Kentmere VC Select Paper Need Help

HARMAN technology Limited,
Ilford Way,
Mobberley,
Knutsford,
CHESHIRE.
WA16 7JL

FAO Simon Galley

Bring on the neg, I will print it for you...

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

MartinP said:

"My enlarger timings are the same for both papers" -- the Kentmere paper is at least a stop faster than Multigrade. If you use the same exposure under the enlarger and pull the print too soon then you are going to have a low-contrast, grey result like you showed above. As a guide to a starting time with any combination of negs and paper, make a 10x8 contact sheet using Grade-2 so that the filmbase is only just different to black (ie. so that you can only just see the sprocket holes). If always done in the same way, this will give you a start point for deciding if your negs are ok. It 'should' be possible to make a reasonable work-print at that size and exposure and if not it gives you a baseline from which you can adjust things.

It also sounds as though there is something unusual about the exposure of the film. Try using the camera manually so you know how it is actually metering, compare that with a good light-meter (or even sunny-16), then develop according to the manufacturers instructions. Rodinal is sensitive to agitation and will change the contrast of the negative a fair bit depending on exactly what you do, so try using ID11 or something similar.

Click to expand...

This is really good advice. And Rodinal is sensitive for sure, very powerful. Making contact sheets - on the same paper we use to print, is really valuable for someone beginning.

I guess I just wanted to make sure there wasn't a problem with your safelight.

Based on the last two pictures you uploaded that shouldn't be a problem.

Are you developing your prints to completion? Or do you pull them from the developer when they 'look right'?

mryoda said:

I have a Patterson safelight like this one
http://www.photographyattic.com/product-496
Its kind of not Red as in bright red, but exactly as the pic above
I will test the light as you described tomorrow,

As for the developer, i tried 2 different ones,
First Suprol
Second Ilford MG Developer,
this did make the dark parts of the image slightly lighter maybe 1/4 stop as a guess.
Both fresh.

Click to expand...

I always develop to completion these days, no matter how dark they get
I used to pull them when the looked right, but not now
They are in the developer for at least 60 secs and sometimes 90 secs...

I put them in the ilfostop for 30 secs and then Ilford Rapidfix for 1 min. ( Simon can you make a non smelly version lol )

mryoda said:

I always develop to completion these days, no matter how dark they get
I used to pull them when the looked right, but not now
They are in the developer for at least 60 secs and sometimes 90 secs...

I put them in the ilfostop for 30 secs and then Ilford Rapidfix for 1 min. ( Simon can you make a non smelly version lol )

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see what Simon comes up with. Maybe you should send him a light proof envelope with some of the paper you are using too, so he could print using the same paper.

Have you tried making contact sheets the way it was described by Martin(?) above?

The negative has been posted to Simon, he should get that soon,
I have never made a contact print, but its next on my list as soon as it cools down a bit,
way to warm to go into my Darkroom for a few hours,
Would you suggest using a contact print device, i have one, or straight on the enlarger base / easel ?

Making a contact print is easy. Just use a dark surface, place your paper on it, emulsion side up, your negatives on top (emulsion in contact with the paper emulsion, hence the name contact print), and weigh it down with a piece of glass big enough to cover the entire sheet. If the glass isn't heavy enough to keep the film and paper firmly flat, apply pressure with your hands at the edges. There are contact printing frames with spring loaded backs, made specifically for this purpose, but the above will do fine. Then do as normal:
Turn on the enlarger light without any yellow/magenta; just white light. (make a note of lens aperture, and column height for future purpose).
Use a big dodging tool and make a test strip at 1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, etc (doubling each time).
Develop the sheet of paper normally (I recommend using 90 seconds consistently for all of your printing)
Pick the exposure that makes the film rebate almost maximum black, so that you can still just barely make out the sprocket holes.
Now make an exposure of another entire sheet at the exposure you picked in previous step.
Develop normally.

Next time you make a contact sheet, you can use that same exposure time, as long as you have the column at the same height, and the aperture of the lens the same.

This benefits you, because you will see, with all frames printed to a single sheet of paper, how you are doing with film exposure and film development. If you don't have enough shadow detail, you must increase exposure. If you don't have enough contrast, you must increase developing time. If your highlights are so dense that they just print as pure white, you have too much contrast and should decrease developing time. Adjust as necessary and soon you will KNOW that you're making good negatives. Sure, you can adjust contrast with your enlarger contrast filters, but it helps to have a starting point that is as close to printing well with no contrast filtration at all as possible.

It's also a great aid in picking frames to print, and it gives you an idea of how each individual frame will need to be adjusted, exposure and contrast wise, in the enlarger when you make your 5x7 sheets.
Always use the same paper to make contact prints that you use to make the actual print.

I have to admit that years ago when i was in my youth, i took pictures all the time,
BUT i never developed a single print, a darkroom to me was a my bedroom with Madonna on the wall in the dark lol

I will do what you suggest in a bit, and see how it comes,
I have made a couple test prints before, but not 100% sure how to judge them, they look different from the strips
on the test to the full pic developed, i suppose its a matter of conditioning the mind lol practice in other words.

Yeah, practice makes perfect, as long as you think critically about what comes out at the end of the process.

The contact sheets will really help you understand what you can do to better your results. Also think of your process in terms of fitting round pegs in round holes. Your paper and paper developer has a certain range of tones that they're capable of. When you expose and process film, your goal is always, with ultimate print quality in mind, to create negatives that fit that range ideally.
If the range of your negatives is too narrow (low contrast), you have to stretch it out to fit the paper come printing time by increasing contrast (more magenta).
If the range of your negatives is too long (high contrast), you have to compress it to fit the paper by lowering contrast (more yellow).
You have some flexibility to compensate for negative imperfections, but the better your negatives are, the better the negative tonal range fits that of the paper range, the better off you will be in the darkroom. Your prints will look better, and you will waste a lot less paper. Don't try to fit square pegs in round holes, basically.

If you consider the above, your process really starts with the paper. It truly is the one single variable to which everything else is adjusted. If you all of a sudden change paper, you are in fact changing something that alters your entire process. I'm not saying it's wrong to switch papers, absolutely not. But it does change things around on you (as you've discovered), and it does make things more complicated.
In my own printing I've used far more Ilford paper than I have Kentmere, but can attest that both are excellent products, and really good results are possible with both. It's just a matter getting to terms with what's different about the Kentmere product compared to the Ilford paper.

OK, here are 3 quick setup contact prints
to hot in the Darkroom to stay to long.

Kentmere 6 secs

img089

Kentmere 3 secs

Kentmere 3 secs

Ilford 6 secs MGIV cut from 8x10

Ilford-6-secs

OMG! it gets worse, just developed a 120 film from my Yashica A
and i forgot to put in 500ml,
doing 35mm that uses 300ml all the time confused me, so 50% of the neg is under developed.
They look really great also, what a damn shame, the done half looks the best i have ever seem from here

Dear Mr.Yoda,

I got your neg today, neg a little thin and somewhat lacking in contrast.

In saying that it printed OK ish,

I started at the bottom end G3 ( print 1 ) and topped it out at grade G4.5 ( print 2 ) to see what I could do...


I finished up at Grade 4 19 seconds @ f 5.6 I dodged as follows

LHS bottom of print - 10 seconds, middle bottom of print - 7 seconds RHS of bottom - 4 secs
shaded entire LHS print out -2 seconds then + 8 seconds bottom to top of image.
( Print 3 )

The above is printed on ILFORD MGIV RC Pearl

I then stopped down 1 stop ( f8 ) and printed on KENTMERE VC RC and shaded as above, the print looks fine, perhaps a little more contrasty ( gloss effect ). Sent teh prints and negs back to you in the post today. Printed on an KAISER VCP7005 with ILFORD Below lens filter kit. Processed automatically in an ILFORD 2150 RC processor.

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology LImited :

As expected, you get similar density with the Kentmere that you get with the Ilford if you just expose by closing the lens one stop, or half the time. It's known that the Kentmere paper is faster, and I believe this has been told a few times in the thread above.

mryoda said:

OK, here are 3 quick setup contact prints
to hot in the Darkroom to stay to long.

Kentmere 6 secs

img089

Kentmere 3 secs

Kentmere 3 secs

Ilford 6 secs MGIV cut from 8x10

Ilford-6-secs

Click to expand...

Thanks Simon, looking forward to the print
It seems you know what your doing, shame you didn't send some of
your knowledge back with the print

Today i changed enlargers, i got my old Gamer from the loft,
It was easier to extend the times upto 10 secs than the Durst at 3 secs, strange though as it has a 150w bulb, difference is
its a tungsten bulb and not a halogen ?
I will try it for a while and see how it go's

Is it possible that your paper developer is too warm? You mention your darkroom being uncomfortably warm - that could make your developer behave towards something like a lith developer, I think. It could be that you get infectious development (autocatalytic acceleration of the developing reaction), which will make your developing results unpredictable and could also cause some of the contrast problems. Combine that with over-exposure of the paper and early pulling from the developer, and you have probably been doing lith printing without knowing it. What is your working environment's temperature? I tend not to print too much at the height of either winter or summer, for I cannot control my small darkroom's temperature that well either. Also consider that at higher temperatures more of the chemicals will be volatile, and it may not be all that good for your health.

I think a halogen light source will produce more blue/violet light, to which enlarging paper is highly sensitive, while a tungsten bulb will have a larger output in the red/yellow region, to which the paper is less sensitive. Being VC paper, it would also make a slight difference in your filtration for the different contrast grades. I use a set of Ilford MG filters, and I use mostly Ilford paper as well, so I cannot say that I have had this issue of very short exposure times. I keep my Durst M605 at the white setting, and simply use the MG filters - I find that easier and rather hassle-free.

Although it is certainly possible and enormously useful to learn how to dodge and burn using different contrast grades, for difficult negatives this has been for me a time-consuming exercise with lower than expected success rate. If you have a master printer that can coach you, that is great, but where I live there is nobody in a close radius from whom I can learn directly. So for me the better (at least more productive) approach is to focus on correct exposure and development of the film, and then to spend my limited time and resources for darkroom printing on those negatives that are easily printable. This is a bit of a cop-out attitude, I know, but one only has time for so much. I'd rather do that than struggle to the point of frustration where the appeal starts to wane. I agree with Thomas on a great number of points. He makes those from an expert's perspective, which I am not. But as an engineer by day, I know that one fixes a problem faster if one can isolate one variable at a time. The longest road to a problem's solution is usually full of shortcuts. I think Rodinal is a great developer, but in a sense it is deceptive in its simplicity. It is very sensitive to agitation, so whatever you do be consistent, otherwise you won't be able to isolate or remove your development as the issue. I have used Rodinal, D76/ID11 and Caffenol (both C-H and C-L) lately, and the Rodinal is the more difficult one to get right every time. When you say Rodinal, are you meaning branded Agfa Rodinal, Adonal, R09 or something else like homemade parodinal or similar? My own calculations have shown that the most prevalent formulas for parodinal on the web are short on 4-aminophenol by about 20%, if you compare that to the original Rodinal formula as well as formulas such as those published in the Darkroom Cookbook. I have no idea what the current proprietary formulas contain, but whatever you use, be sure to check and compare - you could be operating developer-deficient and as a result will get thin negatives that make life more difficult for printing. A better approach might be to use D76/ID11 alongside so that you can compare your negative densities. I, like most home printers, do not possess a densitometer and do not quite know how to use one either. But at least I can tell by looking at a negative whether it will be easy or difficult to print, because what your eye cannot see, the paper will have difficulty in seeing too. There may be some detail in very thin parts of a thin negative, but they will be hard to translate to a print. At the other end of the density scale, the same applies. If you expose and develop consistently, and use the same paper at the correct temperature, then your enlarging times should be in a fairly narrow range from one negative to the next. If that is not the case, then you have inconsistency in your film exposure and development that should be sorted out first.

I have heard that Canons expose slightly 'hotter' than Nikons, but cannot confirm from personal use, as I use Nikon exclusively. My Nikon bodies are dead-on accurate and consistent with one another, though, and I have never had that kind of issue with them. If you switch between systems, especially if you use equipment from a company or rental pool, then I'd do a quick check of the exposure meter to see if it is within range. When using the sunny 16 guide, be sure to use a simple lens, as a complex lens may have a T-value (effective transmission) that is significantly below the F-value (focal length / diameter). Something with four or five elements is a good place to start (as opposed to the 21 elements in some modern lenses).

The above from a (near-)beginner's perspective, so take it in that light.

edit: Always write down what you've done. I write on each and every film the date, the developer used, the developing time and temperature, even if it is standard 20 deg C, the film type (although that is usually evident from the markings), the film speed rating and whatever else may be relevant. I also keep a darkroom notebook, which I am slightly more lazy in maintaining when things go well, but when I have a problem with a print, I always go back to my earlier notes and make updates. What is perhaps most useful (surprisingly) is to write down what you were thinking at the time you were trying something, and what you predicted the outcome would be. That way you can see whether intuition has led you along the correct path, or whether there was something not entirely under your control etc.

Hey Dorf, the developer i used for the paper was Ilford Multigrade and was at 20c, it was a new batch.
It was really warm in the darkroom, but i was only in there 10 mins, that why the contact prints look so bad lol, i rushed them
I have used the Gamer a few times now and i can get more time out of it compared to the Durst, i have also been taking loads more care to develop
the films properly, they are no longer "thin"

I have like you have not had a lot of success dodging and burning,
i think that will take a while to master.

I had considered a different film developer as suggested above but, i don't like to give up on anything
I am using R09 new not original Rodinal, i have no idea if they are different, but i would like to get it right before moving on.

For the most part i have used a Nikon, but just got a canon to try, EOS 50E so i will see if there is anything different between the 2
as for writing everything down, i have a assistant for that lol, my daughter, she is as eager to learn this as me

i think slowing down and considering each step would be better
I don't have the worlds greatest amount of patience

Here are a couple of shots using the Gamer Enlarger still on Kentmere paper
There was no filtering done at all, it has a drawer for filters, so i have some of them on order
Both shots were exposed for 10 seconds.

22222

out

Hi mryoda,

When I restarted with film early last year, I basically had a choice of ID11 and Rodinal, both of which I had kept from my student days in the early 90's. The ID11 was from a 5L batch, which back then I had the forethought to ask a chemist friend of mine to divide into five equal parts and seal them in plastic containers inside a palstic sleeve for me. So I had 1L batches just ready to mix. The Rodinal was from half empty bottles that I got from an old darkroom lab at work - they were about 15 years old then, and probably 30 years now, and the developer is still 100%. If anyone tells you Rodinal will last forever, you can believe them.

Since re-entry, I have done around 100 B&W films, not sure as I am not really counting. Around two-thirds have been developed with Rodinal, so I have some experience with it now. I do everything basically at 1 in 50, that is 12 ml on a total of 600 ml. If you develop a single roll of 35 mm, I suggest you work at 1 in 25 (12 ml in 300 total) or work with the larger volume of 600 in any case. The reason is that 10-12 ml is required to fully develop one standard film (35mm 36exp, or 120). If you use D76/ID11, there are similar guidelines for minimum developer quantity (250 ml of stock per film, if I remember correctly). What that means is that for higher dilutions, you also have to increase the total volume. This is one of the reasons why some beginners underdevelop their films. If you run near the depletion zone, it will also make your results less consistent.

If I am not mistaken, R09 is the OLD (post-war) Agfa Rodinal formula. The newer formulation is not identical, and apart from 4-aminophenol also contains another developing agent. The 4-aminophenol content is consequently lower. Rodinal Special is totally different still. You will be able to find many formulas for Rodinal and "home brews" that have the same essential formula. I have made two versions of Parodinal, and also the version explained in the Darkroom Cookbook (Anchell). Parodinal is made from Paracetamol (Acetaminophen). Another variation, metonal, can be made from metol in similar fashion. If done correctly, all of them are identical (in use) to Rodinal. The German pre-war formula for Rodinal contained KBr (Potassium bromide), but I believe that is only of concern for stand development. If you do stand development with low concentrations (1:100), then perhaps 1g/L KBr is not a bad idea, but you can add it when mixing, not to the concentrate. It also contained EDTA, which is only necessary for poor water quality. I mix with distilled water, so that does not affect me.

Rodinal tends to produce fog with some emulsions, notably with Rollei PRX400. I don't know why. It is not too problematic for darkroom printing, as one simply prints "through the fog". But for scanning it does require more effort to get good quality. One of my acquaintances has done a comparison on RPX400 with different developing agents, and the Rodinal fogging issue is quite clear. If there is something to be learnt from this, it is that one should experiment a bit every once in a while. Each fim/developer combination is potentially unique, and if you try a new film, then knowing how it mates up with developers is useful information. The exception is possibly D76/ID11, as that is used by film manufacturers as the benchmark. Therefore, almost no films are released unless they respond well to D76. If I were you, I would develop at least one test roll of the Arista 100 with D76 to compare to Rodinal.

"i think slowing down and considering each step would be better" - wise words indeed, but with children around not always that easy to realise

I think with better negatives you will find the printing easier going, no doubt. Using VC (or MG) paper without filtration is a bit like driving a 5-gear car that is stuck in 3rd. You will find that even a half-grade change up or down can help some negatives somewhat. I very seldom venture beyond 3.5 or below 2, but sometimes the extreme grades are useful for a bit of burning in here and there. Every print potentially has areas that will benefit from dodging/burning, so the technique has to be learned. My point was that I haven't learned how to save a print from a negative that is more or less unprintable in the first place. To a master printer, though, that is merely a nice challenge. I appreciate the skills of master printers for what they are - the pinnacle of a craft practiced by many but mastered by only a few. While every golfer aspires to playing like Tiger Woods, it should not take away the pleasure of playing in any case. If you like playing golf, that is . BTW, I can recommend Tim Rudman's books - they are very good guides, and Tim seems to have some mercy on beginners too. I still can't replicate everything he explains, but at least I understand what I am doing wrong in most cases.

My kids are just too young still (5 & 3) to learn darkroom, but the easier stuff like cyanotypes they LOVE! If you haven't done that with your daughter, give it a go. We collect leaves, seaweeds, feathers etc. and make photograms with them. It is terrific fun for children (and for me too!).

Regards,
dorff

Thanks for that
I think i will order some D76/ID11 and try a few films with it,
if its the standard and i make a right mess then i really must be doing something wrong.
I am going to take a look for Tim Rudman and his books, i have seen some of his pics and i have
to say i like them a lot,
I love being in the darkroom, but sometimes it can get frustating
being able to come on here and express that and get help is just great, amen 4 apug
Thanks all

My experience has been that if you buy an Ilford or Kodak film and follow the processing instructions faithfully for the film manufacturer's developer then you will get "very printable negs" i.e. good prints at between grade 2 and 3 without having to be a master printer.

D76/ID11 are the two "anchor" developers which probably have the least "foibles" and behave best when you are looking for simplicity and reliability.

I couldn't see much wrong with the prints you showed in your post above.

pentaxuser

You have a nice range of tones in these prints, and I would say it would be better to work on your technique with your existing materials than switching developers. Developing film isn't rocket science; it just takes a keen eye and an understanding of how to correct for things that aren't going right. Use Grade 2 filtration as your standard, and try to make negatives that fit the scale you need for grade 2 printing.
Too little contrast - develop longer. Too much contrast - develop less. Negatives too dense - expose less. Negatives thin - expose more. Repeat as necessary until you get decent work prints at Grade2. Learning these steps, how to recognize the problem, and how to correct them, will make you able to appreciate the differences between different films and developers.

I say just keep doing what you're doing, lend your results a critical eye, and try to compensate for any problems at the negative exposure/development stages by altering your technique. For example, you could, just to see the difference, expose your film, on purpose, -2 stops, -1.5 stops, -1 stop, -0.5 stops, normal (box speed), +0.5 stops, +1 stop, + 1.5 stops, +2 stops, +2.5 stops, +3 stops. And then develop normally according to the manufacturer's instructions. Print all of the negatives to the best of your ability, which includes using the contrast filters and different exposure times. This will tell you an awful lot about how you prefer your prints to look, or not to look. It teaches you about mistakes, without having to blow it on important shots. Then when you find a preferred film speed (+/- however many stops from box speed that may be), expose an entire roll at that speed. Then develop one third of the film at a time, and develop it using different times, say +20%, normal, and -20%. Print one of each to the best of your ability. This also teaches you an awful lot about how to get negatives that you like how they print.
Eventually you will also want to explore different lighting situation. For example, when shooting into the sun, how do you expose for the best results? Only one way to find out. Try different exposures, and print the negatives to find out what the print looks like.

pentaxuser makes a very valid point, however, and that is that often times you will get good results following the manufacturer's instructions. The above is for when you're going to 'see for yourself' what you like. Both are important things to try, and using the manufacturer's instructions is also something that's nice to fall back to if something goes wrong and you feel unable to sort it out (this has happened to me several times).

Keep up the good work! Continue to explore with an open mind and a critical view.

mryoda said:

Hey Dorf, the developer i used for the paper was Ilford Multigrade and was at 20c, it was a new batch.
It was really warm in the darkroom, but i was only in there 10 mins, that why the contact prints look so bad lol, i rushed them
I have used the Gamer a few times now and i can get more time out of it compared to the Durst, i have also been taking loads more care to develop
the films properly, they are no longer "thin"

I have like you have not had a lot of success dodging and burning,
i think that will take a while to master.

I had considered a different film developer as suggested above but, i don't like to give up on anything
I am using R09 new not original Rodinal, i have no idea if they are different, but i would like to get it right before moving on.

For the most part i have used a Nikon, but just got a canon to try, EOS 50E so i will see if there is anything different between the 2
as for writing everything down, i have a assistant for that lol, my daughter, she is as eager to learn this as me

i think slowing down and considering each step would be better
I don't have the worlds greatest amount of patience

Here are a couple of shots using the Gamer Enlarger still on Kentmere paper
There was no filtering done at all, it has a drawer for filters, so i have some of them on order
Both shots were exposed for 10 seconds.

22222

out

Click to expand...

OK well i have been listening to everyone here and have some results to show you,
A couple days ago, i bought some stuff on Ebay, print drying rack, easel, stirir, etc, etc loads of it, in amongst the stuff
was a re-usable film canister and in it was a film, so i decided to develop it for a laugh and because this was an unknown film,
i used my Rondinax 35u to develop it, I wouldn't normaly use it, but anyway i tried it,
The film was Fortepan 50 and made in Hungary
The film had some shots of Niagra falls on it and in them were a few shots of people, looking at the clothes and hair styles this film was shot in the 70's
I was really shocked to see the pics after i developed it and the negative came out like it was shot yesterday.

This shot i exposed standard at 10 secs F11

1-Standard

This shot below, was the same image, dodged and burned for 20 secs at F11

2-Dodge-Burn

Again below was exposed for 10 secs at F11

3-Standard

Same image again, Exposed for 20 secs at F11, doged and burned also
If you look at the front of the boat, i got a bit dodge happy lol

4-Dodge-Burn

From looking at modern pics of Niagra Falls this is not the same boat they use now
All pics above were using a Grade 2 filter and developed in Suprol paper developer.
Both shots only took 3 peices each of Kentmere VC glossy 5x7
Remember its just practice for me, so all comments are really welcome.
So what do you think ?

Wow, what an interesting story. Have you heard about the Vivian Maier collection? Worth reading up on. A substantial part of her films were undeveloped and lay in a box in a cupboard for years and years. John Maloof, who virtually by accident bought the collection, spent months afterwards to develop the remaining films as well as cataloging the already developed ones. She never printed her photographs or even showed them to anyone. Imagine that. Thousands upon thousands of unseen pictures, that close to landing on a trash heap.

5x7 prints are tricky to dodge and burn, because one has to work finely with small instruments. I think even a minor size bump to 8x10 or 9,5x12 will make life easier for you. It will, apart from giving you more space, also extend the column height and the printing time. More time is more forgiving in terms of minor mistakes.

If I were you, at least try the following: Instead of printing darker and dodging on the boat, do the opposite. Print a lighter base exposure and burn in the water and the roof of the boat. It is ease, not size, that matters. Remember to work far from the paper and to keep your dodging tools moving constantly. Use a piece of cardboard and work right round the boat, giving it equal exposure time in a 360 degree circle. For the boat's roof, make a small circular or oval hole in a piece of cardboard large enough to obscure the rest of the image, and burn in by covering the area you want darker. If you move to and fro at the same speed, you will burn in most in the center of the area, so move slowly one way, fast the other, or time it such that you do only one pass. For the water, you may perhaps use a higher contrast grade. Only change the filter, leave the rest as is.

It took me a while to understand how to apply contrast filters, or put differently, what I should be looking to achieve with them. That this is non-obvious is perhaps surprising, and the degree to which it is subjective also complicates matters. In simple terms, you can use your grade 2 to determine the time to expose your highlights optimally. That will give you an exposure with just the right amount of details in the brightest parts (below pure white). Then keep this exposure time, and change the contrast filter to give you the corresponding dark tones, including a solid black if that is what you want. For grades 4 to 5, you will usually have double the exposure time (read the manual to be sure). It means defining your white point with the timer, and the black point with contrast, to use histogram terminology. Then use minor dodging and burning to cover the areas that need attention.

I think learning the filters is quite a challenge, like you say, they seem obvious
but the truth is far from that, well for me anyway.

I have also ordered a 75w bulb for the enlarger, i read the manual for my old Gamer and it says for B&W
to use a 75w, there is a 150w in there right now, so that will allow me to open the lens and extend the time

I have some 8x10 paper, but its ilford and i was trying to get used to the Kentmere before trying that again,
I think its fun to dodge and burn and see the difference in the developer, more magic happening lol its great!

As for the Vivian Maier collection, that sounds really interesting, i am going to have a look at that
I was shocked to see anything on this film i got, its 40 years old or there abouts, just shows how long film
can last.
Thanks for all the advice, when i get in there next, i am going to try some of it