Problem with extreme contrast

Hi all
I'm having problems with my wet prints, which have extreme contrast and very little or no detail in highlights. I don't think this is an exposure issue as areas of each photo are fine, but light areas such as the floor or sky are often coming out white, with detail only in shadows. It's not as bad as the scans make out (prints are also a lot warmer), but bad enough to be an issue. All the photos were taken in quite strong sunlight so I was expecting quite high contrast but nothing like this - however the negatives are slightly overexposed (say 1/2 - 1 stop), I don't know if it has something to do with this. I am using Kentmere 100 and Ilfosol 3 with the recommended time. Anyone got any advice? I was thinking of using a yellow filter or changing the developing time but I'm quite new to this.
Also, some of the prints have some black spots on them. If anyone knows what this is I'd be happy to know, but it seems to have been a one time thing (I've only seen it on one roll) so I'm not too bothered.
These were taken on an Canon FTb with the 50mm 1.4 SSC, although I'm also using a 35mm 2.0 SSC.

400 film copes with sunlight better.
Try a soft working developer as well.
Dev for 10% less if you are going to scan.

I think you could reduce the paper contrast when printing by a grade. If you are using multigrade paper, then yellow filtration will do this. The Ilford paper data sheets give the amount of filtration required to achieve a particular paper grade - Grade 0 has low contrast and Grade 5 has high contrast. If you printed these without a filter then they should be around Grade 2 and I would suggest you try Grade 1. If you're not already using a filter for the print then you will need to increase the exposure to compensate for the light loss of the filter - I expect by half a stop to one stop for Grade 1.

It would be a good idea to use a yellow or orange filter while taking photos with blue sky in them. This will help by darkening the sky somewhat (less with a yellow filter, more with an orange one).

If the problem persists you could reduce the film development time, perhaps to the "N-1" (1 stop pull) time on you developer data sheet. But I would try the other options first because if you have less contrasty pics on the same roll you would not want to reduce their contrast any more.

Don't worry about the exposure, half to one stop over exposure is quite normal and won't hurt the prints at all.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Forgot to mention I'm using multigrade paper (Ilford MGIV) and an LPL VC6700 enlarger. I've tried changing the enlarger grade settings and can get reasonable results, but I'm having to use ridiculous exposure times (90s for grade 3 at 8x10 size). Could the enlarger itself (the bulb, the lens etc) be the problem? Obviously with any filter I'd need even longer times...

Thanks, could you suggest any developers? I use 100 film mainly for reducing grain, but I'll use 400 if you think that will be better. Scanning was just for the purpose of posting examples on here (I scanned the prints, not the negatives)

Xmas said:

400 film copes with sunlight better.
Try a soft working developer as well.
Dev for 10% less if you are going to scan.

Click to expand...

Thanks, could you suggest any developers? I use 100 film mainly for reducing grain, but I'll use 400 if you think that will be better for this purpose. Scanning was just for the purpose of posting examples on here (I scanned the prints, not the negatives)

Try D23 see two bath in this link

Dead Link Removed

if Ansell needed it

you might need a micro balance if D23 is not commercialised

I have trouble in sunlight even with 400 like HP5+ YMMV

Contrast is controled by first, scene brightnes, and then second, by development. If you are photographing a brightly light high contrast scene, you will have to reduce development. If you shoot a scene where there is good tonal range, yet little contrast, your development times should be normal. If you shoot low contrast, and want to punch it up, lengthen development. If you are consistantly getting high contrast no matter what, reduce development and/or use lower contrast grade when printing. The accepted norm for printing is grade 2, and one should (theoretically) shoot to obtain this. Adjusting paper grade up(more contrast) or down(less contrast)helps make life easier, but is not a true cure for your problem. It doesn't matter which film/developer combination you select, test the combo and find your personal ISO for that combo. Then, and only then, will you be able to attain the results you desire.

BTW, welcome to Apug!

What does the shadow detail (if any) look like on the negatives? The most common cause of that condition is under-exposure and over-development. First thing to do is re-print them on lower grade paper. If they maintain blacks then exposure was probably OK. If the blacks go to gray when printed on lower contrast paper then the negatives were probably under-exposed.

Itamar.a.mor said:

Forgot to mention I'm using multigrade paper (Ilford MGIV) and an LPL VC6700 enlarger. I've tried changing the enlarger grade settings and can get reasonable results, but I'm having to use ridiculous exposure times (90s for grade 3 at 8x10 size). Could the enlarger itself (the bulb, the lens etc) be the problem? Obviously with any filter I'd need even longer times...

Click to expand...

Are you printing at higher contrast than grade 3? G3 is somewhat contrasty to begin with. You should definitly try G2 or even 1.5 since these are already some what high contrast. As to the length of enlarging times, open the aperture up on the lens, you may be using far too small setting. Opening up by one f-stop halves the exposure time, opening two stops halves it again. Exposing for 90sec @f-16 would then be 45sec @f-11 or 22.5sec @f-8, you get the drift.

My problem is that with the enlarger wide open I was getting vignetting, and 90s was the time it took when closed one stop down from max. The photos I attached were printed at grade 3 and around 90s, and with the aperture as far open as I could (I'm not sure of the aperture but I'll check). This makes me think that maybe it is a problem with the enlarger lens or lamp...

Rick A said:

Are you printing at higher contrast than grade 3? G3 is somewhat contrasty to begin with. You should definitly try G2 or even 1.5 since these are already some what high contrast. As to the length of enlarging times, open the aperture up on the lens, you may be using far too small setting. Opening up by one f-stop halves the exposure time, opening two stops halves it again. Exposing for 90sec @f-16 would then be 45sec @f-11 or 22.5sec @f-8, you get the drift.

Click to expand...

Itamar.a.mor said:

Forgot to mention I'm using multigrade paper (Ilford MGIV) and an LPL VC6700 enlarger. I've tried changing the enlarger grade settings and can get reasonable results, but I'm having to use ridiculous exposure times (90s for grade 3 at 8x10 size). Could the enlarger itself (the bulb, the lens etc) be the problem? Obviously with any filter I'd need even longer times...

Click to expand...

Set up for 8x10 even with all my magenta dialed in I rarely get into the 90s.

The long exposure time may truly indicate film over-exposure, over-development, or a combination of both.

If I remember correctly most halogen bulbs dim very little before failure, so I don't think it is likely the bulb, but it's not impossible.

Your Grade 3 setting here though could be a distinct part of the issue. If contrast is too hard, like your examples, you want to adjust the other way, toward 0 rather than 5.

Try dialing in full yellow instead and zero out the magenta completely. Then print until you get the highlight detail you want. If you can print the detail you want by doing this the negative is not over-exposed into oblivion.

Look at the over all print. Does it have the snap you want across the mid-tones?

From there, look at the shadow areas. Is the detail you want there? Too black? Too gray?

Too black/not enough detail in the shadows at this point would indicate over-development of the film.

Too gray would mean that that full yellow is too soft a paper grade. If so cut the yellow setting in half and print again, judge the new print and adjust again as needed.

When done report back to us.

It won't help improve your current negs which you will have to live with but if your scans are accurate replicas of your negs then I'd say that you have both over-developed and over-exposed. In the scan with people which looks to have contrasty light conditions I'd have expected the shadows to be a lot darker in those conditions, hence why I say that it looks quite a lot over-exposed.

Your scans and print exposure times to get a reasonable looking print suggests a lot of over-developed of the film where the highlight are almost paper white.

I'd be tempted to reduce exposure by about a stop or at least half a stop. The easiest way to do this might be to set the film speed to half a stop more than the box speed so if it's a 400 film set the ISO to 600. I'd then reduce the development time by at least 30% on the next film

Again I have to base this on your scans but you can check on this by looking at the black parts of the negative which represent highlight detail. If these areas of the neg are almost black this confirms over-development.

pentaxuser

Your print exposure times indicate film over-exposure and drastic over-development.

Xmas said:

400 film copes with sunlight better.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Kentmere 100 specifically but contrast is adjustable with all B&W films.

Why would it be easier with 400 if both films are developed to the same CI?

is it the negatives that have no detail
and are extremely contrasty ?
if the negatives have no details, the print
won't have any detail either ( no matter how many gymnastics you do )

one thing that might help
is get 100 feet of film in a bulk loader
and a few canisters ...
go out and expose 12 frames in different light
different brightnesses and situations
and bracket your exposures (one on what the meter says, one over and under a stop )
and then process the film. process 1 roll "normally", one roll a little less time and one roll a little more time
and make a few contact prints and notice what the film does in each situation and how the prints look.

good luck !
john

400 film copes with sunlight better.

Click to expand...

Much better images (than those posted) can be obtained, including in harsh sunlight, with properly processed 100 ISO film; only PanF might be a problem. So let's keep focused on identifying the OP's problem, much bigger than 100 vs 400 ISO film.
No need either to discuss developer choice at that point.

(from Rick A) It doesn't matter which film/developer combination you select, test the combo and find your personal ISO for that combo

Click to expand...

+1

one thing that might help is get 100 feet of film in a bulk loader and a few canisters ...
go out and expose 12 frames in different light different brightnesses and situations and bracket your exposures (one on what the meter says, one over and under a stop )

Click to expand...

The OP apparently does not have much experience, and you want him to embark into bulk loading? Solve one problem before tackling another... And, then again, his problem is worse and different than +/-1stop error on exposure.

To the OP: Trying to solve your problem, please don't be offended. Please double check that you used the correct dilution for the developer. The MDC (Massive Development Chart) states:
Kentmere 100 Ilfosol 3 1+9 100 5 20C
Kentmere 100 Ilfosol 3 1+14 100 7.5 20C
You'll have time later to learn fine tuning; these should be good starting point to obtain decent images.
Just to be sure, 1+9 means 1 volume from the Ilford bottle mixed with 9 volumes of water.
Also check your thermometer against any other thermometer: leave them in proximity for 5 min before taking readings.
(To the experts around: the average household thermometer might be off by 1°C, but the OP's problem is much bigger than this)

Jim Noel said:

Your print exposure times indicate film over-exposure and drastic over-development.

Click to expand...

I agree and you need to sort this out first.

bernard_L said:

The OP apparently does not have much experience, and you want him to embark into bulk loading? Solve one problem before tackling another... And, then again, his problem is worse and different than +/-1stop error on exposure.

Click to expand...

Bulk loading isn't tough and the payback in experience that can be gained with a half dozen 12-exposure rolls is huge.

Bulk loading also pays back pretty quickly in real money too.

Also, we actually don't know that the error is that big yet.

bernard_L said:

The OP apparently does not have much experience, and you want him to embark into bulk loading? Solve one problem before tackling another... And, then again, his problem is worse and different than +/-1stop error on exposure.

Click to expand...

one needs "experience" to load film in a canister?

bulk loading is as easy as tying one's shoes
you open the canister in daylight,
take some masking tape and tape the end of the film to the spool
put it in the cartridge
close the lid
turn the crank X times for Y exposures
open the lid, cut film,
cut the tongue
not sure how that is hard, takes less than 45 seconds

using bulk loaded film at 12 exposures each spool
will help the OP process the film
will help the OP expose the film
will help the OP get use to his / her camera
will pretty much do it all
without having to waste 36 or 24 exposures

... what mark said !

I am in basic agreement with Rick and ic- here. While the photographs may be improved somewhat by printing at lower contrast, that does not seem to be the issue at hand. The negatives are the crux of the matter. First deal with exposure, then development – then printing.

You have a couple of major misconceptions about the negs. The pix, in fact, show no shadow detail (except weirdly in the human shadows) and the highlights are blown as well. I doubt the negs do either. The filtration advice offered in some posts, during film exposure, will do nothing to help you achieve less contrast. Yellows and oranges will only help you achieve micro contrast resolution in brightly lit microcrystalline textures like snow, and separation of visualized grey tones in the sky. This is also not an issue of film speed. Any B/W panchromatic film of any speed should give you viable results if exposed and developed correctly. (I shoot slow speed films, 25 in 120 and 125 in LF, all the time in contrast at least as high as evident in your pix)

Here is a rough guide to dealing with high contrast situations, in lieu of a more permanent fix – the Zone System. Try again using the correct shooting film speed for your film, or follow other's guidelines. That may be less than 100, for 100 speed film. Expose for the shadows, to get shadow detail. Without a spot meter, using onboard camera metering, this may be accomplished by filling the viewfinder (or metered area) with the shadows you wish to resolve. Open up two stops. That will almost certainly "place" your shadows within a resolvable portion of your film's sensitivity. Shoot naked (no filters)! Fire. Try developing at ~20% less than normal time in any developer you already feel comfortable with. This should help to reign in your high contrast highlights as resolved on your film (if not, contract development even further, next time). That should get you fairly close to acceptable results, which may then be dealt with under the enlarger.

ROL said:

First deal with exposure, then development – then printing.

Click to expand...

I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here in that he did what he said, 1-stop extra, so just EI 50. That should be well within the range of almost any negative film's latitude, I see no reason why Kentmere 100 would be different.

To test for over and under exposure and development there are essentially two options; print or measure the density of the negative.

In the OP's case I haven't seen mention of a densitometer so it seems we are left with printing as the only practical way to judge the negatives and decide if there was too much exposure or too much development.

We have no idea about how the OP is metering yet, nor any idea of how accurately that metering method is calibrated to the film and developer combo he is using.

Rather than guessing, a little experimentation with the paper grade and exposure will answer the right questions about how to adjust camera exposure and film development.

markbarendt said:

I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt here in that he did what he said, 1-stop extra, so just EI 50. That should be well within the range of almost any negative film's latitude, I see no reason why Kentmere 100 would be different.

To test for over and under exposure and development there are essentially two options; print or measure the density of the negative.

In the OP's case I haven't seen mention of a densitometer so it seems we are left with printing as the only practical way to judge the negatives and decide if there was too much exposure or too much development.

We have no idea about how the OP is metering yet, nor any idea of how accurately that metering method is calibrated to the film and developer combo he is using.

Rather than guessing, a little experimentation with the paper grade and exposure will answer the right questions about how to adjust camera exposure and film development.

Click to expand...

That is your opinion if you're responding to the OP. If, by quoting me, you are responding to me, you haven't understood anything I've said.

Itamar.a.mor said:

Forgot to mention I'm using multigrade paper (Ilford MGIV) and an LPL VC6700 enlarger. I've tried changing the enlarger grade settings and can get reasonable results, but I'm having to use ridiculous exposure times (90s for grade 3 at 8x10 size). Could the enlarger itself (the bulb, the lens etc) be the problem? Obviously with any filter I'd need even longer times...

Click to expand...

open your lens all the way up and not use graded paper but a VC paper ( maybe more control over your exposure ).
use a "00" or ) or 1 filter and dilute developer. i don't think there is anything wrong with your enlarger
its just that your film has a lot of density that takes a long time for light to penetrate
and expose the paper ( opening the enlarger lens should help cut the time down ).
grade 3 will ADD contrast, if you want to use graded paper use a grade lower, like 2 or 1
and you can dilute your maybe 1:2 instead of 1:1 ...
if make a small print first ( like a poof, will also cut your exposure time down )
i think there is a formula to get you in the ballpark for a larger one ...
maybe someone here knows that, or has asked that, its just a post/search away ...

you could also make a contact sheet of all your negatives, and make a mental note what the filter was
that gave you the best exposure. 90seconds isn't too bad, i've had negatives that took 3mins to expose
and then 9mins of burning+dodging lots of fun!

to better exposure your film bracket your exposures when you get to difficult lighting like high contrast scenes ..
bracketing gives yourself room to breathe and gives you a better idea to remember in which lighting
which exposure ( over or under or right on ) worked best ...
don't forget to have fun !
john

Well, I may not be understanding you ROL.

The OP's examples though seem to have been done at grade 3 so the choice of print grade for the examples we have been shown is a suspect IMO, that's not a given yet though, and the OP can get reasonable results with grade adjustment but we don't know what grade that is, and the prints take a fairly long times compared to what I'd expect, IMO indicating really thick negatives. So it would seem to me that it would be odd to find a lack of detail in the shadows.

Itamar.a.mor said:

Forgot to mention I'm using multigrade paper (Ilford MGIV) and an LPL VC6700 enlarger. I've tried changing the enlarger grade settings and can get reasonable results, but I'm having to use ridiculous exposure times (90s for grade 3 at 8x10 size). Could the enlarger itself (the bulb, the lens etc) be the problem? Obviously with any filter I'd need even longer times...

Click to expand...