My prints look so good in the wash, and then they dry.

[Anon Ymous]

What did you find to be the actual dry-down factor to be for RC? Andrew for instance rates the factor as being very similar to that suggested by Les McLean of 8-12%

Always difficult to show this accurately on a forum but do you have any examples of prints without drydown compensation and the same prints with correct drydown?

Thanks

pentaxuser

I never bothered with factors, I just made sure the test strips are dry when assessing them, my hair dryer got some use after years being stashed. I'm not even sure if a single factor could be applied for all prints made with a specific paper type. Sadly, I don't have my enlarger setup anymore due to space limitations, so I can't offer any examples with, or without exposure adjustment for drydown.

 

[removed account4]

What did you find to be the actual dry-down factor to be for RC? Andrew for instance rates the factor as being very similar to that suggested by Les McLean of 8-12%

Always difficult to show this accurately on a forum but do you have any examples of prints without drydown compensation and the same prints with correct drydown?

Thanks

pentaxuser

the amount is different with every paper .. some papers it drys down a lot, some very little

 

[pentaxuser]

Another of my findings:

Foma fb matte has zero drydown effect. Or if it does, it’s much less than Ilford RC.

So what did you establish as the drydown factor for Ilford RC? Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[M Carter]

Thanks a lot!

I tried bleaching and it did’t work out. It took much too long to bleach. All my prints are toned, and I believe the toning may protect the print from bleaching properly...

I will try again soon, with your measures.

Thanks!

In my experience, bleaching is the first thing you do if you're just going for the farmer's-style lightening of the highs. Though if you selenium tone for short times, it tends to work the shadows first and may leave the highs amenable to bleaching, couldn't say. If I need to lighten with bleach, it's the first step in toning for me.

 

[Vaughn]

FWIW, I find it more important to adjust the highlights - it is the difference between the appearance of the highlights and the shadows that is most important.
I also do a fair bit of toning. With some papers (not Ilford MGIV RC) Selenium toner makes a difference. Brown toning also helps - warmer tones have an important subjective effect.

With silver gelatin papers, dry-down does affect the highlights greater than shadows when due to shrinkage. The greater part of the image we see is light passing through the emulsion, reflecting off the base (paper), and then returning through the emulsion to our eyes. The brightest highlights have very few grains of developed silver per sq inch, so if one wanted to do the maths, a slight shrinkage of the paper and/or emulsion creates a much larger percentage change in the density of silver grains per sq in of the image in the highlights compared to the darker values of the same print, with their already high density of silver/sq.in.

All bets are off when working with watercolor papers. My platinum prints dry down significantly at both ends!

 

[MattKing]

Problem solved. Sorta.

I could have an open studio or gallery show like this. Maybe place 10 or 20 trays w/ water in them around the gallery. Some small plastic ferns here and there would be nice, driftwood perhaps, maybe put some goldfish in the trays w/ the prints, add tiny pieces of plastic floating in there like in our oceans. Lots of possibilities. In fact, this does allow viewing the prints while wet......except for that vertical thing.

I have a friend with a whole bunch of aquariums - in the room next to his darkroom actually.
You could use both sides - two prints per aquarium!
Like those restaurants with tanks with live crab.

 

[eddie]

You could use both sides - two prints per aquarium!

You can display verticals on the sides. 4 prints per aquarium.

 

[eddie]

There were timers which allowed you to dial in for drydown. The ZoneVI compensating enlarger timer did. My Heiland Splitgrade does it for each programmed paper.

 

[Old_Dick]

This might work for some. I read Bruce Barnbaum's pdf, "The Art of Photography". The problem lies with your vision, spending to much time in the dark and your eyes don't adjust properly.

 

[mshchem]

If you find books on printing from the 40 and 50s there is often a mention on waxing, shellac, and ferrotyping, I have a heated ferrotype dryer, but when I want a glossy print I don't plug it in, I squeegee the print onto the plate, and let it dry until it pops off. I use a distilled water final soak with Kodak print flattener, I have a few bottles left that seem to work after decades of storage. Still, maybe 50% are perfect, the others I rewash and redry. And I clean the plate with auto chrome polish, the old fashion stuff used on classic cars.

No substitute for a ferrotyped fiber print. I cleaned out Gary Camera's old stock of Kodak print flattening solution a few years back. I still have 3 full, 1 gallon brown glass bottles of the stuff, I've got some Pakosol too! Darn stuff works!
These agents went away when RC paper replaced single weight 8x10 glossy paper in 70's. Darn shame, the stuff works for gloss and keeping paper flat by retaining moisture.
Old school tricks still work.

 

[mshchem]

With warming:
I like the toned print a lot more, but I don't tone anything. Just straight B&W, and try to keep the image as neutral as possible in terms of shades or color.

Try Selenium toner on Ilford's latest MG RC paper. 1min in 1:7 doesn't change color bumps up the blacks. Try it. Selenium not stinky sepia toners

 

[john_s]

I used this in the 1970s and maybe 1980s. It sure did flatten prints. They felt a bit limp compared to normal dry FB paper. Maybe one could try it, leaving out the formaldehyde perhaps.

From the 1985 MSDS for Kodak Print Flattening Solution:

EASTMAN KODAK CO. -- 140 0902,PRINT FLATTENING SOLUTION -- 6750-00-721-8599
===================== Product Identification =====================

Product ID:140 0902,PRINT FLATTENING SOLUTION
MSDS Date:05/30/1985
<chopped out irrelevant info>
============= Composition/Information on Ingredients =============

Ingred Name:ETHYLENE GLYCOL
CAS:107-21-1
RTECS #:KW2955000
Fraction by Wt: 95-99%
OSHA PEL:50 PPM
ACGIH TLV:50 PPM
EPA Rpt Qty:1 LB
DOT Rpt Qty:1 LB

Ingred Name:FORMALDEHYDE (SARA III)
CAS:50-00-0
RTECS #:LP8925000
Fraction by Wt: <1%
OSHA PEL:SEE 1910.1048
ACGIH TLV:C 0.3 PPM; A2; 9293
EPA Rpt Qty:100 LBS
DOT Rpt Qty:100 LBS

 

[mshchem]

I think Miconazole has replaced formalin as an antimicrobial.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

@pentaxuser

I don't think that there is a single drydown factor that you can accurately use for a given paper. The problem is in the distribution of tones in the print, where the important details lie and the way our eyes perceive differences in lighter vs. darker areas.

As Vaughn points out, the drydown effect is more pronounced in the areas of less density (print highlights/lighter tones). So, if you have a print with lots of fine detail in the whites, your drydown "factor" will likely be a lot more than if you have a print with blank white areas and lots of important detail in the shadows. The object isn't to exactly counteract the effect of drydown, but to end up with a print that sings like you want it to. To that end, I think it's best to evaluate dry prints...

Best,

Doremus

 

[Pat Erson]

Try Selenium toner on Ilford's latest MG RC paper

somewhat OT but I have the most difficult times getting sth as basic as decent contact-sheets from this new paper.
MGRC IV was wonderful but V is a basket of problems (imo).

 

[NB23]

So what did you establish as the drydown factor for Ilford RC? Thanks

pentaxuser

10%

 

[mshchem]

somewhat OT but I have the most difficult times getting sth as basic as decent contact-sheets from this new paper.
MGRC IV was wonderful but V is a basket of problems (imo).

I'm still using up a 250 sheet box of MGIV, all my experience with the new stuff is on 5x7 prints from medium format negs. I'm sure as with every change will take a bit of getting used too.

It's definitely a better paper for most applications.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for all the replies on dry-down. They all help to build a picture

pentaxuser

 

[mklw1954]

I had the drydown effect with RC prints. Eliminating stray light in the darkroom, particularly from the enlarger, and bare minimum use of the safelight, significantly reduced the drydown effect, resulting in prints with good contrast and whites.

 

[faberryman]

I had the drydown effect with RC prints. Eliminating stray light in the darkroom, particularly from the enlarger, and bare minimum use of the safelight, significantly reduced the drydown effect, resulting in prints with good contrast and whites.

Why do you think eliminating stray light from the enlarger and minimizing use of a safelight significantly reduces the drydown effect? Both of those things would eliminate the possibility of paper fogging which would tend to reduce contrast in egregious circumstances, but seem unrelated to the drydown effect.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes I think that #70 covers it very well

pentaxuser

 

[Vaughn]

I had the drydown effect with RC prints. Eliminating stray light in the darkroom, particularly from the enlarger, and bare minimum use of the safelight, significantly reduced the drydown effect, resulting in prints with good contrast and whites.

It reduced the unplanned flashing of the paper...which is great thing.

 

[NB23]

Yes flashing

 

[NB23]

I’ve had a similar problem in the past. The duplex safelight was so strong it killed a lot of my papers, which were super rare and expensive 20x24.
The tests looked good but then suddenly my prints were constantly looking muddy. I had a hard time to pin down the problem because the white borders on my prints stayed white. Took me time a lot of time to understand that they’d stay white because they would not receive additional light exposure from the enlarger. The papers basically got an unintentional flashing during my darkroom sessions.

Even now, 10 years later, when I review those prints I’m always put off by the general look of the prints. And soooo much energy lost.