Lack of contrast with Adox Variotone Paper

Svenedin, sensitometry is the next step to find out what I've got going on. I've never been too interested in that other than some basics. Endless tests, entering plots, creating graphs, all to go 'pbbbt' when the paper I work with gets discontinued, the formulation suddenly changed or some essential commercially made chemical stops being made due to a lack of sales. When Craig75 says a density of 1.2 on my Ilford paper with a #5 is equivalent to a #2, I'm just taking his word for it. What I do know for certain is my #5 contrast is very poor.

I'm using condenser enlargers. Not much to go wrong with them. Inside are photo-grade purpose made bulbs. PH211 or a PH212 depending on what I'm doing. Not generic household bulbs. The condensers are spotless and crystal clear. My lenses are also immaculate. Zero fungus, no haze, no dust. There is nothing else besides heat absorbing glass between the light and the negative.

Yes, Fresh chemistry, new printing filters. I've done the Kodak safelight test several times, I'm good to thirty minutes where I quit the safelight test. I've looked for light leaks on the enlarger.

I'll probably get a third new set of filters in the event I've got some duds. Only thing else I can think of is to sample multiple papers from all the manufacturers to see if anything actually works.

Edit: I have a densitometer, and I checked my step wedge to see if it had faded with time. Each increment does increase by .15 for each step, and the densitometer is calibrated and reading correctly to the test materials it came with.

Do you know anyone nearby who can achieve the full range of contrast grades? The easiest thing now would be to take your paper to them and test it on their enlarger.

I know this is a bad picture but here is a photo of some step wedges I made about 2 years ago (Ilford MGIV RC).

Svenedin said:

I know this is a bad picture but here is a photo of some step wedges I made about 2 years ago (Ilford MGIV RC).

Click to expand...

Correct me if I´m wrong, but I´d say your step wedges are too soft, too. With a grade 5 filter, MG IV RC has a copying range of R 40. That only leaves room for total black, total white and two shades of grey. Your No. 5 step wedge has visible distinction on screen from No. 6 (total black) to No. 12 (total white), thus showing a range aprox. R100 which corresponds to a No. 2 1/2 filter:

konakoa said:

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.

View attachment 187319

Click to expand...

You are right, as the test wedges are way too soft, there must be some other problem. Unfortunately, there are many possible sources which can only be guessed at the distance:

1.) Paper itself: Old, wrong storage or fogged in some way (exposure to light, moisture or chemicals, fumes?)
2.) Safelight or light leaks or diffuse reflection from the enlarger creating fog
3.) Light source / filters: if your light source, your filters and your enlarger are fine, where do you place the filter in the light path?
4.) Chemistry: dilution / temperature / development time (Adox recommends six times the time it takes for the first traces of the print to be visible, usually between 1:30 min and 3 min) / contamination / too strong fix or overfixing / .... ?
5.) Your profile states you do LF. Do you have the problem with contact prints or normal enlargement?

I doubt there is a problem with the manufacturing of the paper. The paper is made by Ilford and as this is not the most recent batch, the problem would have popped up earlier and would be known.

The print you are showing without filter seems to have more contrast than the one with a No 5 Filter. Have you made a step wedge without filter? To which grade does it compare from the filtered step wedges?

RauschenOderKorn said:

Correct me if I´m worng, but I´d say your step wedges are too soft, too. With a grade 5 filter, MG IV RC has a copying range of R 40. That only leaves room for total black, total white and two shades of grey. Your No. 5 step wedge has visible distinction on screen from No. 6 (total black) to No. 12 (total white), thus showing a range aprox. R100 which corresponds to a No. 2 1/2 filter:

View attachment 187323

Click to expand...

I only posted these an an example not to illustrate some kind of perfect set. They are step wedges from calibration of my RH Designs Analyser. According to the instructions, each step of the wedge represents a change of 1/2 a stop (15 ISO units). Also according to the instructions the step wedge is compared to the shadow density reference tile and the dark tone of the step wedge that corresponds is noted, the same is done for a pale tone. The number of the dark tone ascertained is subtracted from that of the light tone and the results multiplied by 15. In my case this gave me an ISO (R) contrast range of 45 at grade 5 on Ilford MGIV RC and for comparison 150 at grade 00. All I can conclude from my results is that my own set up does not exactly correspond to the Ilford quoted contrast values at each grade. However, I can achieve a range of grades from soft to hard. I think it is not particularly important for the OP to achieve the exact figures for each grade but to be able to obtain the results he wants for his prints.

A couple of questions and comments:

First, to Rauschen: I'm not sure your demands on paper contrast are in line with reality: Does any paper at a supposed grade 5 really ever get to R40 and only "two shades of grey" between black and white? It would be nice if this were so, but it's not my experience.

To the OP: It seems a bit futile to strive for extremes in paper contrast when simply developing the negatives longer will get you what you need. You should be targeting you negative contrast so that it falls somewhere close to the middle of the available paper contrasts you have (regardless of what these are for your paper of choice). This will give you a bit of leeway to adjust either direction with paper contrast. Of course, this doesn't help with existing negatives, but should make life easier in the future. Existing negatives can be intensified by a number of means (I prefer bleach/redevelop in a staining developer).

As regards the color temperature of the lamp being used: If you have good filters, the color temperature of the lamp will have no effect on print contrast, just on print exposure time. Say you have a lamp with lots of red, some green and little blue being emitted. When using the highest contrast filter, which only passes blue and no green, you will have to simply expose longer to build up the proper exposure of blue light; the green is being filtered out and will not affect the image. In order to make the image less contrasty, the paper would need exposure to green light, which, in this case, is being filtered out.

As Rauschen points out, there are a lot of things that can reduce paper contrast. I think it's pretty easy to rule out many of these.

First, print development times are not carved in stone. Most modern papers simply increase in effective speed with extremely extended development (some papers gain contrast with longer development, but that can only help here...). Being sure you are developing long enough to get the maximum contrast from your paper is, therefore, simple. A four or five minute developing time will ensure that you are getting the most contrast from your paper (you'll have to adjust print exposure, of course, but that's easy). And, be sure you are using a fresh developer that is designed to give good contrast.

Second, safelights can affect contrast in other ways than fogging. Prolonged exposure to red safelights can reduce contrast by means of the Herschel Effect. To eliminate any possible effect of safelights on print contrast, just make a print in the dark.

Possible enlarger fog and/or fog or degradation from the lens can be eliminated by simply making a contact print. (As an aside: I find that enlargements are always a bit softer than contact prints even with the best lenses).

Certainly filtration has a direct effect on VC-paper contrast. If I were not getting as much contrast as I thought was correct, I'd check my filters by exposing a print through a Wratten #47 blue filter. This will ensure that your paper is seeing only blue light and, if you are doing the things mentioned above, ensure that you are getting the maximum contrast your particular paper is capable of. If that is still too soft, then it is the the paper. The paper may have lost contrast for a nuber of reasons. Try again with new or different paper. Or, the paper is fine and you are simply asking more of it than it was designed to give, in which case, you need to address the shortcomings of your negatives.

Best,

Doremus

Doremus Scudder said:

First, to Rauschen: I'm not sure your demands on paper contrast are in line with reality: Does any paper at a supposed grade 5 really ever get to R40 and only "two shades of grey" between black and white? It would be nice if this were so, but it's not my experience.

Click to expand...

Not a demand of mine, just what Ilford is giving us as reference under perfect circumstances. Probably, such a result cannot be achieved with most setups. But the Ilford Data Sheet is the reference to determine how much off we are. In the end, everybody needs to be happy with their process and results and that´s all what matters.

Svenedin said:

However, I can achieve a range of grades from soft to hard. I think it is not particularly important for the OP to achieve the exact figures for each grade but to be able to obtain the results he wants for his prints.

Click to expand...

+1 I totally agree

Doremus, both you and Rauschen have mentioned something that's clued me in to a potential culprit--the paper developing time. For over fifteen years I've only used one time, two minutes, for every fiber based paper I've ever picked up. I have noticed that Adox Variotone has a long delay for any image at all to show up in the developer tray and I think it's increasingly likely I've been snatching the print out of the developer before the full range of tones have had an opportunity to fully form. As I still had a black value appear in the paper I never suspected anything amiss. I was taught long ago and the manufacturer's literature said two minutes at the minimum, so I never even considered a too-short developing time.

I'm going to increase the print developing time. I can't wait to get in the darkroom tonight to try it!

Doremus, you also mentioned red safelights can have an effect on contrast. I'm using red LEDs as safelights in a fixture I built. I've heard of this red-light effect only once before. My safelight tests have come out clean, yet can you elaborate on how red light can be affecting my prints?

konakoa,

There's a phenomenon known as the Hershel Effect in which a blue-sensitive emulsion loses contrast after prolonged exposure to red light. Some here (notably Ian Grant) claim this can have an effect on some photo paper emulsions. This is a separate issue from safelight fogging.

I haven't yet had the opportunity to test it definitively, but I did have problems getting max contrast out of Adox MC110 in a darkroom equipped with red safelights (Kodak 1A filters). My present darkroom has OC filtration, so that's not an issue. I mention it just in case it may possibly be affecting your particular paper. The easy way to test is to make two identical prints, one in normal safelight and one completely in the dark from start till it hits the stop bath and see if, indeed, there is any difference.

And, do develop longer and see if that's an issue as and Rauschen suspect.

Best,

Doremus

Well, I really thought the print development time was it. Another round of step wedge prints last night are showing me that isn't it either. I opened up a brand new bottle of Ilford multigrade developer too. Looked perfect, no oxidation or any other problems I could see in the bottle. I also timed how long it took an image to appear in the developer. For both Adox and Ilford papers (these are fiber base), it was fifteen to twenty seconds. I'm back at the beginning with the same problem.



Doremus, I do have a Kodak 47B filter here (I used it earlier as well, see posting #10) and I made step wedge prints with that too last night. It prints the same as the Ilford #5 filter other than the 47B needing four times the exposure.



And I did a print with my safelights off. Identical to the prints with the safelights on.



Lastly just to see if the print contrast filters were doing anything at all over an unfiltered exposure:



So the filters are working, it's just not in the ranges I've come to expect. Increasing the contrast on Variotone continues to vex me.

A tip MrBill gave me - lay the filter directly onto stepwedge - and flick room light on and off (make sure room light is incandescent bulb) then process.

If its the same at least then you have ruled enlarger out leaving you with filters, paper, or developer. If it is the same, given you have used three developers and two sets of filters and two sets of paper then the fridge is looking pretty guilty

Craig, the fridge where I keep my film and paper has only ever had canned drinks and the occasional food leftovers. (Which never stay for long, ha!) Clean, no odors, never anything to indicate a problem.

And I don't know anyone in my town with a darkroom, or even developing film for that matter. I don't have anyone to take my stuff to for a check.

konakoa said:

Craig, the fridge where I keep my film and paper has only ever had canned drinks and the occasional food leftovers. (Which never stay for long, ha!) Clean, no odors, never anything to indicate a problem.

And I don't know anyone in my town with a darkroom, or even developing film for that matter. I don't have anyone to take my stuff to for a check.

Click to expand...

I only say the fridge because I think someone else had found they had a fridge which was only working intermittently and they lived somewhere hot so paper got baked. Long shot I know.

Its worth trying the incandescent bulb trick to rule out enlarger entirely.

@Craig75 The incandescent bulb trick is a great idea! (if of course he has such a thing, in the UK they are hard to find these days).

konakoa said:

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.

Click to expand...

A couple of things: Does the paper have an expiration date? Usually they just have batch number difficult to decode. How long had it been sitting on the shelf and under what conditions before it was shipped to Freestyle?


I was given a ton of expired MGIV which I have been using. It came from one source and was stored in a cool basement. Another person gave me another box of MGIV that was stored in a place that the temps reached a bit above 80F during the summers. This paper was definitely newer than the old stuff I was given. The older paper (maybe 10-12 y.o.) needs about 5 sec more before it comes up in the developer (dektol) compared to fresh MGIV I have on hand. The newer expired paper that was stored under less than ideal conditions took almost 40 sec before an image started to appear in the developer. I could never get a decent black out of it.

I suspect the problem is you may have been sold paper that was marginally stored before you received it and is not as fresh as you may think.

Additionally, I have had several separate experiences with old paper over the years that took between 30 sec and a minute before an image appeared; invariably these old papers had been stored in warm temps and that pretty much will destroy the paper's integrity. I couldn't get normal tone reproduction from those papers either.

My observations from these experiences is that if you don't see an image in 15-20 sec, you are probably dealing with compromised printing paper.

Just my $.02 worth,

Good luck isolating the culprit.

konakoa,

After seeing all your tests, I tend to agree with Fred: the paper is the culprit and either it has lost contrast from age/poor storage or it simply never was capable of giving you the contrast you desire.

Again, I'll say: if you find yourself consistently needing such high paper contrast, you should be increasing development time for your negatives. Relying on the extremes of the available paper contrast is just asking for trouble.

Best,

Doremus

Inspired by this thread, I have made a test series looking for the "Holy Grail" (i.e. true Grade 5).

I have made some test wedges (Stouffer 21 steps strip, 0,5f or 0,15 density each step) some nights ago which I will show you below. I have tested Adox Variotone (matte), Adox MCP 310 (glossy) and Ilford MGIV (matte) making test strips at grade 0 and grade 5 developing in Moersch Eco 4812 and Ilford Multigrade developer.

The process: paper at room temperature (21,5 degrees centigrade), cutting the strip under safelight, exposure of all strips (one by one), storage of the cut paper and exposed strips in a light safe box. Then development without any prolonged exposure to safe-ligth except for the necesarry times.

Exposure via contact printing with a Heiland Splitgrade Filter Module in a Dunco 67 unit. This gave a few problems due to the heavy relection from the contact printing frame.

Development for 2 1/2 min (MCP: 2 min only) @ 21-22 degrees
Stop bath: 2% citric acid
Fixer: aprox. 1-2 min. in Moersch alcaline rapid fixer
Washing as required for the purpose (not archival)
Drying in an hot air dryer
examination under Just Normlicht (aprox. 5400 K)

The Moersch Eco was pre-used and not at its best but still good. The Ilford Multigrade was freshly mixed from a bottle of brownish concentrate, just after the Adox MCP310 failed in the already mixed batch.

The Variotone gave the following visibility ranges (including full white and full black):
Moersch Eco: Grade 0 steps 4-19 - Grade 5 steps 5-12
Ilford Multigrade: Grade 0 steps 5-21 - Grade 5 steps 5-14
Dmax: around 1,65



The MGIV gave the following visibility ranges (including full white and full black):
Moersch Eco: Grade 0 steps 3-21 - Grade 5 steps 6-12
Ilford Multigrade: Grade 0 steps 4-21 - Grade 5 steps 6-12
Dmax: around 1,7



The Adox MCP310 gave the following visibility ranges (including full white and full black):
Moersch Eco: Grade 0 steps 5-21 - Grade 5 steps 6-17
Ilford Multigrade: Grade 0 steps 2-21 - Grade 5 steps 3-17 (results not reliable, the developer,had to be replaced)
Dmax: around 1,85



The Variotone and the MGIV gave the results I expected. The Adox giving best results in the Moersch developer and the MGIV giving best results in the Ilford developer surprised me a bit. I would have expected that the Ilford developer as a neutral tone developer would build higher contrast than the Moersch Eco Warmtone developer. Maybe totally fresh developer at a higher concentration could give a little additional boost to contract, or a special high contrast developer. The MCP310 has been giving some trouble for a while. I usually print it a +0,3f and +0,5 Grade (compared to the measurements with the Heiland Splitgrade) to get good results - this print was "standard". Also Mr Heiland updated his firmware once because the adjustment curves of this paper had given problems.

An update to this thread I started. I got in touch with Adox and discussed the problems I was having with the contrast of Variotone. Turns out my paper was a bit over five years old according to the date code on the package. Reprinting with a newer batch of Variotone paper gave me contrast grades very similar to my Ilford papers.

So folks, those closeouts, specials and bargains on paper aren't so wonderful. Buy new and fresh paper to save the trouble!

Edit: my oldest packages of Variotone I got on closeout that were hiding in the back of my refrigerator were over five years old. Those I was working from and was trying to use up first. The other packages I special ordered are much more recent, and are still fresh and good.