Problem with prints, help please

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Nige,

I use a metronome ticking seconds.

Keeps it simple and frees up both hands to work.

 

[SloboM]

Thanks Tom.

 

[Tom1956]

If you mean me... sure. Kodak had it all figured out, and their system always worked good enough for me.

 

[mr rusty]

I have to say, I soon got fed up with test strips, contrast adjustments, enlarger height compensation and bought an RH Analyser Pro. It has a little bit of a learning curve to get the "feel" of where to take the measurements, and is not cheap, but........virtually zero wasted paper these days and a very high proportion of prints I am happy with 1st time. It's also a real education tool because you soon see how time and settings change if you alter the contrast or change to a different paper. I am sure if I had persevered with just using test strips, I would have become much better at interpreting them, but I got impatient!

 

[pentaxuser]

As I understand it the OP isn't ballparking at all. He is simply transferring the exposure of the best test strip to his full print, changing nothing else. He also seems to be working out his test strip exposures correctly and yet if he is doing it all as he says, I cannot work out why his full print exposure isn't right.

Something changes when he does the full print but what this is I now have no idea as he seems to be doing everything right.

I am completely puzzled

pentaxuser

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Indeed. This is why I was wondering if the OP was using a completely opaque material to cover with while doing the test strip.
That's the only reason I can think of why the exposure from the test strip wouldn't translate.
I guess to find out whether it's opaque or not could be found out by simply covering the entire print area with the material and shine the enlarger light on it. Never uncover the paper, and then develop it to see if any density was accumulated or not.
The same test could be done to see if any stray ambient light hit the paper surface during the making of the test strip.

Just some thoughts.

As I understand it the OP isn't ballparking at all. He is simply transferring the exposure of the best test strip to his full print, changing nothing else. He also seems to be working out his test strip exposures correctly and yet if he is doing it all as he says, I cannot work out why his full print exposure isn't right.

Something changes when he does the full print but what this is I now have no idea as he seems to be doing everything right.

I am completely puzzled

pentaxuser

 

[SloboM]

Further to our discussion, the photo paper is in the easel during exposure. I'm blocking light with white tick textured fine art paper slightly bigger than 8x10. The blocking paper is placed right on the photo paper. I don't think that the light is penetrating art paper. It is 300 gr. in weight. Yes, during the last exposure entire sheet is uncovered and exposed for 5 sec. The print doesn't look like the last segment of the test strip. It is much lighter. Today I'm planing to do new test strip and based on the outcome make another print of the same negative. The funny thing is on the test strip I can clearly see difference in all 6 exposure segments. Unfortunately I don't have scanner to upload test strip.

SloboM

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The blocking paper is placed right on the photo paper. I don't think that the light is penetrating art paper. It is 300 gr. in weight. Yes, during the last exposure entire sheet is uncovered and exposed for 5 sec. The print doesn't look like the last segment of the test strip. It is much lighter.

OK, so you 'think' that the blocking paper doesn't leak light, but we don't actually KNOW for sure.

Make your next test strip covering the print area with the photo paper box. It will not let any light through for obvious reasons. See if that makes a difference. Try that first.

 

[SloboM]

OK will do.

 

[Ghostman]

I very often have a piece of paper, usually my first print that I have placed under the light while still in 'focus' mode. Since it's already trashed, I just expose it to max black. I have a few of these on hand that I use for blocking paper for test strips or making dodging/burning tools.

 

[eddie]

I think it's the paper you're using, too. I use 300 lb. art paper (with hand-coated emulsions), and it definitely transmits light. Hold your blocker sheet in front of a lamp, to test. My guess is you'll see light coming through. Use heavy cardboard, or (as Thomas suggested) the paper box.
If you'd like to test it on photo paper, cover half the sheet with the photo paper box, and the other half with your blocker sheet. Expose for about 15-20 seconds and develop. If both sides aren't pure white, you have your culprit...

 

[edcculus]

I thought my blocking paper was thick enough to cover the light, but was having somewhat similar (although not as dramatic) problems. I switched to using a magazine. I know there is no way any light is making its way through that magazine.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I thought my blocking paper was thick enough to cover the light, but was having somewhat similar (although not as dramatic) problems. I switched to using a magazine. I know there is no way any light is making its way through that magazine.

A great way of making a blocker is to take that thick art paper, cut it to fit into one of the plastic envelopes that the photo paper comes in, and place it in there.
It makes it such that the blocker is malleable, so that you can bend it, which helps when burning portions of the print in.
It also makes it light and nimble, and when it gets dirty for whatever reason, you can just wipe it off.

 

[edcculus]

Oh, great idea!


One quick question about both Thomas's and Smieglitz's methods. I have my process dialed in a little better. I know for a 35mm negative being printed at 8X10 with a medium aperture (lets say f8), I'm going to require somewhere in the neighborhood of a 30-40 second exposure depending on the negative, crop etc. Unless I have a negative thats really bad, I can rule out any exposure lower than 20 seconds. When I do smaller formats, I even dial down the aperture so I can keep my exposure in the +20 second range. Short exposures seem really hard to control to me, plus its easier to dodge/burn at longer times.

With the count down method, I suppose I could make the portions larger, and just stop before I get all the way down to the lowest exposure. With the count up method, would I just expose the entire sheet at the lowest exposure I want to start with (say 16s), then add from there (+4, +5, +7 etc?)?

 

[SloboM]

I'm back from my darkroom. Here are the results.
I put the art paper into Ilford's black bag and used that as light blocker. I set aperture at f8, with #2-1/2 filter, set exposure time at 8 sec. I divided test paper, before exposing it, into 6 segments using felt marker. I developed test sheet for 1 min in Ilford's Multigrade set at 1+9 dilution. The test sheet come out as expected.

Than I chose 24 sec for the final print, as this strip looked best to my eyes, without changing anything on the enlarger. No, the print didn't mach the test strip. It was to light again.

I newer imagined that all this printing would be so difficult. But on a positive side I'm not quitter and I will not give up trying.

SloboM

 

[SloboM]

Hi Michael,

the timer I'm using is GraLab digital. I didn't notice any changes in light brightness. I'll try 3x8sec exposure you suggested. I have tested the safe lights by putting coin on top of the paper and kipping it under the lights for 5 min. There is no fogging as far as I can see. I'm not sure about contrast as the print is so light it's hard to say for sure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Best of luck with 3x8 secs as opposed to 24 but the difference between the exposure using these two methods is fairly marginal and unless "lighter" means just about discernibly lighter I fear that this will not be the solution. I think by lighter you mean nowhere near the same look which suggests that the difference is considerable.

There has to be something else at work here. I take it that you are testing without any filtration and likewise are exposing the final print without filtration. I also take it that you are not accidentally touching the enlarger lens and altering the aperture nor focusing again for the final print at say a bigger aperture and forgetting to restore the aperture to the original test strip setting

I appreciate this sounds as if I am treating you as almost educationally subnormal and this is not my intention but there has to be something you are changing.

Try doing another test strip writing down all your steps carefully and then literally ticking off each step as you perform the action and doing the same when you do the final print.

pentaxuser

 

[SloboM]

Hi pentaxuser,

I'm making test strips using #2.5 filter and I also use same filter for the print. I don't really mind the educational treatment as I need to cover all the possibilities.

 

[SloboM]

Yes you are right, the aperture is f8 in both instances. I'll try different exposure times as you suggested Michael.

 

[pentaxuser]

I take it that the paper for the test strip is from the same box as the full print? I don't know about how the other helpers feel but I am now "clutching at straws" in attempting to discover the cause.

When you do the test strips and it sounds as if you have done several now, does each strip with say 16 secs look exactly as 16 secs on a previous test strip or strips?

pentaxuser

 

[kevs]

Hi SloboM,

I haven't read this thread fully, so forgive me if I've missed something. I think your problem may lie elsewhere. You mention above (post 45) that you develop your paper for one minute, which seems too short to me. To achieve the full tonal range with deep blacks and sparkling whites, paper should be developed to finality. In other words, you should develop until it no longer darkens. Also, if your developer is colder than 20 degrees, your paper will take longer than one minute to develop. If you don't develop for long enough, or if your developer is exhausted, your paper will not fully develop its tonal range and you'll have greyish blacks. Fibre-based papers take longer than resin-coated (plastic backed) papers to develop. With all this in mind, I'd suggest that you try the following:

1) Check the temperature of your developer and make allowances for this. It will cool down significantly during your session.
2) Develop the paper for at least three minutes at 20 degrees, and five minutes at 10 degrees. This is not excessive. Do not remove the paper whilst it is still developing.
3) Check that your developer is fresh; it should be the colour of white wine, and certainly no darker than a light brown colour. If it is dark brown, throw it away and make up some fresh dev. If the solution in the bottle is dark brown, you may need to buy some more.

Good results start with fresh chemistry and correct development. Good luck and keep trying; you'll get there eventually!

Cheers,
kevs

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Another thought.

What light source is your enlarger? If it's a cold light head, it's possible the head needs to warm up before you can use it with consistency.

You may try covering the whole print for ten seconds while the head warms up, and then make your full 24s exposure.

 

[SloboM]

Pentaxuser, Yes all the papers are from same box and on all test strips look the same for each time exposure.

 

[SloboM]

Hi kevs thanks.

Working with chemicals I fully follow Ilford recommendation. I also make sure that the temperature is correct 20 deg. I didn't try to develop paper longer than time recommendation. Before any session I make new batch of developer. The colour of developer is exactly as you mentioned, the colour of white wine. Thank you for encouragement.

 

[SloboM]

Thanks Thomas.
The light is white cathode. Yes I thought about that too. Before I attempt printing I keep light on for 2 minutes to make sure it's warm enough.