Ilford MG IV RC: Black is not black

[bgav]

Hello all,

I've just started print pictures myself. Currently the only problem is that I cannot get rich deep blacks on my prints.

I print on Ilford Multigrade IV RC with satin surface using LPL C7700 dichroic head enlarger, develop paper in Ilford Multigrade 1+14 and fix with Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+9 according to Ilford recommendations. Negatives are of normal density and contrast.
I tried even overexpose/overdevelop prints, but blacks are really miserable.

I shall really appreciate any advice about this issue.

--
Evgeny.

 

[clogz]

I found that using RC paper with a glossy surface will give you deeper blacks.

Hans

 

[Ed Sukach]

It may or may not be the case, but I've found Ilford's fixing time for their Rapid Fixer to be far too short. Try extending that time.
Also, blacks are usually affected by developing time. Try lengthening that. If there is no improvement, I would suspect bad developer.

 

[lee]

why not attack the problem at the neg dev stage. Back off the exposure a little (like 1 stop) and back off the dev a little (like say 15%) and then see if the paper will print it black. Also filtering the exposure under the enlarger with a contrastier filter should increase the contrast which will make the blacks look darker.

lee\c

 

[geraldatwork]

First off glossy paper will give blacks which appear darker. As mentioned I also found that I get better blacks by extending the developing time. Up to 2 minutes for RC paper and 3 minutes for Fiber. Also selenium toning definitely deepens the blacks whether it shifts the tone on a particular paper. You might try 1+15 for 3 to 5 minutes for starters.

 

[lee]

just re read your post and if you overexpose and over develop the neg you will flatten the contrast so try my previous post and let us know what happens

lee\c

 

[George Collier]

You could also try a stronger dilution of the developer. I don't know the Ilford developers, but you can probably go stronger. You can find out the max the paper is capable of (with the given chemistry) just by using an empty neg carrier, stop down maybe one (or none), and do a test strip with enough exposure to have at least one more exposure after you can no longer see the difference. Make several like this, and use different developers. There is also one by Edwal called Ultra Black, reputed to give the best blacks. I've tried it, and I always had to reduce exposure for the mid tone areas, was never convinced that it made much difference to the blacks, but I didn't work with it that long. I use Ilford MG Fiber Glossy with Zone VI print developer (1:2) and am happy with it.
Also, as Hans said, glossy is always the deepest for an emulsion, in my experience. Other surfaces tend to diffuse the light going in and back out, which tends to diminish the intensity.

 

[dalahorse]

One advantage (or drawback) is that you really can't overdevelop Ilford Multigrade RC paper. Make sure the developer is fresh and warmed up to 20 deg C, leave the paper in the developer longer, and gently rock the tray constantly to keep fresh developer in contact with the paper.

 

[photobackpacker]

just re read your post and if you overexpose and over develop the neg you will flatten the contrast so try my previous post and let us know what happens

lee\c

Hi Lee

I think I agree with you but would disagree with your choice of words.

A negative with increased contrast will have a steeper slope when plotting the desities that resulted from a given exposure.

When I increase development, an area of film that received more light accumulates greater density and that is the reason the slope is steeper.

Increased exposure (when operating within the reciprocity range) does not change the slope of the curve for normal films.

When I overexpose and overdevelop, I move highlights into the territory where they will not print (blocked up) and so I lose the ability to render tonal differences for highlight. My local contrast is actually increased but overall subject contrast is compacted because highlights are blocked up.

 

[mikeg]

Welcome to APUG and the wonderful world of traditional photography

First off, before you go trying different papers, chemicals etc., have you done a safelight test? As fogging of the paper from light leaks or from an unsafe safelight can result in greys instead of blacks.

Turn off all the lights and wait 5 minutes until your eyes have become adjusted -- are there any light leaks from doors etc? If so, block them up. Next, turn on the enlarger -- are there any leaks from that? If so, you could try and tape them up with black tape.

Next, take a strip of paper and expose it under the enlarger without a negative for a shortish time -- you may have to experiment here -- what you are after is a light grey colour. Turn off the enlarger or move the red filter into place. Put 5 coins on the sheet and leave the paper near your devloping trays for 5 minutes. Remove one coin at 1 minute intervals. After the 5 minutes develop, stop and fix the paper as normal and examine the paper. Are any of the areas where the coins were visible as a lighter shade of grey compared with the rest of the paper? If yes, then you've got a problem with your safelight. You can tell how long you've got before fogging occurs by determining which coin first shows a different shade of grey. If the paper is being fogged, then obviously you need to either move your safelight further away or get a new one. In the meantime you could try developing with the print facing downwards, boring I know but it also gets you in the habit of not pulling the print out of the developer too early.

If your safelight is "safe", then it's time to look at other things such as; what temperature is your developer? Make sure that it's at 20C and always leave the print in for Ilford's recommended time. If it's colder than 20C, are you leaving the paper in for longer? If so how long?

Plenty to keep you busy there

Let us know how you get on!

Mike

 

[lee]

Hi Lee

I think I agree with you but would disagree with your choice of words.

A negative with increased contrast will have a steeper slope when plotting the desities that resulted from a given exposure.

When I increase development, an area of film that received more light accumulates greater density and that is the reason the slope is steeper.

Increased exposure (when operating within the reciprocity range) does not change the slope of the curve on normal films.

When I over expose and over develop, I move highlights into the territory where they will not print (blocke up) and so I lose the ability to render tonal differences for highlight. My local contrast is actually increased but overall subject contrast is compacted because highlights are blocked up.

I have no problem with your explanation blaughn, but what I was trying to address was the problem of the negative not allowing the blacks to be black enough. It makes perfect sense to me that if you increase exposure you are putting more info on the neg in the shadows, therefore causing this portion of the film to have more density therefore print as gray and not black. My choice of words are often not the right ones. I tell everyone English is not my first language at least as we speak it here in North Texas. In my first post I noted that I would reduce the development time to not allow, as you mentioned, the shoving the highlights up the slope into that blocked up territory. I think we are on the same page, thank you for correcting my words. Sometimes typing on the fly does not allow us to say exactly what we want.

lee\c

 

[bgav]

Thanks to everyone!
Since I'm really sure about no-fogging, timing, freshness of baths and temperature, I'll try glossy paper. Anyway, recently I've been told that blacks on Ilford satin paper do not look black.

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, bgav,

One other thing no one mentioned above: While MG IV has minimal reaction to selenium toning, using selenium toner will add a tiny amount of richness to its dark tones.

Konical

 

[dancqu]

Do a test strip with no negative in carrier. A satin surface
should produce a deep black. Satin is not matt. Dan

 

[noseoil]

As an alternative, dektol is a good developer with Ilford's RC papers. Try 2 minutes at 70f for your time and see what you get. Another point to remember, all papers are not the same. They each have their own characteristics, so a film which is perfect for RC may not be quite right for FB. The tip given on selenium toner is a good one. It will help to give you better blacks, which makes the paper look like there is a whiter white in the high values.

Another point to remember, the scene may not have any true blacks in it. tim

 

[bgav]

Glossy paper closed the issue. Thanks again to everyone.

--
Evgeny.

 

[Steve Roberts]

Hello all,

I've just started print pictures myself. Currently the only problem is that I cannot get rich deep blacks on my prints.
Evgeny.

I've always associated lack of rich blacks with Ilford RC paper. Some 20+ years ago I experimented with Ilford RC paper briefly (not MG) but regarded the results as grey and white rather than black and white and soon went back to my favourite Kodak Bromesko. Returning to B/W processing recently, the only paper I can readily obtain locally is Ilford RC Multigrade and it took a lot of experimenting to get acceptably black blacks. The results stand up OK on their own, but when I compare them to prints of 25 years ago, I really wish I could still shoot down the road and come back with Bromesko WSG in the single grades of my choice, even at the expense of the convenience of RC paper and cheapness of the MG system.
Steve

 

[Donald Miller]

Hello all,

I've just started print pictures myself. Currently the only problem is that I cannot get rich deep blacks on my prints.

I print on Ilford Multigrade IV RC with satin surface using LPL C7700 dichroic head enlarger, develop paper in Ilford Multigrade 1+14 and fix with Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+9 according to Ilford recommendations. Negatives are of normal density and contrast.
I tried even overexpose/overdevelop prints, but blacks are really miserable.

I shall really appreciate any advice about this issue.

--
Evgeny.

First of all how do you know that negatives are of normal density and contrast?

As others have mentioned, glossy paper will give the impression of deeper blacks. I don't use RC paper and actually don't consider it a viable alternative in my efforts preferring to use only fiber paper instead...however that is a personal opinion. I work to darned hard and have spent too much money on my photography to this point to cut myself short by using less then optimal materials.

Try giving your paper a one minute exposure with no negative in the enlarger with your enlarging lens wide open. If the paper exposes and develops to an acceptable black then your problem is in your negative density and contrast.

 

[haris]

Hmmmmm... As we know if we increase contrast, darks going to even more darker, and lights goes to more lighter. So, for example, you print at grade 3 your original print. You don't get blacks dark enough. What if you increase contrast to let say grade 4? You should get darker blacks and lighter lights. Then, increase exposure of paper to get lights like on grade 3. That case your blacks will go even darker than they are in grade 4 without exposure increasing. But, be carefull, as this way you can easilly find yourself without details in light and/or dark parts of your print...

 

[craigclu]

This reminded me of a situation a few years back..... I was asked to resurrect a darkroom in a local school. It was really quite nice with a dozen or so Beseler 45's, good german optics, etc. I just couldn't get snappy, contrasty prints or good blacks from any of the machines. It turned out to be lens flare from accumulated haze inside the lenses. They looked fine with a quick glance that I had given them but the slight haze I discovered caused much more trouble than I would have guessed. Some fresh glass brought everything back again. It was a good lesson on someone else's equipment!

 

[c6h6o3]

I've never gotten good blacks on any Ilford paper. The prints always look like they have a thin film overlaid on top of the image, like the fog on your windshield on a damp day. Try Bergger or Forte papers (or even Kodak Polymax Fine Art) to wipe away the fog.

 

[Bighead]

Sorry if this has been discussed (didn't read entire thread) but the Satin finish, from what I have been told, will not yield the shadow tonal range typically wanted.. Of course glossy will get real black but supposedly, even the matt finish has better black tones.... I'd buy a 10 pack of the matt and see what you get.

 

[bgav]

First of all how do you know that negatives are of normal density and contrast?

Easy: I have vast experience in scanning of negatives and transparencies.

As others have mentioned, glossy paper will give the impression of deeper blacks.

You and some other people are right. Ilford MGIV RC Glossy only looks of better blacks than Satin. It is still not as really black as my digital prints on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper.

 

[lee]

so there is the troll!

lee\c

 

[Maine-iac]

Hello all,

I've just started print pictures myself. Currently the only problem is that I cannot get rich deep blacks on my prints.

I print on Ilford Multigrade IV RC with satin surface using LPL C7700 dichroic head enlarger, develop paper in Ilford Multigrade 1+14 and fix with Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+9 according to Ilford recommendations. Negatives are of normal density and contrast.
I tried even overexpose/overdevelop prints, but blacks are really miserable.

I shall really appreciate any advice about this issue.

--
Evgeny.

Satin-finish or matte finish papers will never give as deep blacks as glossy surface.

It is preferable to adjust your negative exposure, print exposure/contrast, and developing time of the negative rather than increase developing time at the print stage. Leaving the print in the developer longer will deepen the blacks, but will also increase contrast, usually in a manner that is not for the better. Become a better negative exposer and printer.

Fixer has little or nothing to do with deepening blacks.

Larry