• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Ilford Multigrade RC prints too dark

billingsjohnt

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 18, 2021
Messages
4
Location
Walla Walla, WA
Format
Medium Format
Printing a test strip with initial factors of f16 and 3 second steps, all strips are totally black. I was using Ilford General Purpose developer, first at 1+9 dilution and later at 1+14 dilution. Developing time was 1 minute.

I was finally able to get an acceptable print from the same negative using f22, 4 seconds exposure, and 45 seconds development time. How should I be using this paper and chemistry to get good prints with more normal processing factors?

Thanks for any help.
John Billings​
 
Im fairly new compared to most on here when it comes to printing, but a few thoughts.
1- you should develop to completion whatever the recommended times for that developer to get full black. Ilford General purpose dev, is this ilford multigradre dev? I think mine is complete at a 1:30.
2-was it a thin negative?
3- paper size?
4-what enlarger, OEM bulb?
 
Also, what was the temperature of your developer? Too warm and you'll obviously "overcook" the test strip. Otherwise, the suggestions that fiddle made.
 
What is the height of your enlarger head when you print these test strips? High enough for a full-frame 5x7 or 8x10 print? Also, is it a fairly thin negative, or does it have a normal range of tones? Also, condenser enlargers will usually require shorter print times than diffusion enlargers.
If you have a filter drawer, or a dial-in filtration enlarger head, try using #2 filtration which will give approximately the same contrast as white light, but lengthen the exposure times.
You do not want to pull your print from the developer early, leave it in for the full developing time and adjust your exposures via the aperture or time. RC prints in MG developer mixed 1:14 take 90 sec for full development at 68 F.
With a negative of "average" density, I usually expose 5x7 prints at grade #2 for between 5-15 seconds at f8 or f11. 8x10 prints usually take 10-30 sec at f8 or f11, also at grade #2. I'm using a diffusion head enlarger.
 
When I rekindled my interest in darkroom work in this millennium it seemed to me that modern enlarging papers are way faster than I remember from the 1960s, etc. So I added a 2-stop ND filter to my gear. If printing smaller than 8x10 or so, the filter goes on. By accident in my acquisition of lenses, I have 50, 80, and 105 mm Nikors that all take the same 40.5mm filter size. I use a condenser enlarger (Omega B8) which only uses a 75 watt bulb and my first attempts, on some Ilford Multigrade, were down in the sub-5 second range for a 5x5 inch print without the ND filter. (Good luck burning and dodging!)

What's sort of cool is that I can make 5x5 test prints with the filter on, then crank the head up to do 10x10 or so and take the filter off. That leaves me in the ballpark for the exposure of the larger print. It does take some adjustment, presumably due to bellows extension differences, but one test strip is likely to resolve the adjustment.
 
It sounds like your darkroom light is too bright and it is fogging the paper.
 
I too have noticed how sensitive modern papers are, and how relatively bright a lot of enlargers are.
Attenuating the light levels is a good approach.
Some enlargers are designed to permit use of two or more different bulbs, depending on the light needed. If that applies to yours, consider switching to a lower power option.
 
billingsjohnt said:
Printing a test strip with initial factors of f16 and 3 second steps, all strips are totally black.
I was finally able to get an acceptable print from the same negative using f22, 4 seconds exposure,

John Billings​
Click to expand...

Apart from the aperture did you change anything else? I cannot work out why if a print is OK at 4 secs and one stop less at f22 then why the initial test strip at 3 secs should be totally black when a 2 sec exposure at one stop more at f16 should have been the same OK print?

pentaxuser
 
Did the OP forget to stop down after focusing? I forget to do that sometimes.
 
Bit if he's getting a decent print at f22? Fogging would affect that too. Another possibility (although it doesn't explain the f22 print) is the lens preset is engaged and the prints are really being made wide open.
 
Can you show us the original negative and state your enlargement size?
 
Yes we really need some input from the OP before we can take this thread much if any further, don't we?

pentaxuser
 
pentaxuser said:
Yes we really need some input from the OP before we can take this thread much if any further, don't we?

pentaxuser
Click to expand...

Not heard from since the his or her first post. The OP may have already solved the problem. Maybe we can sleep well tonight.
 
Sirius Glass said:
Not heard from since the his or her first post. The OP may have already solved the problem. Maybe we can sleep well tonight.
Click to expand...
You may well be right but I do wish that everyone with a problem would tell us what the cause was when many of us have attempted to assist

pentaxuser
 
Hello and thanks to all who responded. My time available for photography is limited so I might not reply right away. Anyway, here is what I have so far:
fiddle - The negative is a little thin but it looked OK in the contact proof sheet. However, that was done digitally by a lab so not a good comparison. Paper size is 8x10; enlarger is Beseler 23C condenser head 75 watt lamp.
sapearl - Re. temp. its well water and wouldn’t be mouch above 68 but still an unknown.
Jimjm - Lens height is about 10 inches above easel to get full image on 8x10 paper. I’ll try the #2 filter. Negative is 21/4x21/4.
DW Thomas - The ND filter sounds like a good idea; I’ll try it.
Sirius glass - Don’t think DR light is fogging paper because the unexposed areas are bright white. My lens doesn’t have a preset feature but I was careful to set it properly.
pentaxuser - Right, puzzling to me also.​
chiveh - Paper was purchased new.
Matt king - If I can’t identify anything else I’ll try a lower wattage lamp.
​
 
billingsjohnt said:
Matt king - If I can’t identify anything else I’ll try a lower wattage lamp.
Click to expand...
I don't think you will find a suitable one that is less than 75W.
For a Beseler 23C enlarger and a condenser light source, ND plus always using a contrast selection filter is probably the best solution.
FWIW in the future, when responding to these sorts of questions, it is very helpful to know which enlarger and which light source you are using.
The Beseler 23C series enlargers with condenser light sources are quite bright - they were designed to be usable with colour negatives.
 
The PH140 75W bulb is normal for the 23C. I usually need an ND2 or ND4 filter with 35mm negatives and 8x10 prints if I want to keep the lens at f8 and exposure 10-20 sec. I am using Ilford multigrade classic fiber, however. I have pretty much incorporated ND filters into most of my printing.

I agree that papers seem much more sensitive than they once did.
 
 
I’ve been looking for an ND filter but what form do they come in? That is, mounted in a frame or sheet stock, below the lens or with the negative tray? I found a set of three ND filters of varying f stops, mounted in threaded rings, but my enlarging lens has no threads. Any ideas?
 
The best, simplest and cheapest would be ND gels cut to fit the filter drawer (I assume the 23C has one).
 
Your advantage is that you don't need to know precisely how much light is attenuated by whatever you choose - it just needs to be consistent, and sufficient.
Even a slightly fogged piece of film would do the job, if it is in the filter holder between the lamp and the negative holder.
 
I forgot to add that I always have an Ilford contrast filter in the drawer. For the ND filter, I found that my 52mm ND CAMERA lens filters sit nicely in the safelight swingout filter holder under the enlarger lens (23CII). Just make sure the holder is centered, to avoid vignetting.

Maybe not the ideal solution but I, like many, tend to stick with an acceptable solution without bothering to look for the best solution.
 
sounds like thin film..
don't go by the digital contact sheets, scanners love thin film.
I used to have this problem (excessively short exposure times ) when I went from a condenser enlarger to a cold light head
in my case I needed to process my film 30-40% longer ( used to be printed on the film box but I never bothered to read it )
I ended up buying a riostat ( fancy dimmer switch ) made by aristo grid ( used to make cold light heads ) and then I started to expose and process my film differently so they'd be more suited to the enlarger I was using.
you might consider just exposing your film at f22 until you expose and develop them differently
so your film isn't too thin for your paper .. I mean enlarger, denser film tends to enlarge and contact print better .. there is a sweet spot you need to dial in between film processing + exposure AND whatever photo paper you end up using ... bracket your film and development and then decide what works best for you.
I stopped having this problem mostly after I ditched Xtol developer, with my process I found it impossible to build up negative density, so I went back to sprint film developer and eventually print developer to process my film.
YMMV
have fun
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register