difficult to do as you increase printing paper contrast. This is because the image forming latitude is very small with high contrast paper.

 

[tkamiya]

Thanks everybody.

At this point, I am fairly certain there is something not quite right with this paper. White does not look as it is supposed to and certainly, it does not look like a grade 5 print. It looks more like grade 3. I used the same developer but used Ilford WT FB and 2 1/2 and was able to make a satisfactory print. So the only variable now is the paper.

This was a frustrating time in a darkroom. I have been away from it for about a year, so it's like trying to figure this out all over again.


Bill, sorry, I didn't mention it but shadow area below leaf were dodged to make it light.

 

[MattKing]

The faster, "high contrast" emulsion in variable contrast paper is more likely to lose sensitivity over time than the slower, "low contrast" emulsion. So as paper ages, one of the first things that goes is the ability to build contrast.

I recently tested some Kentmere variable contrast RC paper that was of an indeterminate age. The paper responded well to filter settings equivalent to grades 1, 2 and 3. After that, no change in filtration made any significant difference - settings equivalent to grades 4, 4.5 and 5 just looked like 3 (once I adjusted for equivalent exposure).