Infectious dev gone too far?

[jmal]

I just finished my 3rd lith session and am learning a little each time, which is a good feeling. However, I am having difficulty getting even tones in large areas of similar tonality (darker areas usually). I don't expect to achieve perfect evenness as it is lith printing an some texture is desirable. For example, I printed a photo from Taos last night and as a straight BW print it has a fairly even tonality in the dark sky (it's in my gallery). In lith it began to look like a two year old got his hands on a bad holga program in photoshop and went wild. It had the look of a darker and very worn fabric (though unpleasantly uneven)for lack of a better description. Unfortunately, I tossed it in frustration, so I can't post an example. Does this sound like I let the infectious development go too far? Perhaps I need a little more exposure to get the sky darkened without having to wait for the infectious development to take over too much? Any thoughts? Thanks.

Jmal

 

[Andrew Moxom]

jmal, without seeing it, it is hard to tell what is going on. It could be though that you let it develop too long. Can you let us know if you tried altering the contrast by using different print exposure times combined with different developer times/dilutions?

 

[jmal]

Andrew--I have played with times a little and have used 50ml/950ml (25 A and 25 B LD20) and doubled the recipe to 100ml/1900ml. However, because the developer has a narrow window in which all the variables remain similar, I am having trouble pinpointing what needs to be adjusted. I do know this: my favorite print tends to be the second or third print while the colors (on Fomatone last night) are still a tame beige/pink. After that, they tend to go orange and I start noticing inconsistencies. I think part of my problem is the dev begins to exhaust itself and I start leaving it in too long to compensate. Hard to tell. Lith printing has so many more variables than standard BW.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

What temperature are you using? Try it at 75Deg at least, maybe closer to 80 deg F

 

[jmal]

Room temp: usually 68-70F.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

That could be it.... I find that FOMATONE tends to do better if the soup is a fair amount warmer.

 

[gainer]

Andrew--I have played with times a little and have used 50ml/950ml (25 A and 25 B LD20) and doubled the recipe to 100ml/1900ml. However, because the developer has a narrow window in which all the variables remain similar, I am having trouble pinpointing what needs to be adjusted. I do know this: my favorite print tends to be the second or third print while the colors (on Fomatone last night) are still a tame beige/pink. After that, they tend to go orange and I start noticing inconsistencies. I think part of my problem is the dev begins to exhaust itself and I start leaving it in too long to compensate. Hard to tell. Lith printing has so many more variables than standard BW.

Since you have a 2 part developer, a developing tube might be a good investment. The kind I speak of has end caps, one with a built in funnel and a cup on the inside. With the tube standing on its exit end, you pour an amount of working solution in. When you turn the tube on its side, the solution pours out of the cup and onto the paper (or film, for that matter) and you begin rolling the tube. When time is up, you stand the tube on its exit end in a sink or bucket and the solution runs out. You can now repeat the filling, rolling, emptying cycle with stop and fix. I have two, the larger one handling up to 16x20. The large one uses no more than 6 oz. of working solution, which is dumped after one print. There is no development by inspection, but maybe that will be a good thing. You will have to do it by the clock, which may force you to examine exposure when a print fails to meet specs. At least, you will know that each print had freshly mixed stock solution.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Since you have a 2 part developer, a developing tube might be a good investment. The kind I speak of has end caps, one with a built in funnel and a cup on the inside. With the tube standing on its exit end, you pour an amount of working solution in. When you turn the tube on its side, the solution pours out of the cup and onto the paper (or film, for that matter) and you begin rolling the tube. When time is up, you stand the tube on its exit end in a sink or bucket and the solution runs out. You can now repeat the filling, rolling, emptying cycle with stop and fix. I have two, the larger one handling up to 16x20. The large one uses no more than 6 oz. of working solution, which is dumped after one print. There is no development by inspection, but maybe that will be a good thing. You will have to do it by the clock, which may force you to examine exposure when a print fails to meet specs. At least, you will know that each print had freshly mixed stock solution.

I don't think developing tubes would be a good solution for this particular problem simply because with lith printing you don't develop to a certain time, it's all done by inspection.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

One other item to clear up.... How good is your safelight as you go into longer exposure and development times? To be safe, I would run a safelight test to make sure that is not causing some of your problems... I know that Marianne aka 'Mayfair710' had problems with muddiness and inconsistencies due to safelight problems.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To get an even tone in a sky, for instance, Fomatone is excellent. I use a strong developer mix, and I use a high temperature (80-85 degrees), and for consistency sake, I mix 3.5 liters of chemistry every time I print. The changes from print to print are much more subtle. Or you can use much less chemistry and use it one shot.

My exposures are usually about 40 seconds at f/5.6 with Fomatone. I use AristaLith at 100 A + 100 B + 2800 water + 500 old brown. That gives me about 20 8x10 prints, and about 2-3 prints into it I start getting consistent results as far as color goes. I usually take a blank sheet and toss it into the developer with the lights on and let it develop to a complete black to 'break it in'.

I don't know if that helps or not. The results you're getting are similar to when I:
- Use developer that's too cold
- Have not hit the sweet spot with exposure
- Use developer that is too dilute

Can you describe the following:
- What exposure time / aperture does your neg print with normal chemistry? Try using 2x or 3x that time by opening the aperture 2 or 3 stops. Don't just extend the time due to possible reciprocity issues with the paper (Schwarzschild)
- How long is your development time? (Fomatone gives me 6 minutes or so)

- Thomas

I just finished my 3rd lith session and am learning a little each time, which is a good feeling. However, I am having difficulty getting even tones in large areas of similar tonality (darker areas usually). I don't expect to achieve perfect evenness as it is lith printing an some texture is desirable. For example, I printed a photo from Taos last night and as a straight BW print it has a fairly even tonality in the dark sky (it's in my gallery). In lith it began to look like a two year old got his hands on a bad holga program in photoshop and went wild. It had the look of a darker and very worn fabric (though unpleasantly uneven)for lack of a better description. Unfortunately, I tossed it in frustration, so I can't post an example. Does this sound like I let the infectious development go too far? Perhaps I need a little more exposure to get the sky darkened without having to wait for the infectious development to take over too much? Any thoughts? Thanks.

Jmal

 

[jmal]

Yeah, I'll pass on the tubes--this is lith printing and must be done by inspection.

Thomas--that helps quite a bit. As for normal printing, it's not a fair comparison as I normally use Ilford RC or Ilford FB, both different from Fomatone. With RC papers I usually get a 15 sec exposure at the middle apertures (5.6-8) and 30 sec with MGWT FB. Last night I was exposing for 1 minute at 5.6 and pulling the print between 5-7 minutes as the developer exhausted. I'll post the better, though not perfect, prints tonight. I need to order more developer, so I think I'll give Arista a try. I love the results you get. I think I'll start with your dilutions and go from there. Lastly, what do you use to warm the developer? A heating pad? Thanks everyone for the advice.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I use an oil heated radiator placed directly under the developer tray with wire shelves in between. Works pretty well, as my basement is cold enough that I have to heat the darkroom even in the summer.

The best thing about AristaLith is that it's inexpensive. But if I were you I would only change one variable at a time to fully understand what's going on. New lith developer is kind of like starting over again.

- Thomas

Yeah, I'll pass on the tubes--this is lith printing and must be done by inspection.

Thomas--that helps quite a bit. As for normal printing, it's not a fair comparison as I normally use Ilford RC or Ilford FB, both different from Fomatone. With RC papers I usually get a 15 sec exposure at the middle apertures (5.6-8) and 30 sec with MGWT FB. Last night I was exposing for 1 minute at 5.6 and pulling the print between 5-7 minutes as the developer exhausted. I'll post the better, though not perfect, prints tonight. I need to order more developer, so I think I'll give Arista a try. I love the results you get. I think I'll start with your dilutions and go from there. Lastly, what do you use to warm the developer? A heating pad? Thanks everyone for the advice.

 

[jmal]

I understand the logic in sticking with the same variables, but I'm poor and have only had minimal experience with LD20. Just a starter kit. I'm going to take a leap of faith and switch now rather than later.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Same reason I switched. I don't have a lot of money to throw around either. By the way, use a couple of sheets of Fomatone and print the same on both Fomatone and Ilford to see what the difference in exposure time is. Then you can probably apply that as a factor to your lith printing, and estimate how long the print would need to be exposed on Fomatone paper, and base your lith exposure on that.

- Thomas

 

[jmal]

Good idea. I'll do that while I'm waiting for the new developer to arrive.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Jmal, if you do not have Tim Rudman's tutorial book, there are sysnopsis of the process at sites like unblinkingeye.com.

Sure, there are always lots of variables but it sounds like you have all of them in the ballpark except for sulfite and bromide balances, which are critical to the process.

 

[jmal]

Rick, I do have both of his lith books and the examples and descriptions of both pepper fogging and chemical fogging do not look like my problem. I will reread them, but if I remember correctly the sulfite and bromide are used to control these problems on certain papers. Perhaps also to assist in replenishment. I think the books are a good starting point, but they can never answer the myriad questions that arise in real practice. I'll look at them again though. Thanks.

 

[gainer]

I don't think developing tubes would be a good solution for this particular problem simply because with lith printing you don't develop to a certain time, it's all done by inspection.

How sure are you that the developing time for a good print is variable? Do you time your development by inspection? It would be interesting to know how much variation in developing time might be allowed before the infectious development is overdone.

Whether you use a tube or not, it is probably to best to mix A and B fresh for each print. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In reply to Patrick and Travis... Bob Carnie at Elevator does lith developing by time. He controls contrast with preflashing the paper, and adjusts that along with the main exposure time and develops it the same amount of time, every time.
I've tried it, but I don't have the setup in my darkroom to make it work on a full print. I would currently need a second enlarger to successfully flash paper in a controlled manner (my darkroom is so small I can barely fit one 4x5 enlarger in there, let alone two of them).

So you can do lith development other ways than the traditional inspection method. Bob's results speak for themselves. They are some of the most incredible prints I've ever seen.

- Thomas

 

[Travis Nunn]

How sure are you that the developing time for a good print is variable? Do you time your development by inspection? It would be interesting to know how much variation in developing time might be allowed before the infectious development is overdone.

Whether you use a tube or not, it is probably to best to mix A and B fresh for each print. Just my opinion, of course.

Well, as a matter of fact I do record everything I do when lith printing. Here is a an example of 3 lith prints done in the same session. They look almost exactly the same:

The exposure and paper were the same. The developer was mixed 3 ounces Maco SuperLith Part A to 57 ounces water and 3 ounces Maco SuperLith Part B to 57 parts water which were then combined and then I added 30 ounces of Old Brown.

I only did 3 prints and the times were:
Exposure - f/5.6 at 168 seconds (for all 3)

The time spent in the developer:
Print 1 - an exposed sheet of paper to help season the developer a little
Print 2 - 7 minutes 50 seconds
Print 3 - 7 minutes 50 seconds
Print 4 - 9 minutes 30 seconds

This is just my preference. That's the beauty of photography, there is no one right way to do things.

 

[Travis Nunn]

In reply to Patrick and Travis... Bob Carnie at Elevator does lith developing by time. He controls contrast with preflashing the paper, and adjusts that along with the main exposure time and develops it the same amount of time, every time.
I've tried it, but I don't have the setup in my darkroom to make it work on a full print. I would currently need a second enlarger to successfully flash paper in a controlled manner (my darkroom is so small I can barely fit one 4x5 enlarger in there, let alone two of them).

So you can do lith development other ways than the traditional inspection method. Bob's results speak for themselves. They are some of the most incredible prints I've ever seen.

- Thomas

Thomas, I agree with you that Bob's prints are fantastic. I will say this, though, Bob's printing skills are far and away more advanced than most of us. I've been in his darkroom and I've seen him work and I can comfortably say I don't have the abilities to control prints (lith, standard b/w or other) the way he can.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Whether you use a tube or not, it is probably to best to mix A and B fresh for each print. Just my opinion, of course.

There is one problem with this approach. Print color. If you use fresh lith chemistry every time you make a print you will get a fairly dull looking print. It isn't until you reach a certain stage of seasoning the chemistry that you get interesting color shifts. I suppose one could mix up a big batch, season it, and then use a little at a time for each print.
That might be a viable alternative.

- Thomas

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Maybe so, but it's something to aspire to. When I met Bob at Chez Schwab last June he was very gracious in helping me understand his approach.
I listened very hard to the master, to every word he said, and I hope I learned something to benefit in me in my quest to become as good a printer as he is.

- Thomas

Thomas, I agree with you that Bob's prints are fantastic. I will say this, though, Bob's printing skills are far and away more advanced than most of us. I've been in his darkroom and I've seen him work and I can comfortably say I don't have the abilities to control prints (lith, standard b/w or other) the way he can.

 

[Bill Edwards]

Its been a while since I have played with lith but here's some experience.

Lith likes higher temps 75-80 just as a general rule. Time and temperature is the only way to process and hope to get repeatable results. To that end we used to use 8 oz for an 8x10 in an 8x10 tray. After each sheet we would dump 4oz back into a graduate, to process the next sheet we added 2oz each of A and B to the 4oz we saved. That ran consistant all day.

Agitation is important. For routine work we agitated constantly but that tends to fill in fine detail so for "fine line" work after an initial agitation the film was allowed to stand for the rest of the time.

Exposure is the other half of the puzzle. Lith film has a pronounced "break point" where exposure is sufficient to cause density. Where that break point falls determins how much detail is retained. Too little exposure and all the imperfections show up magically, too much and too much detail fills in. The image actually changes size which is the basis of spread and choke in the old photocomp days. It is also why tone separation or posterization works. I think your problem is mainly too little exposure.

When lith printing for high contrast as opposed to extreme contrast we used to use a mixture of A&B and Dektol 2 parts A 2 parts B and between 2 and 8 parts Dektol. Plenty of contrast but a more subtle personality.

Hope this helps
Bill

 

[gainer]

There is one problem with this approach. Print color. If you use fresh lith chemistry every time you make a print you will get a fairly dull looking print. It isn't until you reach a certain stage of seasoning the chemistry that you get interesting color shifts. I suppose one could mix up a big batch, season it, and then use a little at a time for each print.
That might be a viable alternative.

- Thomas

The only time I did any lith printing was when I wanted to make a line drawing out of a contimuous tone negative...a low-contrast one at that. I used a simple concoction of hydroquinone, sulfite and lye which I mixed fresh for each try. I definitely did not want anything but pure white and pure black. I'm sure you know the trick. I made a lith print on lith film from the negative and a contact print on lith film from the positive. Sandwiching them, slightly shifted, produced what I needed.
If you must waste a number of print attempts just to season the developer, it would seem prudent to waste a little more time trying to find the chemical composition of the seasoned developer and to do the seasoning chemically. But I suppose that has been tried.