My prints seem "dull"

[Matt5791]

I have not been into processing and printing my own B&W for very long, but one of the things that I have noticed is that some of my prints seem a little lifeless - I mean this in that I am only getting the middle tones - no real sharp blacks or whites, but especially blacks.

I am wondering whether this could be put down to chemical temperature because I think that, because my attic is so cold at the moment, no sooner have I put the chemicals into the trays the temperature is going down well below 20 degrees. (I have a Photax tray warmer on its way to me)

Could it also be anything to do with the developer I have been using (Paterson Acugrade) although I think this might be less likely.

I know that some of the prints have been worsened because I have given the paper too much exposure, so mabe I should try less exposure and raise the contrast?

Thanks for any ideas,

Matt

 

[Ole]

With lower temperature the time needed for development increases. It could be that you're not developing your prints enough? Down to about 16°C, most developers will work albeit slowly.

Always develop fully. Only then can you see whether you need to change anything else.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I also suffer from "cold darkroom syndrome". Just how long should I develop my Ilford RC paper?

Mike

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have not been into processing and printing my own B&W for very long, but one of the things that I have noticed is that some of my prints seem a little lifeless - I mean this in that I am only getting the middle tones - no real sharp blacks or whites, but especially blacks.

I am wondering whether this could be put down to chemical temperature because I think that, because my attic is so cold at the moment, no sooner have I put the chemicals into the trays the temperature is going down well below 20 degrees. (I have a Photax tray warmer on its way to me)

Could it also be anything to do with the developer I have been using (Paterson Acugrade) although I think this might be less likely.

I know that some of the prints have been worsened because I have given the paper too much exposure, so mabe I should try less exposure and raise the contrast?

Thanks for any ideas,

Matt

It could be a number of things. Are you exposing your films and developing them properly? It may be that you are not choosing the optimum paper grade for your chosen negative. Also it may pay to develop the print a little longer than the manufacturer recommends, an extra half a minute would be a start.
A good book I can recommend for a darkroom beginner Matt is `Lee Frost`s simple art of black and white photography` which is subtitled as `easy methods of making fine art prints` published by David & Charles (ISBN 0 71531632-X). If that`s of any help to you.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I forgot to mention that out of date paper can suffer from from loss of contrast although that shouldn`t be a problem if you recently bought your photo paper.
Try mixing your processing chemicals a little warmer than recommended to allow for the drop in temperature. A dish warmer will certainly help.

 

[noseoil]

An inexpensive aquarium heater may help. If you can rig up a water bath which maintains temperature and do your developing in this bath, it may keep things at the correct temperature. You might get a styrofoam "cooler" and keep some water in it that is the correct temperature at all times. This would have a lid and would use very little energy to maintain temps. Without the heater, carry some hot tap water upstairs and have a jug handy to keep things about right. Temperature for developing both film and paper is critical.

Another idea might be to have a storage cabinet with a light bulb in it and all of your chemistry. Again, styrofoam boards on the outside might be enough to keep things at an even temperature. You could hook up a thermostat or just find the correct size bulb to maintain a constant 20c.

I have a similar problem in the summer. During the hot months here tap water is 90f, so I keep some chilled water in the fridge and make up a bath prior to processing. A mason jar will hold temperature long enough to do a sheet of 4x5 film in its processing tube. tim

 

[Donald Miller]

As someone else mentioned, it very likely could be something as simple as not having a camera negative having a density range (contrast) that matches the exposure scale (contrast) of the paper.

I deal with fluctuating temperatures in the same conditions as Tim (Noseoil) and use ice in the summer and warmer initial developer temps in the winter. I also have the Zone VI compensating developing timer that has curves for both paper and film to deal with temperature drift.

If I were you, I would begin by developing a minute longer...if, after that, you don't have the tonalities that you desire, then you had probably better look to working on your negative exposure and development.

 

[Woolliscroft]

I tend to always develop prints for 2 full minutes. It really does make a difference to contrast and tonality. Having the right temperature does also help. You could put the tray in a heated water bath if the room is too cold. Then, as everyone else says, getting the right paper grade and goods negs to start with is a must. You might also find that using a condenser enlarger helps, if you don't at present.

David.

 

[RH Designs]

If your prints have no bright whites or deep blacks, then you're most likely using too soft a grade of paper. If you're using variable contrast paper try a harder filter (one, even two full grades). Develop fully for 90-120 sec, longer if the dev is cold.

Basic rule of printing for an image with a full range of tones: expose for the highlights, and then if the shadows aren't dark enough choose a harder grade. If the shadows are blocked up and featureless black, choose a softer grade.

Other variables such as dev strength and temperature have much less effect on the print than getting the contrast grade right in the first place.

Hope that helps!

Regards
Richard

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi There

You may be making your prints the way you like wet, and not taking into account dry down??
If so make the print the way you like and then two prints lighter and lighter still. this will show you the dry down.

As well just changing to a higher grade may not solve your problems.

What I like to do is print on the grade that I think the negative needs and gives me the midtone and shawdow detail I am looking for, then reduce the exposure of the main exposure , then do a second exposure with the grade 5 filter in the head.
I find this gives me nice tonal reproduction, as well as the good contrast from the highlights to shawdows. this will indeed make your prints glow with practice.

Obviously as others have stated , a good starting negative will be helpful.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for all the help everyone

I think that one of the things I need to address, having read the posts, is development time - I have only been developing the prints for max 1 min and often 45 seconds.

Second, I think that the dry down effect may have a lot to do with this, plus the fact that I have been examining the prints in the tray of fixer right under a twin flourescent light - I was reading a bood this morning which suggested that this is a bad thing and give a false representation of the look of the print.

I will be doing some more tonight and will have a look at these issues. I have just bought a tray warmer on ebay so hopefully this will arrive soon.

Matt

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for all the help everyone

I think that one of the things I need to address, having read the posts, is development time - I have only been developing the prints for max 1 min and often 45 seconds.

Second, I think that the dry down effect may have a lot to do with this, plus the fact that I have been examining the prints in the tray of fixer right under a twin flourescent light - I was reading a book this morning which suggested that this is a bad thing and gives a false representation of the look of the print.

I will be doing some more tonight and will have a look at these issues. I have just bought a tray warmer on ebay so hopefully this will arrive soon and make things easier.

Matt

 

[fschifano]

... I have been examining the prints in the tray of fixer right under a twin flourescent light...

Hold on there a minute. You have this flourescent fixture in your darkroom? Bad news; you could be fogging your paper with that thing. Flourescent light bulbs glow, albeit dimly, long after they've been switched off. Worst of all, they glow at the blue to ultra-violet range of the spectrum. It is almost invisible to see until your eyes are dark adapted, but can fog your paper just the same.

In addition to all the other good advice you've gotten on the subject so far, turn off that flourescent light at least 15 minutes before you even think about opening a pack of paper and leave it off until you are done.

 

[josephaustin]

True about the lights, I remove my bulbs to another room when dealing with film,for paper however I just wait a few minutes, before removing them from there box. I have never noticed fogging using this method.

 

[Larry L]

Read all of the threads above and agree with a lot. One thing I tried many years ago; after reading Ansel's biography, was developing my prints FACE DOWN in the developer and always running to a timer (Gralab). RC papers two minutes, fiber papers 3-4 minutes in 1:2 Dektol at 20C (68F). This does two things - I never determine development by inspection (watching it come up) and two I'm always consistent with my times down to a couple seconds.

Never view you print under a fluid solution either. Take it out of the fixer drain as well as possible and inspect with your overhead lights at a 45 degree angle - and not directly under bright lights. I was regularly getting my highlights too dark if inspecting under bright lights while wet. And I'm still learning.

 

[Matt5791]

Hold on there a minute. You have this flourescent fixture in your darkroom? Bad news; you could be fogging your paper with that thing. Flourescent light bulbs glow, albeit dimly, long after they've been switched off. Worst of all, they glow at the blue to ultra-violet range of the spectrum. It is almost invisible to see until your eyes are dark adapted, but can fog your paper just the same.

In addition to all the other good advice you've gotten on the subject so far, turn off that flourescent light at least 15 minutes before you even think about opening a pack of paper and leave it off until you are done.

Interesting point - this had occoured to me, and I had sort of chosen to ignore the possibility: looks like I will be changing the light fitting tonight!

Thanks,

Matt

 

[Mark H]

Advice that helped me was to print an image the way it looked right to me, then print several more at softer and harder grades, using 1/2 grade intervals. When the prints are dry, compare them. I've often found prints could look better than I first thought.
Giving a partial exposure at grade 5 (as someone already mentioned) is useful for perking a print up.
Once in a while, I'll print darker and then bleach the image back in Farmer's Reducer. But this isn't a remedy for always making a print sparkle.

 

[MattKing]

I have always tried to structure my workflow so as to make sure that I am developing prints for the maximum beneficial time. That way, I get the advantage of:

1) removing one of the variables from the "equation", i.e. ensuring that the development of the print is consistent from print to print; and
2) maximum black (for that paper and developer combination), if the negative has a maximum black in it, and the exposure is sufficient.

You have to test sometimes, to make sure that overdevelopment doesn't lead to fog, and it can make for longer printing sessions, but it seems to work out better for me.

By the way, it really helps to do this if you are "gang" printing - exposing multiple copies one after another, and then developing them all at the same time. If you don't have a long development time, they will be inconsistent.

Matt

 

[nurney_2000]

opposite problem

My problem is the opposite to this thread. I have black and white with little grey on some sunset scenes... I have put it down to overdeveloped film... am I correct and if so is the problem here under development and thin negatives

 

[Donald Miller]

My problem is the opposite to this thread. I have black and white with little grey on some sunset scenes... I have put it down to overdeveloped film... am I correct and if so is the problem here under development and thin negatives

Without knowing more details, it would impossible for someone to comment with any degree of certainty.

What grade are you printing your negatives at?

Sunset scenes could have high inherent contrast (last rays of direct sunlight) or they could be low inherent contrast (sun has already fully set).

Do your negatives contain full shadow detail? If so then you have adequate exposure. If you lack full shadow detail then you may have underexposed negatives.

If you have full shadow detail and you still do not have mid tone print values then you are either over developing the negative or you are printing the negative with too high contrast printing filtration or grade.

 

[dancqu]

[QUOTES=Matt5791]
"I have only been developing the prints for max
1 min and often 45 seconds."

I seem to recall 90 seconds an usual minimum at
least for off the shelf print developers. As a minimum
180 seconds is my usual. Then again more dilute Home
Brews of little solution volume used one-shot are my
specialty. Where did you find 45 - 60 seconds a
proper developing time? I doubt any of this
group have suggested that.

I've not tested but from reading one can expect a
slow down in development especially with MQ and
PQ developers; the hydroquinone being very
temperature sensitive.

"I have been examining the prints in the tray of fixer
right under a twin flourescent light ..." Matt

Flourescent I think a worst possible choice.
In developer print evaluation is easy when using
Graded papers. Graded papers allow for a much
higher level of lighting. Dan

 

[photobackpacker]

Hi Matt:

There are a lot of good suggestions to trouble shoot. I'll add one more - check for safelight fogging and for light leaks in your enlarger. These will put a light gray haze over a print that will produce results like you are describing. A hint - if you find you need to increase the contrast as you make larger prints, you probably have a fogging factor - most likely in the safelight or enlarger non-image light.

 

[nworth]

Paper development needs to be complete, but overdevelopment leads to fog in the image. Adams described a test for optimum development in "The Print." Essentially, you make a series of prints and develop them for varying times. You choose the longest time before the highlights begin to show fog. You should read the original and make such tests for any new developer, paper combination. (Or make an equivalent test.) For most enlarging papers and developers, 90 seconds is about the minimum and is often near optimum. I usually find about 100 seconds works well. Contact papers (like Azo) behave differently, but they are not found much any longer.

 

[avandesande]

What kind of paper are you using? Graded papers are hard to learn on. Get some multigrade rc paper to get started.

 

[Matt5791]

Ok - some really useful help here - thanks very much everyone.

This is what I have done so far.....

1. Removed flourescent light fitting and replaced it with two standard light fittings with tungsten bulbs.

2. Increased exposure time. I am now going for two minutes - I have "The Print" and will check out the detail on developing until the highlights start to fog.

3. Ensured developer temperature remains at 20 degrees.

4. I am not turning on the room lights until the print has been in the fixer for at least 45 seconds - I was turning it on at about 20 seconds and it occoured to me this might also be a problem.


I am pleased to say these things do seem to have made a noticable difference.

However, I will turn my attention to the Enlarger.

It is a Minolta Color Enlarger 2 - it seems like quite a good quality piece of kit. However there is a streak of light that comes from the neg holder when turned on and making an enlargement - the light comes out horizontally and shines a white line on the wall next to the enlarger and on me.

I wondered if it could be reflecting off the wall (although it is not very reflective - red brick) or off me as I sit looking at the pretty picture burning into the paper, or off something else?

Do you think I should do something about this? Seems like a crappy design fault if it is a problem?!

Matt