Printing Woes - Streaks on white borders, and not understanding the seconds exposure

[PhotoJim]

Glad you figured it out.

That Ilford PDF mentioned earlier is really good stuff. If you haven't already printed it out and read it, definitely do so.

There is a learning curve to this. If it makes you feel better, I did exactly what you did the first time I did darkroom work.

Heck, just last month I ruined six sheets of sheet film because I forgot to put this thing on the lid that's supposed to go there to protect the film from light. Took off the cap, went to pour in the developer and realized the sheets were in plain sight. That's never good.

Or the time recently when I developed a few rolls of film, did my running water wash and opened up the film to realize there is a fixing step there that needs to be done. Oops oops. Brain cramps happen even when you know what you're doing.

 

[MattKing]

Hmm:

Both stop bath and fixer undiluted concentrate - bet your darkroom smelled a bit .

As for the black blob at the same place on the edge - you probably have either a small hole or something reflective and a hole at that spot on your easel. Try putting a piece of card stock there that extends outside the easel so that any light there that is outside the image area can't get through.

Matt

 

[pentaxuser]

Ted Nice to know you've solved the light contamination problem. I hope I am wrong but I still think there's just a chance that the paper has a very low level fog which can be very subtle. The hoped for alternative is that the contrast level is just too low. How are you establishing the "correct" contrast? All three look as much as 2 grades too little. Try raising the contrast level by maybe two grades. Actually what I'd do is simply use the same neg and print at every grade from 1 to 4 and then decide which print looks sufficiently "punchy" If say 3 isn't punchy enough but 4 is too punchy and contrasty then 3.5 grade is probably very close.

Once you've nailed it for one neg then the rest should require a very similar grade provided the negs were all exposed under the same light conditions.

You can of course do test strips for both exposure and contrast for each neg to get the right print but you might want to consider an analyser which once calibrated for correct exposure will then recommend the right grade for the neg. I have a Philips analyser which gets the exposure and grade right for me in the vast majority of cases. You'll see them on e-bay quite often and they go for under £50. They aren't as sophisticated as say an RH Designs model but do a good job for what they cost. I'd say that mine has paid for itself in paper after a couple of years and speeds up my printing and removes the kind of "will it/won't it look right after processing". It gives you confidence which in a darkroom where you are on your own is no mean asset.

An Ilford EM10 can be had for much less than this, say £10, and will also produce a recommended grade as well.

Best of luck

pentaxuser

 

[Travis Nunn]

Ted, take a look at this site (Chapters 9 - 11). I think this may help with some of your problems.
http://dofmaster.com/courses/basic/

 

[wogster]

Glad you figured it out.

That Ilford PDF mentioned earlier is really good stuff. If you haven't already printed it out and read it, definitely do so.

There is a learning curve to this. If it makes you feel better, I did exactly what you did the first time I did darkroom work.

Heck, just last month I ruined six sheets of sheet film because I forgot to put this thing on the lid that's supposed to go there to protect the film from light. Took off the cap, went to pour in the developer and realized the sheets were in plain sight. That's never good.

Or the time recently when I developed a few rolls of film, did my running water wash and opened up the film to realize there is a fixing step there that needs to be done. Oops oops. Brain cramps happen even when you know what you're doing.

Fewer problems happen when the right way to do things is habit. Most people think of habits as a bad thing, so you make habit a good thing. Always do things exactly the same way, after you have done 30-40 films, it becomes habit, after 100 films, you can do it without really thinking about it, after 500 you can do them in your sleep. after 1000, you can do them without being conscience of even doing it. Same applies to prints, the only variable should be exposure time, maybe some dodging and burning, but after the exposure, it should always be exactly the same. It becomes habit, I shut down the darkroom in 1984, when In went to process some film in 2004, I realized that the process I was going through was identical as the one 20 years before. Had not even really thought about it, I set up the same way, it had become habit by 1984, and that was the way the old brain arranged it, even though it had been 20 years!

 

[PhotoJim]

You're so right about habit. Even if I haven't printed for a year I can get back into it almost instantly. I just know what to do.

The mistakes I made last month had more to do with mental fatigue than anything.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ted, take a look at this site (Chapters 9 - 11). I think this may help with some of your problems.
http://dofmaster.com/courses/basic/

Travis, I am sure Ted will also be grateful for this link but I'd like to thank you also. There's a great deal of useful stuff there on the site besides that contained in chapters 9-11.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Travis Nunn]

Travis, I am sure Ted will also be grateful for this link but I'd like to thank you also. There's a great deal of useful stuff there on the site besides that contained in chapters 9-11.

Thanks

pentaxuser

There sure is, it's answered more than a few questions I've had

 

[ted_smith]

Getting there, slowly as she goes....

This was done at 13 seconds with 2.5 contrast (my Ilfospeed controller ranges from 0 - 4, 2 being average.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Good to see you're making progress, Ted. Judging by the scan, this should probably be printed at grade 3 or 3.5. I can see no real black in the frame, but I don't know whether that's the print or the scan...

- Thomas

 

[fschifano]

It's a little flat, and would do well with more contrast. I don't know if it's the scan or the print. If this is more or less representative of the way the print looks on a grade 2.5 or equivalent paper, something else is not quite right yet. The print should have a lot more snap to it. Could be any number of things causing this. Anything from an underdeveloped negative to pulling the print early from the developer can be the cause.

 

[Jean Noire]

The white flowers held by the bridesmaids seem blown already and increasing contrast is likely to cause further problems here. But the print does look muddy. Are you using the print developer at about 20deg.C and developing for at least 90 secs ? Is the print developer fresh? What does a print at 14 or 15 secs look like?
Regards
John

 

[pentaxuser]

Ted I agree with all of the above comments. If you haven't done so yet, I do recommend trying the neg at several grades above this at half grade intervals. Suddenly you'll see "snap" in the print as one poster put it very aptly. If this requires say grade 4 to get to the "snap" then I'd consider longer development, assuming that you have left the print in the developer for long enough to get max black possible and that you've done a test print for best exposure.

pentaxuser

 

[fschifano]

Judging by what I can see in the scan, I'd guesstimate 3 to 3 1/2 should do, and don't forget to compensate for the added density of the filter. Still, that's really too much for this type of photograph. The negative should be exposed and developed so that it prints nicely at grade 2 to 2 1/2. That's your aim point. If you can hit that, then you have plenty of room on both ends of the contrast scale to play. The paper speed is supposed to match from filter grades 1 to 4 with Ilford papers and filter, but that's under controlled test conditions. Real world experience says that's not so, at least with my gear.

 

[msdemanche]

The print seems flat, but I wish we could see the film density. It seems that there should be much more contrast from the shadows etc in the background. It can not remember if we discussed the type of developer, if this is dektol I can not belive it is at the right dillution, it almost looks like seletol or something very soft.
Michel

 

[ted_smith]

Hey guys...I didn't want you all to think I'd given up! I've been messing about and I've hired 3 books from the library that I'm wading through. But I thought I'd post the original pictures that feature on (there was a url link here which no longer exists) with my latest versions, and I've learned more since making these :

Before :

After

12 seconds at 2 contrast all over. 20 seconds dodge of the black background at same contrast. 2 mins dev in DD-X

Before :

After :

14 seconds at 2.5 contrast all over. 4 seconds extra dodge of the sky. 2 mins dev in DD-X

Before :

After :

I know many of you will say X Y and Z needs adjusting, and please make comment so I can learn, but bear in mind that I'm not saying "Right, I've learnt everything now and here is what I can do.." - I'm just updating you on my progress.

(Any tips on getting rid of the little white dust specs?)

 

[Anon Ymous]

(Any tips on getting rid of the little white dust specs?)

Gently brush your negatives (both sides) with a soft brush, then blow them with a blower. Remember to do that to the negative carrier too.

 

[fschifano]

Static electricity is a big problem, especially during the winter months when indoor air is usually very dry. Raising the humidity in the darkroom helps by reducing the static charge.

 

[Bob F.]

The main thing is that you have got the hang of adjusting the contrast to fit the subject (and negative) so that's 85.79% of the battle sorted!

As suggested, white specks are almost certainly dust on the negative or on the glass negative carrier if you use one. Gentle brushing with a soft brush and/or puffing with air is needed. Take the time to keep the negatives clean and free of dust from the time you hang them up to dry to the time you put them in the negative carrier to save yourself a lot of hassle.

Another possibility is debris that has embedded itself in the emulsion during processing or while drying in which case you may be out of luck, but check for dust first.

Good luck, Bob.

 

[mwdake]

The caption below your prints says..

2 mins dev in DD-X

Did you develop the prints in DD-X?
Isn't that Ilford DD-X Film Developer?

 

[Tim Gray]

Yeah I was just going to comment on the DD-X bit. Not that it doesn't work, but you will probably get better results using a paper developer. At the very least, you will get results for cheaper. Try Ilfords Multigrade developer for your paper.

For the dust, get a little tiny artists brush and look for dust by looking at light reflections on the surface of the film. When you see a spot of dust, flick it off with the brush.

I find the big brushes leave as much dust as they pick up; they just move it around.

 

[largely]

Ted,
Did you "dodge" the background (withhold exposure) or "burn" it (give added exposure)? Just trying to be sure we've got our definitions clear.

Larry

 

[ted_smith]

Did you develop the prints in DD-X?
Isn't that Ilford DD-X Film Developer?

- yes. I will have to buy some paper specific developer. I didn't realise there was a difference.

Did you "dodge" the background (withhold exposure) or "burn" it (give added exposure)

- well spotted. Yes, I meant burn-in

 

[ted_smith]

Hey guys

Here is the wedding shot seen in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) redone at 14 seconds all over at Grade 3. Interestingly, I actually did this myself, then remembered that folk had made suggestions and when I read back I noticed that several of you said "Try 14 seconds" and "Try grade 3", so I must be learning now...

I'll leave it here as I think I have demonstrated how important it is to read up first, and read the chemical leaflets before cracking on with the art of home darkroom work!!

Once again, thanks to all that have helped me get a head start - hopefully I will learn the rest with practice.

Ted