Problem with extreme contrast

[Rick A]

I'm not familiar with VC heads, but could it be the OP has full magenta dialed in and is trying to add to get different contrast? Maybe clear all contrast and expose VC paper without filtration, which should give G2 results, and possibly show detail in the shadows, and lowering exposure time drastically.

 

[gone]

The times you are using for the enlarging sound way too long. I think you have a negative problem, but w/o seeing the actual negs I am just guessing. I would recommend that you use a negative that you KNOW is properly exposed and try printing from that at grade 2. Something is off somewhere though to get that sort of contrast and have a minute and a half enlarger exposure.

 

[NB23]

Hard negative= overdevelopment.

Did you dilute 1:9 or did you mistake for 1:4, maybe?

 

[pentaxuser]

Hard negative= overdevelopment.

Did you dilute 1:9 or did you mistake for 1:4, maybe?

Just for information only: It is Ilfosol 3 and is either diluted 1+9 or 1+14 but your point stands that using the lower dilution but the times for the higher dilutions would, based on the time differences, result in considerably denser negs.

If the OP can be sure he has used the correct times for the correct dilutions, with Ilford's recommended agitation and can be sure that the ISO setting on the camera was correct then if the negs reflect what the prints suggest it might be worth checking the meter.

Depending on his location on this earth the sunny 16 or sunny 11 rule will be a reasonable yardstick against which to check the "sunny" reading against what the camera meter shows.

If the processing steps check out and the ISO setting is correct it suggests a fairly substantial meter inaccuracy

but I think we need the OP to check each item and give us more feedback.

pemtaxuser

 

[Itamar.a.mor]

Thanks for the advice.


I'm almost certain that the film developing times and dilution were correct. Looking at Ilford's website I have been agitating it a bit too much than recommended, so the film is probably slightly overdeveloped. I know that some of the negatives (the pictures with people in them) are very dense either due to overexposure or overdeveloping (probably both). They seem to be the most badly affected. However my problem is that even negatives that look fine to me (the other two photos) have the same problem. I'll take some photos of the negatives and post them asap.


Re filters, the enlarger has an internal VCCE filter with one knob, so that's all I've been using (with Ilford MGIV multigrade paper). I'll try some prints at much lower grade at a smaller size and just put up with the long times. Hopefully I can get reasonable results. I'll check the enlarger lens as well - I think I've had it at around f/5.6 but I'm not sure.


Re metering, I have tested the meter before and I think it is quite accurate but I'll check again with sunny 11 and against other cameras. I haven't been metering for prints (I've made test strips).

 

[markbarendt]

Good plan Itamar.a.mor,

With a bit of practice it gets easier.

 

[piu58]

I don't think it is a problem of contrast per se, it is a problem with blocked highlights. Look at image #3: The face of the bay is not too contrasty and the wall in the background is in normal range. But the floor is blocked.
This means that the film is overexposed and perhaps overdeveloped. Normally we found underexposed negatives at beginners bt here we seem to see the other way. The high printing times point in the same direction. I recommend with the next film nothing to change but to make three negatives of each scene, one metered, one metered minus one stop, one metered minus two stops.

Only change one thing one time.

 

[Itamar.a.mor]

I recommend with the next film nothing to change but to make three negatives of each scene, one metered, one metered minus one stop, one metered minus two stops.

Seems a good idea, I'll try that too.

 

[Nige]

another area for the introduction of error is your cameras shutter and lens aperture mechanism. You can meter as accurately as you like but if either of those aren't working correctly, results will be less than accurate.

Others can validate if this is true, but an old way of telling if you negs where 'in the ballpark' was to see if you could read a newspaper through them.

 

[pentaxuser]

OP let us know which steps you decide to take and more importantly for our education let is know which worked the best

In other words if this is a "work in progress" project let us know how it goes

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[bernard_L]

OP let us know which steps you decide to take and more importantly for our education let is know which worked the best
In other words if this is a "work in progress" project let us know how it goes
Thanks
pentaxuser

+1

I put my money on two possible issues;
- significantly over-developed for whatever reason
- improper use of the enlarger's contrast filters
If 100 ASA film could do no better for sunlit scenes, we should know in 2014. As concerns metering,

I'll check again with sunny 11

Excellent suggestion. No need to use a meter for a sunlit scene; 1/125 f/11, and be there. Zone system, personal calibration, etc... can wait. First things first.

Plus, something that does not make sense and did not elicit any comment:

My problem is that with the enlarger wide open I was getting vignetting

That should not be. Possibly something is out of adjustment (lamp height??) or one condenser lens is missing, or??

Finally, since the beginning of this thread, all we've seen are prints that are too contrasty and were made with Grade 3 filter. Highest priority action is: try grade 1 and show us the results.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

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

My thoughts exactly.

The blocked up highlights are from HUGE negative over-development.

Normally over-exposure is not an issue. You just get longer print times since you have to shine through those dense highlights.

 

[Itamar.a.mor]

OP let us know which steps you decide to take and more importantly for our education let is know which worked the best

Will do (eventually ). Thanks for the help.

 

[c6h6o3]

Your negatives look underexposed (no shadow detail) and grossly over developed (blown highlights and midtones pushed way up on the scale). Back way, way off on the development.

 

[NB23]

Mistaken 68f for 68c, maybe?

 

[Itamar.a.mor]

Well, I printed again at grade 1.5, and it looks much better (lacks contrast if anything). It did take 80s for a postcard size print, so that's the sting in the tail (but one I can put up with). In the picture it's clearly visible that the corners are lighter, which I'm sure isn't a development issue. Anyone got any ideas? It was at f/2.8. I've also attached the negs, which are clearly very dark so I guess that was the issue (they are on a lightbox).

 

[Xmas]

On my phone the light box looks over exposed a bit, but depends on your shooting and metering style some people meter zone 1 exactly some only try to get plus or minus two stops.

If I see a photo I shoot and then adjust and reshoot then meter if it is static. I remove the incident dome and zone 1.

Try grade 2 test strips or 2.5 for burn and dodge.

The vignetting may be filter or lens hood or enlarger.

90 seconds may be an enlarger problem wrong bulb or missing bits etc.

So the betting is enlarger problem.

 

[markbarendt]

Ok,

So as far as print grade goes, it looks to me like you are not too far off. That means your film development is reasonably close.

Going forward I'd develop the next roll of film the same way did and do an exposure test.

Using box speed as a reference, I'd start at maybe 4-stops under and given what you showed here come up a 1/2-stop at a time to 2-stops over. All the shots need to be of the same scene (This is where a 12-shot roll really helps.) If you are using a 24-shot roll, do this for two scenes, 36-shot roll three scenes. It may help to put a note in the scene indicating what EI is being shot.

After you develop that roll use a loupe or magnifying glass and look for shadow area detail in the new negs, then try to print the thinest negative that seems to have good shadow detail, use grade 2. Print the negatives on either side of that one and see what you like better, the loupe won't tell you everything.

 

[bernard_L]

+1 to most of previous post; mostly agree My 2₵:

Using box speed as a reference, I'd start at maybe 4-stops under and given what you showed here come up a 1/2-stop at a time to 2-stops over.

I would start 2 stops under (being pretty sure the effective speed will be at best 2x box speed, corresponding to 1 stop under, so 2 stop under more than covers the needs). And I would go in 1 stop increments. Without quantitative measurements (densitometer) it is hard to pin the effective speed to 1/2 stop. And, considering end-to-end, the weak link will be the metering of an actual scene, especially if high dynamic range: average? incident? place open shadows on zone IV? The margin of uncertainty there is definitely more than 1/2 stop. One way to reduce that uncertainty is to be consistent: take notes to remember how you metered that pic that turned out good (or bad).

As for developing short strips (film test; impatient for results back from shooting session) what I do is: make sure the film is advanced to last pic +1; go to darkroom, have developing spiral ready; lights out; release take-up spool, open camera back; cut film in middle of frame; transfer from take-up spool to dev spiral; close dev tank. Ready for development of the test. Easier done than said.

 

[markbarendt]

The reason that I suggested 4-stops under was that the OP got very thick negatives even though he was only metering 1-stop over.

 

[darkosaric]

Well, I printed again at grade 1.5, and it looks much better (lacks contrast if anything). It did take 80s for a postcard size print, so that's the sting in the tail (but one I can put up with). In the picture it's clearly visible that the corners are lighter, which I'm sure isn't a development issue. Anyone got any ideas? It was at f/2.8. I've also attached the negs, which are clearly very dark so I guess that was the issue (they are on a lightbox).View attachment 86332View attachment 86333

Your negatives are usable, they don't look too dark, I would say little darker than normal. I was getting nice prints from even darker overexposed and overdeveloped negatives. When needed I exposure paper for 10 or even 15 minutes.

Try to use grade 2, or 2.5 and longer exposure. Recently I complained here about getting too high contrast on fixed grade paper (grade 2) - and most of that was solved with proper (longer) paper exposure and change of paper developer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Agree that after seeing the negs they look usable.

Exposure looks ok too.

It's all about the printing to bring something good from those negatives. Lower contrast grade, and practice some burning techniques.

 

[Rick A]

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...

Now that we have seen your negatives, lets visit your enlarger. The statement regarding vignetting with aperture wide open bothers me. This should not be happening. Describe your enlarger set up, are the condensors(if present) aligned properly/set for format, what lens, etc., proper lamp/correct installation?

 

[darkosaric]

Now that we have seen your negatives, lets visit your enlarger. The statement regarding vignetting with aperture wide open bothers me. This should not be happening. Describe your enlarger set up, are the condensors(if present) aligned properly/set for format, what lens, etc., proper lamp/correct installation?

I was just about to ask same question .
Good enlarger and good lens for 35mm today are cheap (often you even get it for free). From my experience el-nikkors and focotars are good wide open almost as stopped at f5.6 or f8.