Printing Issue - Too Light?

[Omid_K]

Apologies for this naive question but I’m very much a novice in the darkroom. After dabbling in a community darkroom a few years back I decided to get my own darkroom. Yesterday I ventured into my new happy place to create my first print just to prove to myself it could be done. It’s not a particularly great image or print, just a milestone to have created it.

My setup is a Saunders LPL Super Dichroic 4500II (Yellow: 0 Blue: 0 Magenta: 90). The chemistry I used was Clayton P20 developer (1:4 dilution, 90 seconds), water stop, TF4 Fix (diluted 1:2 from working solution to double the fix time from :30 to 1:00).

I ran a test strip at f11 and it came out pure white. Not a speck of grey (I’m talking Zone 9). Eventually I got my 8x10 print (35mm negative) but pretty wide open at f4 for 30 seconds. And it still looks like it could use more light.

My question is: what am I doing wrong? I don’t know if this is a chemistry issue or maybe the bulb is supposed to heat up more or If there’s a dial/setting I’m unaware that I’m incorrectly using. This gear was bought in a bundle on Craigslist years ago and sat idle in my garage until recently when I finished drywalling and plumbing the garage. I doubt this is worth mentioning but the garage was cool (probably in the 60s) and the water was probably a bit below that.


Thanks in advance,
Omid

 

[Omid_K]

I forgot to mention the paper is just Ilford’s RC Pearl Multigrade IV.

 

[Vilk]

okee, you got me... which part you think needs more light?

 

[pentaxuser]

Looks fine to me as well. I fear we are misunderstanding what is you think you need that is missing. I wasn't clear about what a pure white test strip means - after exposure and development there was no image of the test strip?

pentaxuser

 

[Rick A]

Two things come to mind if the print takes a very long time to expose properly. First, how dense is the negative, if it looks normal, there is another issue. If you can barely make out the image on it, that's your problem. Second would be, are you printing on the correct side of the paper? Are you loading the paper right side up?

 

[Omid_K]

Thanks guys. Yes, the first test strip (f8, intervals up to 20+ seconds) was white across the board. I thought I had developed an unexposed strip initially.

I guess I’m just under the assumption that it’s ideal to print with the aperture stopped down to f8 or f11 to prevent vignetting (not sure where I got that from) and to allow for more control over exposure time. Meaning, I could open up to shorten or stop down to lengthen whereas if I’m starting wide open I have little latitude in one of those directions. My fear is that at f4 with 30 seconds of exposure I’d have a 2 minute exposure at f8 which would make paper fogging more likely.

I guess I should throw out my assumptions and instead ask if there’s an ideal aperture or an ideal development time.

 

[Omid_K]

Thanks Rick. I’m happy with negative’s density and I don’t think that’s the issue. I’m 99% sure I printed with the appropriate side up but I’ll run a test later today to rule out that user error.

 

[jimjm]

Omid - Your resulting print looks really good. 30 sec is not necessarily too long an exposure time, especially as 90M filtration is about the equivalent of Grade 4. The LPL dichroic heads use the Kodak filtration values (listed in the Ilford Contrast Factors pdf), so you can dial-in singe filters of M or Y, or a combination of both to get a specific contrast result. I have an LPL C670MXL Dichroic, and love it for B/W printing.

Cooler dev temps (under 20c) may require longer print development, but your other chemicals shouldn't factor in. I find that the negative density plays a big part in print exposure time. If you have a thin underexposed image, you may only need to print for 10 sec at f:8. Your resulting print looks reasonably well exposed with good detail in the dark tones, which indicates your negative was well exposed also. If you try printing at a slightly lower contrast, say 2.5 or 3, you will get more detail in the shadows and highlight areas. I like the look you have here, though.

Film plays a factor as well. I recently printed a shot on 35mm Ferrania P30, which I find is a relatively contrasty film. An 11x14 print of a negative overexposed 1 stop needed a print exposure time of 120 sec at f:8, but the print turned out great.

 

[jimjm]

Ideally, most enlarger lenses perform best when closed down 1 or 2 stops, but use what works best for you.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, you're printing with lots of magenta, no blue and no yellow? Isn't that your problem there? When I used a colour head for VC printing, I only introduced magenta light to balance the printing speed when introducing more/less blue, and yellow...

 

[jimjm]

With dichroic heads, for single filtration I use yellow for everything below grade 2 and magenta to print above grade 2. Benefit to using a combination of both Y and M is that exposure times do not vary as much if changing contrast. Never use the Blue.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

If your negatives consistently need a lot of magenta to print well, you're underdeveloping. Extend your developing time a bit.

30 seconds doesn't seem too long for me, especially with a lot of magenta filtration. However, there may be some issues with the light source/mixing box that keep you from getting optimum illumination. Check to make sure you have the correct bulb. There may be a higher-wattage bulb that is recommended as well. If you are using a mixing box for a larger format, e.g., for 4x5 or 6x7, then you won't get maximum possible light intensity. Check your mixing box to see if it's the right one for the film format you are enlarging.

Most enlarging lenses perform best at 2 stops down from wide open, so aim for that. However, if you need more light, don't hesitate to open up; good enlarging lenses perform quite acceptable wide open too.

BTW, I think the tonalities in your final print are just great. Who cares if you needed to expose a few more seconds.

Best,

Doremus

 

[pentaxuser]

For my clarification, I think you are saying that on the test strip which was a series of sections of the projected negative of the child you got no image on any of the sections after 20 + seconds at F11. It took 30 secs at 3 stops more light to get the good print of the child. I assume that your filtration of 90M was the same in both the test strip blank and final good print. If so then while I am no expert in the maths of whether 3 stops less light at 10 seconds less than the good print translates into no image at all, I am a still a little surprised there wasn't even the faintest of images. Maybe someone can comment on whether 3 stops less light at f11 and 20+ secs will result in no image compared to 30 secs at F4.

Ilford's single filtration figure for an LPL suggests that 90M is a little more than grade 4 so you have got a good print at grade 4 but with 30 secs at f4. Needing grade 4 to get a normal looking print suggests that the negative might not be ideal.
It might help if you can digitally photograph the negative and attach it so it can be viewed.

Just as a comparison nearly all of my negatives on a Durst enlarger would be the equivalent of 25-50M filtration(grade 3-3.5) and with a 75W bulb would require less than 30 secs at F8

pentaxuser

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The LPL dichroic module has an attenuator on it. You might have that closed. That would account for a couple stops of light.

 

[Eric Rose]

The LPL dichroic module has an attenuator on it. You might have that closed. That would account for a couple stops of light.

Mike drop!

 

[Craig75]

If as others are saying that 90M on your enlarger is grade 4 on ilford multigrade then grades 4 and 5 can be a stop slower than softer grades - so more development of negative would have allowed you to print at a lower grade for 30s f5.6. Run a quick test strip of baby's face with less magenta to see if this is the case for you.

30s at f5.6 is a very good place to be in my opinion to make a print - although f4 for 30s is an equally good place to be - you've given yourself time to do any work under enlarger without rushing and you aren't at aperture limits of lens so if you want some more time to do any dodging/burning then you can. However if you want less time and/or smaller aperture and assuming enlarger is all set up right then you should need to get off grade 4 by developing your negative longer - you could also couple this with a thinner negative through less camera exposure.

 

[tezzasmall]

Like others have said, the print looks good to me to!

I don't use a colour head but it's been hinted that the magenta you are using may be a bit high. Reducing that will reduce your exposure straight away = with Kodak and Ilford filters, high magenta filters double the exposure straight away.

Also the temperature of your chemicals sound a bit cold. They should ideally be around the 20C / 68F mark for full development in the stated time on the instructions.

And as for lens aperture, if it's a good lens you can use it at just about any aperture. I upgraded mine by getting a Nikon one off of ebay for peanuts and I have no problem printing with it wide open if the negatives are a bit dense.

Other than that you seem to be doing well.

Terry S

 

[tezzasmall]

...so more development of negative would have allowed you to print at a lower grade for 30s f5.6.

However if you want less time and/or smaller aperture and assuming enlarger is all set up right then you should need to get off grade 4 by developing your negative longer - you could also couple this with a thinner negative through less camera exposure.

I think you're a bit confused there Craig... MORE development of a NEGATIVE would make it DENSER and ie MORE exposure would be needed under the enlarger. And as for less exposure in the camera, this is only necessary if the exposure is wrong and overexposed. Less camera exposure of a normal exposure will just give thinner negatives and detail will be lost.

Terry S

 

[Craig75]

I think you're a bit confused there Craig... MORE development of a NEGATIVE would make it DENSER and ie MORE exposure would be needed under the enlarger. And as for less exposure in the camera, this is only necessary if the exposure is wrong and overexposed. Less camera exposure of a normal exposure will just give thinner negatives and detail will be lost.

Terry S

Any extra density should be more than compensated by being able to use faster lower grade filters. The negative probably only needs an extra minute or two to get it onto grade 3 where speed of paper will double. OP has some nice tones going on in his print - just reducing the magenta alone will lead to loss of these nice tones.

We dont know how thin or dense negative is - there may be room to reduce camera exposure without any loss of detail or there may not be. OP can bracket a shot and print them to compare against his metering to see if he is able to give less exposure or not.

If OP wants to print quicker or at smaller aperture and everything else is equal then these are the controls open to him.

 

[pentaxuser]

We dont know how thin or dense negative is - .

Yes, I agree and that's why to get this thread much further we could do with seeing the negative as a negative. The attenuator on the LPL may be part of the problem as has been mentioned. I can't help feel that unless the neg is so dense as to be almost bullet-proof then to need 30+ secs at f4 means that something else about the set-up is awry

The good print at 30 secs at f4 translates into 240 secs at f11, doesn't it?. If my maths are correct then 20 secs at f11 might well be white with no image at all, I suppose. Surely even at 90M, 240 secs at f11 should not be required, should it? None of my negs and I have the odd thickish set have ever required any where near this exposure even at grade 4

Maybe we need to wait on the OP's check on this attenuator aspect and we don't know the wattage of the bulb or the "look" of the neg yet.

pentaxuser

 

[Omid_K]

Thank you all so much for your replies. It's so great to have this type of community where a novice, like myself, can tap into the wisdom of others which was so hard won. My experience with photographers on other sites has been that of genuine questions being met with condescension and disdain. Early on it was disheartening and infuriating to seek advice and be made to feel small. I'm very grateful to have found the Photrio community and hope to share my expertise down the road as I acquire it.

Specifically:

-Rick, that was my first thought. I wouldn't put such a simple error past me.
-Jim, thanks for the tip. I'm starting my process at f5.6 now and I think that's my lens's sweet spot. Also, I thought that Magenta was the only way to go. It wasn't until after this thread that I realized I could use a combination of Yellow and Magenta in accordance with Ilford's recommendations. (See link below)
-Andrew O'Neill, I didn't see anything on using Blue in my research but I'll definitely see what's published. Thanks for the lead.
-Doremus, thanks for the tip. I mistakenly thought that since Magenta goes to 170 that 90 would be around the midpoint of contrast (say a 3.0 filter). Thanks for helping me realize that I was on the pretty high end of that range which helped me tremendously.
-PentaxUser, I appreciate your willingness to go the extra mile. I'll try to upload a picture of the negative the next time I have access to my negatives again (I'm a firefighter and I'm stuck at work for a few days) but I assure you it's properly exposed. I think in the end it was a matter of me being too naive to realize what reasonable times would look like. This was my first print ever attempted in my darkroom and with gear that I hadn't ever used before not to mention my ignorance about the attenuator knob. I think I just didn't have my bearings about what the printing process would look like. Thanks for all the tips.
-Patrick Robert James, I'm assuming you're speaking of the knob adjacent to the color knobs. I honestly don't remember which position it was in and didn't even discover it until yesterday. What's the benefit of such a knob? Thank you.
-Eric Rose, again I had no idea that was even there. Stupid me.
-Craig and Terry, you guys have given me so much to think about and experiment on which is much appreciated. Much more reading about filters, color head combinations, and contrast are my homework assignment.


Appreciatively,
Omid



P.S. In case anyone would benefit from this like I did... https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf)

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Apologies for this naive question but I’m very much a novice in the darkroom. After dabbling in a community darkroom a few years back I decided to get my own darkroom. Yesterday I ventured into my new happy place to create my first print just to prove to myself it could be done. It’s not a particularly great image or print, just a milestone to have created it.

My setup is a Saunders LPL Super Dichroic 4500II (Yellow: 0 Blue: 0 Magenta: 90). The chemistry I used was Clayton P20 developer (1:4 dilution, 90 seconds), water stop, TF4 Fix (diluted 1:2 from working solution to double the fix time from :30 to 1:00).

I ran a test strip at f11 and it came out pure white. Not a speck of grey (I’m talking Zone 9). Eventually I got my 8x10 print (35mm negative) but pretty wide open at f4 for 30 seconds. And it still looks like it could use more light.

My question is: what am I doing wrong? I don’t know if this is a chemistry issue or maybe the bulb is supposed to heat up more or If there’s a dial/setting I’m unaware that I’m incorrectly using. This gear was bought in a bundle on Craigslist years ago and sat idle in my garage until recently when I finished drywalling and plumbing the garage. I doubt this is worth mentioning but the garage was cool (probably in the 60s) and the water was probably a bit below that.


Thanks in advance,
Omid

great 1st print, I'd say.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Any first print is a great one . My first was low in contrast and out of focus, but still hangs on my darkroom wall as a reminder of where I started.