Milky Wet Print (Ilford MGRC Glossy) 8x10

[TunkuFawzy]

I just literally started wet printing using an enlarger (Durst M605 Colour) that I just acquired from the UK, had it shipped to Malaysia, plus an Old (Unused) Paterson Colour Print Processor (essentially print drums that fit 8x10 or 12x16, with a manual crank). Aug 3 2023.

Why the print drum? to retrofit for an all dark wet area is harmful to my pocket, although I considered getting the Paterson Tent (Also partly harmful to my pocket) but Malaysia is a tad too hot to have a blackout tent. So that is the story with the Print Drum.I processed prints for the first time using the enlarger, the first test print in the drum, timed increments came out fine, I went on to print based on my selected exposure, that came out ok, except that there is a clear white blotch at the bottom of the print. I am guessing that I did not wash out the print drum properly, with a small bit fixer left behind. My mistake, (Four prints produced).
The next day (Aug 4 2023) I tried another image for trial, which is attached. The first image is the test strip and at the top is some fogging which I expected since I did not secure the paper box / black plastic properly, (yes that’s me learning).

Another piece of information: I reused the developer, multigrade 1+14, from the previous evening (Four prints produced above), processing @ 90 seconds as recommended at that dilution).The results are attached:

• Test strip, looks milky
• The actual Print, also milky, this time with a purple tint at the top.
• The white blotches I am guessing is the residual fixer in the drum (I did not clean out properly)

So, I am guessing that the developer is wearing down, hence the milky image. But I am trying to figure out what the purple strip at the top. If anybody has insights, I will take that for the next session later today. Thank you for any insights.

 

[MattKing]

It could also be problems with your fixer.
Can you set out in detail what your process steps are, including chemicals used, times and dilutions?
And yes, thorough rinsing and drying between prints is important.
I don't use multigrade developer, but some developers diluted to working strength don't last well, particularly when the temperature is elevated.

 

[TunkuFawzy]

It could also be problems with your fixer.
Can you set out in detail what your process steps are, including chemicals used, times and dilutions?
And yes, thorough rinsing and drying between prints is important.
I don't use multigrade developer, but some developers diluted to working strength don't last well, particularly when the temperature is elevated.

Hi Matt.

Ilford Multigrade Developer : 1+14, 150ml / in the drum for 90 Seconds @ 20 degrees C (Constant rotation / agitation)
Ilfostop (Batch) : 1+19, 1 minute (used from a 1L batch for film processing) @ 20 Degrees C (Constant rotation / agitation)
Ilford Rapid Fixer (Batch) : 1+4, minutes (Used from a 1L batch for film processing) @ 20 Degrees C (Constant Rotation / agitation)
Wash, filtered running water, for about 5 minutes.

 

[TunkuFawzy]

It could also be problems with your fixer.
Can you set out in detail what your process steps are, including chemicals used, times and dilutions?
And yes, thorough rinsing and drying between prints is important.
I don't use multigrade developer, but some developers diluted to working strength don't last well, particularly when the temperature is elevated.

Oh and it was stored in the fridge in between use / and for about 24 hours.

 

[BMbikerider]

If you were to write to or send an E Mail direct to Ilford HQ in England you may get a definitive answer direct from the horses mouth so to speak.

I have just checked and if you go to https://www.ilfordphoto.com/contact-us/
Scroll down and you will come to a page with a black bar near the top with various internal links, you need the one 'support' that page has a proforma type E mail link E Mail link to their technical advice section. If they don't know your answer, no one will.

One bit of information they will require is the batch number of the paper. Paper type:- (Resin coated or Fibre) multigrade version you were using Version 4 or 5. ) Developer used and at what temperature were you using it at.

 

[TunkuFawzy]

If you were to write to or send an E Mail direct to Ilford HQ in England you may get a definitive answer direct from the horses mouth so to speak.

I have just checked and if you go to https://www.ilfordphoto.com/contact-us/ that page has an E Mail link to their technical advice section. If they don't know no one will. One bit of information they will require is the batch number of the paper. Paper type (Resin coated or Fibre multigrade version you were using Version 4 or 5. ) Developer used and at what temperature you the developer was.

Thanks for that, I have the information required to write that email. Thanks again.

 

[koraks]

My first guess is that you're not using enough chemistry in your drums to fully and evenly cover the paper, and/or that your druk isn't perfectly level as it rotates, leaving part of the print with insufficient chemistry.

 

[MattKing]

I generally don't recommend re-using film fixer for your prints.
I re-use film fixer for my film, and I re-use print fixer for my prints - i.e. I keep separate bottles.

 

[TunkuFawzy]

I generally don't recommend re-using film fixer for your prints.
I re-use film fixer for my film, and I re-use print fixer for my prints - i.e. I keep separate bottles.

I thought I could get away with that, but yes I think you are right.

 

[TunkuFawzy]

So, I mixed fresh multigrade chemistry and the milky effect went away. I would like to think it was just that. It could also be that the negative could be a little thinner than usual. When you scan it, the scanner software does the work for you. There was no purple tint this time around. So trying to etch out greater economies by keeping working solutions over night turned out to be a false economy. And will keep the chemistry for print and film separate as suggested by @MattKing .

I kept to suggested chemistry volume recommendations, that being 75ml and 150ml. So it is not for the lack of chemistry volume. But will build-in a margin of error in future to compensate for possible insufficient chemistry as suggested by @koraks .

I made other mistakes, but I shall not share them here and that there are many little lessons learnt, some modifications.

Thanks again.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Just keep having fun!