Need more contrast

[clayne]

Could you give me a little more detail about this? The only multi-filter technique I've used so far has been to expose at grade 5 just enough to get a black (or a little less), then expose at 0 to get the midtones where I want them (dodging and burning the 0 exposure only). Is what you mean?

I put one of the pictures at http://inauspicious.org/photos/lm6/038/14/. That's just a straight print at grade 5, with just enough exposure for the blacks to be black. Note that my scanner puts a really odd tiger-stripey pattern in dark areas, that's not on the print. There is actually detail--just--in the woman's clothes and in the shadowed area to the left of her head, but they are probably a bit blocked up. I don't really know a lot about dodging and burning, the only thing I would think to do here is burn the spotty wall to the right at 0 to lower the contrast on it, and maybe burn the buildings and sky to the top left as I think they're distracting. What initially prompted me to post, though, was that the picture was already too dark all over in the grade 5 exposure... usually they end up black and white and nothing inbetween!

This shot seems like it should print incredibly contrasty at grade 5. It's already a hard angled light shot, with inherent natural contrast. I think your G5 filter is acting more like a G2/3.

 

[nworth]

My experience is that negatives that require grade 5 paper almost never give a decent print. Even trying digital tricks generally fails.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

My experience is that negatives that require grade 5 paper almost never give a decent print. Even trying digital tricks generally fails.

Tell that to Ralph Gibson and his prints on Grade 5 Brovira.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

I pretty often run out of contrast when printing underexposed negatives. Obviously the real answer here is I should expose better, but it seems I struggle to get decent blacks when I hit grade 5 on the enlarger. Also, the difference between grades 4 and 5 seems pretty small compared to the differences between other grades. I'm pretty new to all this, so I wanted to check if I'm doing something odd--and find out if there's something easy I can change to get a bit more contrast!

Ok, here's what I do:

Film is HP5, 35mm, exposed at 1600ASA and developed in DD-X 1+4 at 20°C for 13 minutes, 4 inversions totalling 10 seconds each minute (basically what the datasheet says). When I expose it right I get lovely negatives that print at 3-3½.

I use an LPL VC7700 enlarger with a 60mm lens to print on 8x10" Ilford Multigrade RC gloss paper. Usually the exposures (at f8) end up being 12-14 seconds for a nicely exposed negative at 3-3½. I develop with Acugrade 1+9 for 90 seconds (which I do 80 seconds in the tray, and the final 10 seconds held above it to drip off, so the print goes in the stop exactly 90 seconds after it went in the dev). 90 seconds isn't what the datasheet says here--it says 60 seconds, but I would end up having to expose the prints forever (with really muddy results) when I tried that. I mix it at 20°C but I don't have any method of maintaining it's temperature (yet!) so it's generally dropped 2-3°C by the time I'm finished. That doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, I've done comparison prints at the start and end before and they look much the same.

Does anything look obviously wrong here?

Thanks,
Gary

to get min and max contrst out of any paper use a tri-color green orblur, respectively

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for the tips in this thread. I had to make a print from a thin neg last week. This is a list of the things I did to improve contrast. I use single graded paper. But these things I did could apply to anyone hitting a wall:

1. Switch from diffusion source to condenser source.
2. Selenium intensified neg.
3. Retouched highlights with New Coccine.
4. Added Potassium Bromide to developer.
5. Cleaned haze off the lens.

 

[MaximusM3]

Thanks for the tips in this thread. I had to make a print from a thin neg last week. This is a list of the things I did to improve contrast. I use single graded paper. But these things I did could apply to anyone hitting a wall:

1. Switch from diffusion source to condenser source.
2. Selenium intensified neg.
3. Retouched highlights with New Coccine.
4. Added Potassium Bromide to developer.
5. Cleaned haze off the lens.

All good choices there, Bill...and let's not forget, there is always lith Thin negs can make some wonderful lith prints as well.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Garry,

Lots of very good advice in this thread....

PM me your address and I will send you a MULTIGRADE Printing Manual, if your new it can help...

Also : Thanks for using our paper, it has a real and true grade 5 ( and in our tests shows to be consistently the highest contrast of any VC paper on the market today, we also know that it is the most safelight safe, along with the old KODAK Polycontrast ).

I will add only one thing....as I was taught many years ago... 'if it aint in the neg, it can't be in the print' : People I am sure will disagree with this and to an extent they will be correct, you can 'add' into a print using your printing skills especially in the sky etc, etc but you know what I mean.

As an FYI the grade 5 filter of a Multigrade filter kit is very carefully matched to maximum contrast in the construction of MGIV paper, no different or 'custom' filter could increase beyond it, cos its just not there... BUT all filters fade over time ( and with use ) so you should change them every four or five years or if they are damaged. Hope you are printing down at three pretty soon...

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :