Lack of contrast with Adox Variotone Paper

[konakoa]

I use Adox Variotone Warmtone fiber paper as my standard go-to in my darkroom. I really like how it renders the values of my negatives, and the toning qualities are just excellent. However, for some time now I've been struggling to get the paper to print at high contrast grades above a 3. The paper doesn't want to react at all to a 4 or 5 filter. It seems to plateau around a grade three and won't go any higher. I changed my printing filters to check if that was it. Bought a brand new set. No improvement. I cannot get a high contrast grade out of this paper.

Has anyone who has used this paper noticed any problems getting it to create high contrast grades?

 

[sepiareverb]

Not me. Is this old stock or a new batch?

 

[pentaxuser]

In addition to what has been asked by sepiareverb, please tell us the age of your developer which might or might not be relevant. What filters are these and when you say you changed them, do you mean you bought or obtained a new set?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[konakoa]

The paper is now a year and half old. Always kept cold in the refrigerator since I got it. I had to special order the paper from Freestyle as it's not normally stocked. As for the developer, I use Ilford multigrade, also fresh and new. My printing filters (also Ilford) are indeed brand new, never used until I bought them.

I've also checked my safelight for fog, examined my enlarger for light leaks. I'm stumped.

 

[pentaxuser]

Me too! I take it you mean that the paper failed to produce above grade 3 since you first used it i.e. it sounds as if you have used the paper for several days/week/months now but it never produced above grade 3 from the start although it is no worse now that when you used the first sheet?

Are you producing above grade 3 for artistic reasons or does the neg(s) need more than grade 3 for a decent print? The reason I ask that is that recently I had over developed a film and the negatives appear to have low contrast and are quite dark. My analyser said that grade 5 was needed. I printed at grade 5 but just out of curiosity I tried the same neg at grade 3 and frankly there was very little difference. Had I done this in reverse so to speak then I might have come to the same conclusion as you have. I cannot say why the difference between grade 3 and 5 in the case of this particular neg was so marginal but it may have relevance to your situation. Like you the paper is fine, my filters are new and the developer was freshly made.

pentaxuser

 

[Svenedin]

Have you checked whether you can achieve above grade 3 on other Multigrade papers? Could it be your light source? A failing bulb in the enlarger perhaps.

 

[David Lyga]

Why would a 'failing bulb' be the cause of lack of contrast? Are you inferring that a weak bulb is warmer, thus lends itself to mock the color of a lower contrast filter? This rather intrigues me, as I think that you are not correct. Please advise. - David Lyga

 

[bernard_L]

warmer, thus lends itself to mock the color of a lower contrast filter

Unfortunately, the terms "warm/cold colors" are misleading; A warmer (hotter) filament will output more of all wavelengths, but, in proportion, more blue relative to red; and therefore lead to a higher apparent paper grade. So, multigrade too soft might originate from bulb not warm enough.
@OP: Did you check the mains AC voltage; Did you check the quality of contats from the AC plug to the bulb socket (included)?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As far as I know VC papers never really make grade 5 as judged against fixed grade 5 paper.

Have you checked your enlarger for light leaks. Then there is the possibility of a faded safelight filter.

 

[konakoa]

Pentaxuser, I'm printing negatives I make of constellations and nebulae in the night sky. It's long exposure work, the contrast is tricky and increasing the print contrast to bring out those details really helps.

Svenedin, last night I reprinted everything, and used some Ilford Multigrade right next to my Adox Variotone. The Multigrade paper worked fine and as expected, please see the photo I've attached below. For whatever reason my Variotone just doesn't want to print at high contrast levels.

I re-made both prints at the same time, same enlarger, same Ilford print filter, same print developer. I also did some step wedge checks, using filters for grades 2-5. Again, same enlarger, identical exposures, exact same tray of developer. I'm only showing the #5 filter results. My notes in the photo are what I see in good light from maximum black to paper base white. My prints and the step wedge are indicating to me Variotone just doesn't do high contrast.

I even pulled out a Kodak 47B tri-color filter for making separation negatives. It's a deep, deep blue filter with an incredibly narrow range of light it allows to pass through. If anything will trigger the hard contrast grades in paper, this filter would do it. I printed through that onto my Adox Variotone and even that filter wouldn't increase the contrast either.

Gerald, see my earlier posting yesterday. I checked my safelights and enlarger already.

Again, is anyone printing with Variotone experiencing this lack of a contrast response?

 

[Svenedin]

Why would a 'failing bulb' be the cause of lack of contrast? Are you inferring that a weak bulb is warmer, thus lends itself to mock the color of a lower contrast filter? This rather intrigues me, as I think that you are not correct. Please advise. - David Lyga

As some bulbs age the light spectrum changes which can alter the maximum contrast possible. If there is an electrical issue with contacts to the bulb or the transformer this can also affect contrast. This does not seem to be the issue though as the OP now says he can achieve grade 5 with other papers.

 

[pentaxuser]

Interestingly or not as the case may be, AgPhotographic, a U.K. retailer claims that Adox MCC FB and Adox MCP RC will give grades from 0 to 5.5 which I can't recall as a claim for Ilford which I think only claims grades 0-5. However in its description of Variotone it makes no mention of the achievable grade range. Can anyone find the spec for Variotone which might reveal what it is capable of. It may be that not all papers can achieve grade 5

pentaxuser

 

[Arklatexian]

I use Adox Variotone Warmtone fiber paper as my standard go-to in my darkroom. I really like how it renders the values of my negatives, and the toning qualities are just excellent. However, for some time now I've been struggling to get the paper to print at high contrast grades above a 3. The paper doesn't want to react at all to a 4 or 5 filter. It seems to plateau around a grade three and won't go any higher. I changed my printing filters to check if that was it. Bought a brand new set. No improvement. I cannot get a high contrast grade out of this paper.

Has anyone who has used this paper noticed any problems getting it to create high contrast grades?

I have not used this paper but I must have things completely wrong. It is my understanding that contrast filters react to the contrast in the negative, high, medium, low and do not themselves "make" contrast. Can someone please tell me if I have been misinformed. What do contrast filters really do? Correct our mistakes or react to them?......Regards~

 

[MattKing]

I have not used this paper but I must have things completely wrong. It is my understanding that contrast filters react to the contrast in the negative, high, medium, low and do not themselves "make" contrast. Can someone please tell me if I have been misinformed. What do contrast filters really do? Correct our mistakes or react to them?......Regards~

You have been mis-informed .
The filters know nothing of the negative - it is the emulsions in the paper that they work with.
The contrast filters change the balance of green and blue light hitting the paper.
The paper is made with an intermixed set of two or three emulsions, but it is easiest to think of as having a green sensitive emulsion and a blue sensitive emulsion. The blue sensitive emulsion is faster, and builds density faster. So if you tip the balance of the light's colour toward blue, the density in the darker parts of the scene go darker, thus increasing the contrast of the print.

 

[Arklatexian]

You have been mis-informed .
The filters know nothing of the negative - it is the emulsions in the paper that they work with.
The contrast filters change the balance of green and blue light hitting the paper.
The paper is made with an intermixed set of two or three emulsions, but it is easiest to think of as having a green sensitive emulsion and a blue sensitive emulsion. The blue sensitive emulsion is faster, and builds density faster. So if you tip the balance of the light's colour toward blue, the density in the darker parts of the scene go darker, thus increasing the contrast of the print.[/QU

The filters may know nothing of the negative but shouldn't the photographer who is printing the negative? I have known people who, when enlarging 35mm normal contrast negatives traditionally used No. 3 paper or a No. 3 filter to obtain a normal contrast print. With MF and LF films, they used No.2 paper or a No.2 filter. I guess, to me, the idea of using graded papers or filters is to end up with a print with normal contrast. If the negatives won't print these ways, I figured I screwed up somewhere down the line. I probably should go back to studying birds if I am wrong. Matt, I am sincere when I thank you for the above references to green and blue light what you wrote makes it make sense. Better than when I almost bought a VC coldlight head for my Omega. I decided to go the filter route instead, I still prefer graded papers though but the ones I liked are no longer made for whatever reasons.......Regards!

 

[MattKing]

I have known people who, when enlarging 35mm normal contrast negatives traditionally used No. 3 paper or a No. 3 filter to obtain a normal contrast print. With MF and LF films, they used No.2 paper or a No.2 filter.

That practice of printing larger negatives on to Grade 2 paper and 35mm negatives on to Grade 3 arose when film was a fair bit grainier. Photographers would frequently develop their 35mm negatives to a lower contrast, because those lower contrast negatives had less density, and negatives with less density show less grain. In order to compensate for the lower contrast in the negative, the same photographers would print on paper with a higher grade.
Essentially, "normal" 35mm negatives were intentionally lower in contrast, thus needing more contrast in the printing paper.
With modern film emulsions there is significantly less grain, so the need to develop to a lower contrast has just about gone by the wayside. If you like printing your medium format negatives on grade 2 paper, there is little need to tailor your 35mm negatives to anything different than grade 2.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Have you properly adjusted the exposure time to the filter / paper combination? The Dmax of your print on Variotone seems too low (on the computer screen). Have you tried making a print with +0,5f in addition to the normal time adjustment due to the filter?
Which developing time are you using? I have test MGIV RC / Adox Variotone / Foma MG Classic, and the Variotone can take a little more time in the developer. The MGIV RC in Ilford Multigrade in my process usually gives good results after 90 seconds, the Variotone and the Foma MG Classic need more like 3-4 minutes before the Dmax and tonality are ok.

 

[Craig75]

Pentaxuser, I'm printing negatives I make of constellations and nebulae in the night sky. It's long exposure work, the contrast is tricky and increasing the print contrast to bring out those details really helps.

Svenedin, last night I reprinted everything, and used some Ilford Multigrade right next to my Adox Variotone. The Multigrade paper worked fine and as expected, please see the photo I've attached below. For whatever reason my Variotone just doesn't want to print at high contrast levels.

I re-made both prints at the same time, same enlarger, same Ilford print filter, same print developer. I also did some step wedge checks, using filters for grades 2-5. Again, same enlarger, identical exposures, exact same tray of developer. I'm only showing the #5 filter results. My notes in the photo are what I see in good light from maximum black to paper base white. My prints and the step wedge are indicating to me Variotone just doesn't do high contrast.

I even pulled out a Kodak 47B tri-color filter for making separation negatives. It's a deep, deep blue filter with an incredibly narrow range of light it allows to pass through. If anything will trigger the hard contrast grades in paper, this filter would do it. I printed through that onto my Adox Variotone and even that filter wouldn't increase the contrast either.

Gerald, see my earlier posting yesterday. I checked my safelights and enlarger already.

Again, is anyone printing with Variotone experiencing this lack of a contrast response?

View attachment 187258 View attachment 187259

Thats not grade 5 on ilford either. Steps 4 to 11 with each step being half a stop is 1.2. Ilford says one should be able to get 0.4-5 or 1.5 stops from memory for grade 5. 4 stops is a hard 2 i think.

(Im assuming your wedge goes in half stops)

 

[Craig75]

.....

Variable contrast papers allow you to alter the contrast of various elements in the same scene. You might want some soft light somewhere in scene so you turn filtration down and burn that area in soft or you may have another element that would benefit from upping contrast so turn filtration up and burn that it in. If you have never used it before Id say its def worth getting a box to play with and having a look at say eddie ephraums book on vc printing. It will be different to using fixed grades but you might find it fun to play with (or hate it!)

 

[K-G]

I suggest that you Contact ADOX directly. You can find ADOX here on APUG ( or Photrio ) or send them a direct mail. Mirko Boeddecker ( The Boss ! ) doesn't constantly check APUG but quite often. You can reach him directly on info@adox.de and here on APUG at https://www.photrio.com/forum/index.php?forums/partner-adox.20/ . He knows the ADOX products very well and use to give good answers. Good Luck !

Karl-Gustaf

 

[David Allen]

Probably best to either contact Ilford as they make the paper for Adox or Wolfgang Moersch who helped to design it.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

 

[konakoa]

Rauschen, I use a two minute developing time for fiber papers. I did notice when I had both papers in the tray that Ilford Multigrade has density that appears rather quickly once it goes in the developer, and my Adox Variotone takes much longer to appear in the tray before an image appears. I do compensate for the printing filters, and my Variotone print above is deliberately light on exposure just so I can retain the milky way in the print. Adding more exposure and printing darker I lose most if not all of the nebulousity.

Craig75, my step wedge is in increments of .15 and / or half stops.

Really bothersome is I just compared all my step wedge prints last night. Adox Variotone with a #5 Ilford print filter is matching step by step tone for tone my Ilford Multigrade paper exposed with a #2 filter.

K-G and David, I probably should have contacted Adox from the beginning. I'll do that now. I was hoping this was just a known problem with the paper others have seen before.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

I have looked through my notes & samples, I did the test with Adox MCC which gave best results (in my process, my opinion and visual inspection only) @ 3 mins in Ilford Multigrade developer. If it helps, I checked the Heiland Electronics Splitgrade Controller Manual, and Heiland recommends developing Adox Variotone for 3 mins in Moersch Eco (1+14). In my experience, Moersch Eco is a little slower than Ilford Multigrade Developer, but not enough to make up for an entire minute. (Side note: for the Ilford Multigrade Warmtone, the developing time by Heiland in Multigrade developer 1+9 is 2 mins)

I do compensate for the printing filters, and my Variotone print above is deliberately light on exposure just so I can retain the milky way in the print. Adding more exposure and printing darker I lose most if not all of the nebulousity.

I am not sure if I understand you right, but in the end, you underexpose to keep Dmax (and contrast?) low, right? Underexposure does affect the tonal range of the print. Probably you are seeing the combination of some underexposure with some underdevelopment which significatly pushes the midtones into the highlights.

Thats not grade 5 on ilford either. Steps 4 to 11 with each step being half a stop is 1.2. Ilford says one should be able to get 0.4-5 or 1.5 stops from memory for grade 5. 4 stops is a hard 2 i think.

+1.000.000!!!!!
You are so right. The 8 steps (4 to 11) correspond to a range of R 120 - which according to Ilford data sheet (https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1945/product_id/739/) should be achieved with the Filter 1 1/2 !!! A filter 5 should produce a range of R 50 only which correspond to 3 steps of the step wedge only.

 

[konakoa]

Rauschen, I see what you mean yet I'm not intentionally underexposing the print. I live in an area that allows some okay views of the night sky that aren't totally washed out by city lights. When I'm out with the camera at night the skies aren't a inky, solid black. There's actually a lot up there. Printing the night sky as a solid black destroys the delicate tones and values I've recorded on the film.

I left my test strips next to the prints in my photo above so everyone could see the progression in tones. I do have some solid blacks there. However I chose the exposure time that gave me the most detail, not solid black. If I print for a maximum black, very little is visible and the detail is gone in the increasing murk.

Besides that, I'm clearly not getting contrast grades I should be in my darkroom. From Ilford paper or Adox. Some of my fussier negatives (landscapes, and not just astrophotography) would really benefit from a true hard contrast grade, and I can't figure out what's going on.

And it's not to say Variotone isn't working for me. Here's a print made with absolutely no printing filters at all. When I tone this later in selenium it will get even better.

 

[Svenedin]

So now it looks as if you cannot get the required contrast grades with either Ilford or Adox paper so seems less likely to be anything to do with the paper. I would check the light source as I suggested in post #6. You say you have fresh, new developer and have already checked the safelight is "safe". Have you checked anything else in the light path (lens, condenser etc) ? I suppose it is possible that a really filthy or fungus ridden lens could reduce contrast.