My latest Fiber-Based Disaster!

sidearm613 · Jan 22, 2009

Hey guys,

So, I was darkrooming today (working on my first 6x9 neg) when i came to the realization that no image was showing up on my test strip. this was troublesome as I really want this neg to turn out as a nice print, but my moons refuse to line up in a way that any sort of remotely decent image appears on my 8x10. Any ideas? The developer is fine so it cannot be that...

Also, would anybody like to give a man advice on how to get straight borders from fiber? I just cant seem to put the paper correctly positioned on the easel. I have no problem doing this with RC, so help a brother out!

André E.C. · Jan 22, 2009

You exposed the wrong side of the paper, it's back?

Cheers

André

jmxphoto · Jan 22, 2009

generally fiber papers are slower to develop than RC. I had an OMGWTF!? experience the first time I printed it. Where as RC "pops" in at around 15sec. I've seen fiber wait a good 45sec before showing much of anything then meander to full development at around 2.5min. Also from my experience fiber needs about a stop more light. Fiber paper is also more curly so depending on your easel it may take more work to get it lined up with the guides correctly. (not that you asked but I thought I'd throw in: ) Also, unlike RC, the print "dries down." When you turn the lights on and look at the wet print it'll actually darken somewhere between a third to possibly more than a full stop (I could swear Ilford matte FB papers dry down more than a full stop).

Hope this helps!

fschifano · Jan 22, 2009

Maybe you did expose the wrong side of the paper. I don't know. If the developer works with RC paper then it will work with FB paper. Having problems getting it straight in the easel? All I can offer is take your time, look at what you're doing.

Yes, FB stocks do take a bit longer for the image to start showing, but I don't notice a big difference in paper speed. Take two papers coated with the same emulsion, one resin coated and one fiber based, and the speed will be well within the nominal batch to batch variation.

Drydown with fiber based papers generally run about 10% or so. Resin coated papers also exhibit this characteristic, sometimes to a lesser extent. It depends on the paper. Never evaluate test strips under full room light when wet. Using a 40 watt lamp about 3 feet from the work for evaluating wet test strips give a pretty good approximation of what it will look like when dry in full room light.

Nick Kanellos · Jan 22, 2009

Hi SideArm,

In addition to the suggestions above, some questions:

1) What times are you using to expose your test strip? At what f/stop?
2) What developer are you using and at what dilution? Is it a DIY developer? This once happened to me. I realized I had mistakenly put in too much Potassium Bromide, and I had restrained the developer into uselessness.
3) How long is the print in the developer? For FB, I would leave it in for 90 to 120 seconds - even for a test strip.
3) How dense is your negative? Some of my negs are so dense that I need exposure times ranging from 90 to 180 seconds.

Martin Aislabie · Jan 22, 2009

I am also guessing you exposed the wrong (back) side of the paper

The way to tell which side is which, is moisten your fingers (moist not wet) and pinch a piece of FB paper between two fingers

The emulsion will stick slightly to one of the moist fingers

Also, when you hold the paper as a very shallow viewing angle to the safe light - the emulsion side is always shinier than the paper back

You will need to try it a few times to get the hang of the shininess and the stickiness - but it works for all FB Papers of what ever surface/texture/emulsion

Sometimes when you try a new FB paper for the first time, it’s the only way to figure out which side is which

Good luck

Martin

r-brian · Jan 22, 2009

I had a very similar experience recently. I was using Freestyle's Arista Ultra ColdTone developer (made by Clayton) with Oriental FB for the first time, instead of the Arista Premium developer. Exposed a test strip at the times I used for Arista Premium developer and got nothing. Exposed for more time and got barely a ghost image. And this with a 2 minute time in the soup. Double checked to make sure I wasn't using the wrong side of the paper. Nope, right side of the paper. Tried a sheet of Ilford RC I had, exposed it to the room light (switch on/off quickly) along side the Oriental. The Ilford turned black in the developer, the Oriental nothing.

Called Freestyle and talk to a tech person. She went to check and called me back in 15 minutes. Suggested I use the 1:7 dilution instead of the 1:14 as the instructions called for. Of course this defeated the cost savings of the 1:14 dilution so Freestyle sent me a free bottle of the Arista Premium to make up for it.

Went back in the darkroom, increased the dilution and tried again. Still barely got an image after two minute soak time. Left it in for a little longer. At 2 min 15 sec the image just popped out. Finished printing using the 2m15s soak time at 1:7 and everything was OK. Don't know if it was just an incompatibility between the paper and developer or what. But I'm sticking with the Arista Premium from here on out.

fschifano · Jan 22, 2009

Only thing you've proved is that Oriental paper is a lot slower (less light sensitive) than Ilford's.

sidearm613 · Jan 22, 2009

so heres the deal, to answer some questions. no, i did not expose the wrong side. I use whatever is floating around in my schools darkroom, which is arista premium. also, the neg was uber dense, almost unprintably so. I eventually got something or an image to appear, but for 16 seconds @ f/5.6, that is a lot of light for tri-x, so im guessing the neg might be unprintable.

Softie · Jan 22, 2009

Probably not unprintable. I have HIE negs that are overexposed to the point that you can't tell what the image is by looking at the negative, but after 3 minutes of exposure, you can print through the fog---one of my best images was made this way.

Anscojohn · Jan 22, 2009

Are you using graded paper? Did you leave a filter in the filter drawer?

r-brian · Jan 22, 2009

fschifano said:
Only thing you've proved is that Oriental paper is a lot slower (less light sensitive) than Ilford's.

No I don't think so. The Oriental and Ilford both take about the same exposure and developing time in the Arista Premium developer. Only had the difficulty with the Cold Tone developer.

sidearm613 · Jan 23, 2009

Anscojohn said:
Are you using graded paper? Did you leave a filter in the filter drawer?

nope, I use multigrade FB and was using a #2 filter. Why?

jmal · Jan 23, 2009

16 seconds at 5.6 on FB is not that long, especially with a dense neg.

Nick Kanellos · Jan 23, 2009

sidearm613 said:
... the neg was uber dense, almost unprintably so. I eventually got something or an image to appear, but for 16 seconds @ f/5.6, that is a lot of light for tri-x, so im guessing the neg might be unprintable.

1) That's actually not a lot of light at all. Like I mentioned, some of my medium format negs take 90 seconds to print on 11x14. If you're printing 35mm on to 8x10 thats an 8x enlargement. Not insignificant.
2) I would not give up on the neg. Try reducing it. It has worked wonders on some of my overexposed/overdeveloped negs. Decide on cutting or proportional reduction. If the overall neg is just way too thick, go for cutting reduction. Plain Hypo and Ferri. And a bright light to keep tabs on the neg as it's reducing.

My latest Fiber-Based Disaster!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency