My prints seem "dull"

Matt5791 · Nov 27, 2005

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

I am using Ilford Multigrade RC.

I do seem to be having to push up the contrast - I can't imagine wanting to reduce it, if you know what I mean.

I have what I believe are an older set of Ilford filters (although they don't look that old) - they run 1-7. I am using a minimum of number 3 and often 4 or sometimes 5, but to be fair I have only had a couple of prints benefiting from 5.

Matt

NikoSperi · Nov 27, 2005

FWIW, concerning developer temperature... I had the same problem because my darkroom was coooold. Developer activity slows down as temperature drops. But my understanding is that one component STOPS working entirely under a certain temperature. (Can't recall, could be hydroquinone?) It seems that threshold is about 14°C. At that point, you can extend development time all you want, you're never going to get full tone development.
Ahhh the marvels of the portable heater... ;-)

Ole · Nov 27, 2005

Matt5791 said:
...
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

I wouldn't worry. All enlargers leak light, and none of them leak enough to fog the paper while exposing. I confess to painting the wall behind my LF enlarger fire-engine red, but that's just because it had to be painted anyway.

Glenn Mathison · Nov 27, 2005

RH Designs said:
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

I had the good fortune to try a RH designs timer recently. What a great device! So good in helping get good prints quickly that I am currently saving to buy one. Might help with your prints as well.

Glenn

lee · Nov 27, 2005

if you are constantly using a lot of filtration in the print stage I think I would correct this problem by increasing the development time somewhat. I would start at 10 or 15% and try to print that and see how that corrected your problems if at all. Add more time as necessary.

lee\c

PULLATAB · Nov 27, 2005

dull prints

if not develping log enough secondary to cold dev. is your problem then...one of the best solutions if you don't have a controlled temp bath s the zone 6 compensating developing timer.. if you can find one, it will autimatically compensate for the temp difference by increasing or decreasing time according to temp..used to be supplied by calumet photographic, truly a great product..try 1800calumet, I have used one for he last 15 years and it will give perfectly consistant prints as the developer cools somewhat.

Bob Carnie · Nov 27, 2005

if your enlager negative stage is leaking as much as you say and light is bouncing off a white wall and your body you will get flare light on your print which will cause some problems for you.

Sounds like Red Green Duct tape is in order for you .

Also .. If you are not using glass carriers a long exposure and a slight movememt of the negative due to heat may cause a visual effect of * softer, flatter print*

Papa Tango · Nov 27, 2005

Grade 5? How do you get tonality range with this hard a grade?

Papa Tango · Nov 27, 2005

OOPS... The above comment is directed at page 1 quote by Bob Carnie

dancqu · Nov 27, 2005

avandesande said:
Graded papers are hard to learn on.

I'll take exception to that. A second reason for my
dropping VC papers is the hassel of calibrating exposure
with changes in filter grade. With any one paper from
one batch that's bad enough. Compound that with
another one, two, or three papers and their
changes from batch to batch.

A first reason for my dropping VC papers is the
low level of darkroom lighting they afford. I now
have a small well lite not nearly so dark darkroom.
As it now is I can compound chemistry, read
instructions, cut paper, make notes, etc. In
short, all that might be done with the
usual room lighting.

Currently I'm working with VC developers such
as Beer's and A. Adams Ansco 130. Dan

josephaustin · Nov 27, 2005

Grade 5? How do you get tonality range with this hard a grade?

I think he is refering to using split grade filtering in order to make the whites "glow". Making two exposures one with a grade 1 filter, and another with a grade 5. I love this method and use it exclusively. Les McLean's book Creative Black & White Photography explains the process very well.

Michael Kadillak · Nov 27, 2005

Everyone is assuming that it is a darkroom problem, but you have not bothered to tell us about your negative. Overexposure of the negative combined with overdevelopment would easily explain the situation because it would put you dangerously close to the toe of the film curve.

Have you resolved the problem yet?

Kevin Caulfield · Nov 27, 2005

Another factor which I don't think has really been mentioned is that the developer itself could be degraded. I once acquired some free developer with a print washer, and it was only after months of grey, uninspiring prints, when I changed to back to my fresh, usual developer, that I realised the developer I had been using was next to useless, i.e. partly oxidised or otherwise degraded.

photobackpacker · Nov 27, 2005

Ole said:
I wouldn't worry. All enlargers leak light, and none of them leak enough to fog the paper while exposing. I confess to painting the wall behind my LF enlarger fire-engine red, but that's just because it had to be painted anyway.

Ole, this has not been my experience. My Saunders 4500VCCE is as light tight as most but I needed to tape off a dozen areas where light was escaping. I recently got careless after a bulb change and I experienced significant fogging.

I recommend putting a lens cap on the lens, turned on the enlarger and laying your head on the easel looking up at the lens. Your may discover, as I did, there were small amounts of light leaking around the lens board. I "borrowed" one of my daughter's cloth ponytail holders, called crunchies, and snapped this around the lens base. Problem solved.

The point is, these are EASY problems to diagnose and fix. If ignored, they will camouflage, frustrate if not defeat the efforts to to achieve excellence.

I strongly recommend a careful safelight test using the Kodak procedure and thorough attention to eliminating any enlarger light leaks. Then you can begin to deal with all of the other super suggestions offered in this thread.

avandesande · Nov 27, 2005

To us short funded bathroom cramped photographers it is the only way to go. I am not proposing VC RC for great prints, just something to learn on.

dancqu said:
I'll take exception to that. A second reason for my
dropping VC papers is the hassel of calibrating exposure
with changes in filter grade. With any one paper from
one batch that's bad enough. Compound that with
another one, two, or three papers and their
changes from batch to batch.

A first reason for my dropping VC papers is the
low level of darkroom lighting they afford. I now
have a small well lite not nearly so dark darkroom.
As it now is I can compound chemistry, read
instructions, cut paper, make notes, etc. In
short, all that might be done with the
usual room lighting.

Currently I'm working with VC developers such
as Beer's and A. Adams Ansco 130. Dan

Matt5791 · Nov 28, 2005

blaughn said:
Ole, this has not been my experience. My Saunders 4500VCCE is as light tight as most but I needed to tape off a dozen areas where light was escaping. I recently got careless after a bulb change and I experienced significant fogging.

I recommend putting a lens cap on the lens, turned on the enlarger and laying your head on the easel looking up at the lens. Your may discover, as I did, there were small amounts of light leaking around the lens board. I "borrowed" one of my daughter's cloth ponytail holders, called crunchies, and snapped this around the lens base. Problem solved.

The point is, these are EASY problems to diagnose and fix. If ignored, they will camouflage, frustrate if not defeat the efforts to to achieve excellence.

I will check the Enlarger in this way, and tape up any potential leaks.

Michael Kadillak said:
Everyone is assuming that it is a darkroom problem, but you have not bothered to tell us about your negative. Overexposure of the negative combined with overdevelopment would easily explain the situation because it would put you dangerously close to the toe of the film curve.

Have you resolved the problem yet?

I seem to be making significant inroads - My prints improved greatly yesterday during my printing session.

I have addressed developer temperature; development time; not turning on the white lights too soon while the print is in the fixer; exposing less to compensate for dry down; exposing less generally - I was overexposing somewhat anyway I think; I have removed the flourescent light fitting and replaced with tungsten fittings.

Checking the negatives is a very good point. I loaded these negatives into the film processor in this darkroom when the flourescent lights were still there, and immediately after turning them off (OK, Ready, check I have everything, right, turn off the light, immediately take film out of canister/unroll 120 film)

I am wondering if the negs could have had their contrast reduced because of this?

dancqu said:
A first reason for my dropping VC papers is the
low level of darkroom lighting they afford. I now
have a small well lite not nearly so dark darkroom.
As it now is I can compound chemistry, read
instructions, cut paper, make notes, etc. In
short, all that might be done with the
usual room lighting.

So does this mean VC papers need a very dim safelight?
The one I have is pretty dim already - a Photax one, sort of dome shaped, with 15 watt bulb.

Thanks again for all the really useful help here,

Matt

MattKing · Nov 28, 2005

avandesande said:
To us short funded bathroom cramped photographers it is the only way to go. I am not proposing VC RC for great prints, just something to learn on.

Don't underestimate RC. You can do great prints on VC RC. The benefits an experienced printer gets from FB are real, but incremental. If you have a choice between the two, and using RC paper increases the amount of printing, and learning, you are able to do, take advantage of the opportunity. The skills you gain on RC are transferable to FP, once you reach a certain level of proficiency.

If, however, your circumstances are more flexible, you can also experiment with FB at the same time, then once you reach the level of proficiency that makes it meaningful, you can switch, and the added benefits of FB will reveal themselves.

In other words, practise makes (more) perfect.

dancqu · Nov 30, 2005

Matt5791 said:
So does this mean VC papers need a very dim safelight?
The one I have is pretty dim already - a Photax one, sort
of dome shaped, with 15 watt bulb. Matt

A big part of the problem with VC papers is the
color of safelight needed. From my experience it is a
very red-ish amber. The eye is not so sensitive at the
red end of the spectrum. The dimmer the light the worse
it gets as the blue sensors of the eye take on more of the
task of seeing. All is due to VC being sensitive to blue and
green. All that's left is the red end of the spectrum for
seeing. Narrow band-pass filters or light sources
would help bring VC light levels up.

I put my VC paper and a dichroic enlarger on the
shelf a few years ago and switched to Graded. Years
earlier I had worked with Graded papers and knew of the
much higher level of lighting possible. Now I've a very
easy to see about darkroom. Rather than a very
red-ish amber the safelighting is now an
orange-ish yellow.

The price of Graded vs VC papers has been mentioned.
Checking on some, I found RC Graded and VC papers
to be close to one another in price. Dan

Gerald Koch · Nov 30, 2005

A problem with many people new to the darkroom is to pull their prints before they have completely finished developing. Paper development is designed to go to completion. In other words, a properly exposed print can remain in the developer for several minutes with little change in overall density. Its never going to turn completely black. Once the image fully appears note the time and continue development for at least 2X longer. This will prevent muddy looking prints without good blacks and contrast.

nihraguk · Nov 30, 2005

Just a note to say that I've learned a lot from all of the tips in this thread as well... in particular the advice to:

1) standardise paper time in developer, instead of pulling it prematurely from the tray when you think its 'done'
2) experiment with split grade printing using grade 00 and grade 5 - though i still have a long way to go on this one
3) learn on VC RC paper

photobackpacker · Nov 30, 2005

Matt5791 said:
So does this mean VC papers need a very dim safelight?
The one I have is pretty dim already - a Photax one, sort of dome shaped, with 15 watt bulb.

Thanks again for all the really useful help here,

Matt

Matt, the issue of safelight intensity is too subjective to give you rules of thumb. Generally, the VC papers are less tolerant of bright safelights.

How many minutes of safelight exposure will your exposed but undeveloped prints tolerate before they begin to show fog? If you can't answer this question, you have some work to do.

In the seminars I have attended, nearly 1/3 of the attendees had their prints diminished by safelight or enlarger fogging (or a combination of both.) It is not enough to put a quarter on the paper to see what you get. You must first expose the printing paper to the point where it is showing a slight tinge of gray and then perform the safelight test.

The Kodak info sheet provides a means of testing your safelight. It takes some time but is an essential foundation step to printing well. The link to the page is Here It may be 30 of the best spent darkroom minutes ever.

dancqu · Nov 30, 2005

blaughn said:
Generally, the VC papers are less tolerant
of bright safelights.

The intensity or brightness of the light has nothing
to do with it. I could have made that more clear in my
earlier post this thread when writing of safelights.

Simplifying a little, VC papers are BLIND to RED
and Graded papers are BLIND to RED and GREEN.
Papers see not the colors to which they are blind.

What does the EYE see? More by some the eye is
sensitive to green and less so to red. IIRC, electronic
image sensors in cameras double up on green in order
to mimic the eye's sensitivity to green.

Sodium vapour lamps are a narrow band source of
light in the yellow portion of the spectrum. They
can be and are used in Graded paper darkrooms.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, if there were
narrow band filters or light sources suitable for
VC papers then the VC problem of dim lighting
would be much alleviated. That is, "... bright
safelights" could be used.

As for safelights, I'm quite sure the industry has
somewhat adopted a ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL strategy.
For example, Kodak recommends the OC filter for every
paper, even AZO! I think Ilford makes more allowance.
I saw several filters suggested when last night I
was checking out their Ilfospeed Graded RC
paper. Yellow to orange-ish yellow do well
with Graded. That's what I've got. Dan

photobackpacker · Nov 30, 2005

I agree with you. If you had a safelight that the VC media could not sense, you could go as bright as you like. When using existing safelights, including the OC, intensity is important.

I recently sold my Thomas safelight and now work with an ancient Kodak 10 X 12 with OC filter bounced off a white ceiling. I suppliment this with a Zone VI LED. I am safe for up to 12 minutes with VC paper that has been pre-exposed to just above the threshold level. I could probably pump more lumens out of the Kodak to make it a bit brighter (12 minutes is a wee bit of overkill) but I have grown accustom to the dimmer environment.

My point is that everyone needs to do a valid (using paper exposed to the threshhold level) safelight test. The pursuit of excellence is tough enough on its own without inviting an invisible enemy into your dark room in the form of a safelight that isn't!

Matt5791 · Dec 1, 2005

blaughn said:
Matt, the issue of safelight intensity is too subjective to give you rules of thumb. Generally, the VC papers are less tolerant of bright safelights.

How many minutes of safelight exposure will your exposed but undeveloped prints tolerate before they begin to show fog? If you can't answer this question, you have some work to do.

In the seminars I have attended, nearly 1/3 of the attendees had their prints diminished by safelight or enlarger fogging (or a combination of both.) It is not enough to put a quarter on the paper to see what you get. You must first expose the printing paper to the point where it is showing a slight tinge of gray and then perform the safelight test.

The Kodak info sheet provides a means of testing your safelight. It takes some time but is an essential foundation step to printing well. The link to the page is Here It may be 30 of the best spent darkroom minutes ever.

Thanks fro this - I will be performing the Kodak Test before doing any more printing.

I think the cumulative effect of the stuff I am attending to is already having a marked effect.

I have three things left to do:

ensure the safelight is safe;
Make sure the enlarger is not spilling light;
Ensure there are no light leaks into the darkroom from outside;

Oh, and practice my printing more!

Thanks,
Matt

Matt5791 · Dec 15, 2005

Just an update.

I performed the Kodak safelight test, and it appears to be no problems at all in this department.

So now I have addressed all these potential hazards (listed in my previous threads) I am in a position to start really precticing my printing skills.

Thanks for the help,

Matt

My prints seem "dull"

Matt5791

NikoSperi

Ole

Moderator

Glenn Mathison

lee

PULLATAB

Bob Carnie

Papa Tango

Papa Tango

dancqu

josephaustin

Michael Kadillak

Kevin Caulfield

photobackpacker

Advertiser

avandesande

Matt5791

MattKing

Moderator

dancqu

Gerald Koch

nihraguk

photobackpacker

Advertiser

dancqu

photobackpacker

Advertiser

Matt5791

Matt5791

My prints seem "dull"

Moderator

Advertiser

Moderator

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency