Is this a sign of a bad bulb?

[Perry Way]

I was using a newly acquired Kodak Precision A enlarger today for the first time. It's an old enlarger.

My results today have been really lackluster. The negatives appear to be decent negatives with a decent amount of contrast to them. Normal skies here are cloudless and in a properly exposed unfiltered and properly developed negative the skies usually are rather clear and bright. Almost near white when enlarged. However, the enlargements have been tending towards muddy and lack of details. I had to throw in a filter #3 just to get average results and even those had a muddy element. Normal average contrast would be #2 filter.

So I'm trying to rule things out. Chemicals? I had diluted chemicals stored for about 3 weeks or maybe a month now. Of course that is nomal for stop bath and fixer. But developer I'm told doesn't last long. But it looked fine to me, and I had only done like 10, 8x10's before pouring it into the container I stored it in. I left no air in the container, filled it to the top. Figured lack of oxegen would let chemicals stay good for longer period of time. Anyhow, coloration looked good, and so did time of development as well. (Ilford universal PQ in 1/14 dilution). Would bad developer cause muddy enlargements? I am tending to think not. It would be some other problem.

So, I am now considering the light buld in the enlarger. I cannot vouch for how old it is. I undid the lighthouse which was very easy with this Kodak, you just pull up the alien spacecraft like globe on the top and it comes off easily. Inside looked to me like a normal light bulb. I unscrewed it, and did some research. Its a GE PH/211. Turns out this is listed on replacementlightbulbs.com as decent substitute light bulb for original Phillips of unknown part number.

Then I read a bunch of posts here that lead me to think perhaps the light bulb is a suspect. But nothing was mentioned about muddy images. Fact is, when I was focusing the enlargements it did look really different to me than my other enlarger which I've been using for 35mm. But since I was working with medium format today, I could not switch over to the 35mm enlarger because all I have for negative carriers is 35mm on that.

So, does anyone have any other information that could be useful in determining what the problem is? I am thinking I should make a purchase of replacement bulbs for both enlargers as good insurance, but for this enlarger I think its a necessity to replace this bulb. It just seems to me it is not giving off the correct blue spectrum of color.

Here's my best worst enlargement. I could not get this to be not muddy. You should see what is in the wastebasket. Yet, when scanning the negative, this negative shows up nicely sharp and with full definition. Scanner is cheep scanner. Not some whoop-de-do thing either. For it to appear nicely with it seems to me to indicate some kind of light bulb issue with the enlarger.

Is this a sign of a bad bulb? And if not, what are the signs of a bad bulb, other than inconsistent light coming out?

 

[Kevin Kehler]

I think you have to go back to chemicals first, replace all of them (especially the developer) and then reprint, seeing if that solves the problem. 9 times out of 10, when my prints look muddy, it is the chemicals. Usually a bad bulb produces inconsistent light, so one print will look different than the next print, even though they are processed and timed identically. Or, you will have inconsistent patterns in your print, from different intensities of light hitting different parts of the print. I would try new chemicals before I started blaming the bulb. Quick question, how old is the paper and how are you storing it (paper can lose contrast if kept in a warm humid environment for an extended period of time).

 

[Nick Zentena]

Paper,developer or I guess safelight. Bad bulb might go redder which would slow printing down. I can't see how it would cause contrast problems.

 

[Ian Grant]

Usually you need to adjust the bulbs position for optimal light coverage, evenness etc, you do this by setting the enlarger up for a print, focussing, then remove the neg leaving the lens wide open. Now see how even the light coverage is, normally there's a screw at top that allows the bulb to be raised/lowered & twisted to get the best even coverage. This won't cure the lack of contrast, it may help a little though.

The enlarger lens can also play a major part, an old lens may not be as contrasty as it should be, that definitely causes muddy flat results.

You can rule out paper, dev, safelight by trying a 35 mm neg in the 35mm enlarger, just print a portion of a neg as a quick test, then print the same with the new enlarger. (make a crude card mask to hold it in place if you need to). See what difference you get, if the 35mm test is ok in the old enlarger and flat in the new one it's probably the Kodak's lens thats at fault.

Ian

 

[Perry Way]

Quick question, how old is the paper and how are you storing it (paper can lose contrast if kept in a warm humid environment for an extended period of time).

I bought this unopened package from some student local to me. He claimed it was only about a year old and stored okay. But I cannot vouch for that. I have some Fiber paper I got from him that turned out really nice, so I'm thinking maybe he was right about the age and storage. But now you have me thinking about more variables than bulb.

The part about the developer being bad though, I tell you why I didn't think it was bad was because the development time remained the same for the same density of darkness for 1/14 dilution of Ilford Universal PQ, and that is 1.5 minutes. Given that factor, can chemicals really cause a whole difference in contrast? The color of the developer seems really normal, smell normal....

 

[Perry Way]

Paper,developer or I guess safelight. Bad bulb might go redder which would slow printing down. I can't see how it would cause contrast problems.

Wouldn't a spectrum shift in essence be the same sort of thing as changing filters? And wouldn't that change contrast? The question I have is what is the sign of a bad bulb. Is there any spectrum shift or is it just inconsistent light (flickering)?

 

[Perry Way]

The enlarger lens can also play a major part, an old lens may not be as contrasty as it should be, that definitely causes muddy flat results.

This lens is a more modern Schneider. It's a nice lens too. Very clear. Don't think it's the lens.

You can rule out paper, dev, safelight by trying a 35 mm neg in the 35mm enlarger, just print a portion of a neg as a quick test, then print the same with the new enlarger. (make a crude card mask to hold it in place if you need to). See what difference you get, if the 35mm test is ok in the old enlarger and flat in the new one it's probably the Kodak's lens thats at fault.

Ian

Or its the bulb. I like this idea though for a test. Trouble is I can't fit both enlargers in my "take down" bathroom darkroom. But I think I will try this test next weekend, as it is too late tonight. But also I will throw these chemicals out and start with fresh ones next time around.

 

[railwayman3]

It's a bit obvious, I guess, but have you checked that all the optic surfaces are clean. Just a thought, I was surprised recently by how much grunge had appeared on the lenses and condenser of a microscope in just a year stored in its closed wooden case.

 

[Ian Grant]

Also sometimes the inside of the bellows loses it's deep black allowing light scatter, I had to re-black the inside of a set of camera bellows a couple of months ago.

But yes railwayman is right the condensers do need a good clean every so often, once or twice a year is usually sufficient, you're only looking for a small problem that has a disproportionate effect.

Ian

 

[Perry Way]

It's a bit obvious, I guess, but have you checked that all the optic surfaces are clean.

Yes actually when I got the enlarger home it was the first thing I did. I disassembled the condensor and gave it a thorough cleaning. It was ghosty before that. Looked like it went a number of years without a cleaning. The lens was also cleaned on exterior surfaces, and it looks very clear.

 

[Perry Way]

Also sometimes the inside of the bellows loses it's deep black allowing light scatter, I had to re-black the inside of a set of camera bellows a couple of months ago.

But yes railwayman is right the condensers do need a good clean every so often, once or twice a year is usually sufficient, you're only looking for a small problem that has a disproportionate effect.

Ian

Oh now this is a good idea for me to check out when I get home tonight. The odd thing I found at first when I got the enlarger was the exterior of the bellows is a greyish green color, not black. I expected to see all bellows black. But I haven't checked the inside because of how cumbersome that is. So, let's assume a bellows isn't so black on the inside and allows light to scatter as you say. Even though light is being focused through the lens further below, do you think it could cause (as would be in the case of light scatter) a fogging effect, because the negative is further up the plane of light?

 

[Ian Grant]

It is possible, it certainly happens with cameras, and an enlarger is just the reverse. The enlarger is a semi-diffuser, although it uses condensers the bulb is very diffuse so there is supposed to be some light scatter.

If the inside of the bellows are faded then some water soluble black dye should quickly restore them, used lightly with a small artist brush, you mustn't saturate the bellows often they are laminated with the outer layer glued to the inner sometimes with card strengtheners. It's better to give extra coats if needed only after the first has dried. It's a quick task.

Ian