Problems with determining contrast and proper exposure on Multigrade

redbandit · Dec 9, 2022

just curious as all can be, why does it print out images twice as dark as Arista or Foma paper does for the same contrast level and length of exposure?

I went through a package of arista and switched to my remaining package of multi grade 4, and ran into the same issues as when i last used it, When i had even less overall achievement with my enlarger.

I put a negative in, focus it, size it for the paper, and with the multigrade 4 set to the ilford sheets for 00, i need to use the Foma setting for contrast grade 2 with the same exposure time, to get the same amount of darkness in the final print. Its creepy.

But i admit, ive had to reduce my length of exposure with foma branded paper versus the arista paper made by foma.

redbandit · Dec 9, 2022

What genius first raised the idea that 100 and slower is BEST for use outside? Im just curious.

I have been going through my negatives and trying to enlarge and the following thing has hit me hard.

What are great looking negatives in person, on ilford and kentmere 100 iso film, is coming out as pure garbage on the enlarger. I mean frames that look like miniature paintings on the actual negative strip when held to light, turn out to be pure garbage on the print. Prints so bad that anything more than a 3 second burn leaves it "black bear in a very dark hole in the ground". And the 3 second burn makes it look like black bear standing in a fog bank at night.

MattKing · Dec 9, 2022

Sounds like your negatives are over-developed.
Negatives should not look like "miniature paintings" because if they are, they are too contrasty.

MattKing · Dec 9, 2022

Moved to B&W: Film, Paper and Chemistry
Each brand of paper, and in many cases each type of paper within a brand, will have its own "speed" - meaning its own level of sensitivity to light. When you switch papers, you need to adjust your base exposures to that particular paper.
The response to variable contrast filtration is similarly particular to the paper.

koraks · Dec 9, 2022

redbandit said:
and with the multigrade 4 set to the ilford sheets for 00, i need to use the Foma setting for contrast grade 2 with the same exposure time, to get the same amount of darkness in the final print.

It would help to post a picture to illustrate this 'amount of darkness' along with a photo of the backlit negative the print was made from.

Also, filter settings across brands don't differ so much that the filtration required for grade 00 in Ilford papers works out the same as the filtration for grade 2 on a Foma paper. So most likely you're mixing up overall density with contrast and you get lost in the woods because of it.

Consider getting a Stouffer step wedge and print some greyscales to understand how contrast works. Given the problems you've been running into for the past few weeks, it would be a logical course of action to use a means that will allow you to observe the effects of things like contrast filtration and exposure time directly, without the complicating factor of not being clear on how to judge a negative.

koraks · Dec 9, 2022

redbandit said:
Prints so bad that anything more than a 3 second burn leaves it "black bear in a very dark hole in the ground"

Sounds like you're not stopping down enough and/or your enlarger light source is too powerful for the paper you're using.
Modern papers are faster than they used to be back in the old days, but enlarger bulb ratings still rely on 'old' paper speeds. This is also because warmtone papers are much slower, so you need more light. But if you primarily use neutral papers such as Fomaspeed or Multigrade RC (not 'WT') at small print sizes (e.g. 5x7") you'll find yourself having to stop down pretty far to get a good exposure.
How many Watts is your enlarger bulb and what enlarger is it?

redbandit said:
Prints so bad that anything more than a 3 second burn leaves it "black bear in a very dark hole in the ground". And the 3 second burn makes it look like black bear standing in a fog bank at night.

I never photograph bears, rarely very dark holes in the ground and virtually never any nocturnal fog banks. It would help if your prose is replaced or at least illustrated with an image of the result you get.

jonmon6691 · Dec 9, 2022

I was always taught that it's standard practice to start over with an exposure test strip every time you load a negative in the enlarger. Even if you've printed that negative on that paper, the test strip will allow you to compensate for temperature, developer strength, bulb brightness etc.

koraks · Dec 9, 2022

{Moderator note: threads merged and title changed}

Pieter12 · Dec 9, 2022

Your methodology seems quite confused. First of all you need to focus after you size the image. Second, are you making a test strip, usually at grade 2 or 3, not 00 or 4? I assume you are not split-grade printing.

snusmumriken · Dec 9, 2022

Pieter12 said:
First of all you need to focus after you size the image.

And repeat both until both are as you want them. Changing image size puts the image out of focus, but focussing also affects the area covered by the projected image.

After sizing and focussing, stop down your enlarger lens to f/5.6 or f/8. (To my knowledge, no-one has ever automated this, and it's annoyingly easy to forget.) Stopping down gives you optimum lens performance; covers for slight errors in focus and negative flatness; and requires longer exposure times that are usually more manageable.

Pieter12 said:
Second, are you making a test strip, usually at grade 2 or 3, not 00 or 4?

Any fair negative will make some kind of recognisable print at grade 2 or 2.5, so start there to make sure your procedure is in the right ball-park. Think of the neighbouring grades as being for fine-tuning and the extreme grades for salvaging disasters. To put that in perspective, apart from an occasional sally into split-grade printing, I have literally never used grades 00 to 1, or 3.5 to 5 with Ilford MG.

ic-racer · Dec 9, 2022

MattKing said:
Sounds like your negatives are over-developed.
Negatives should not look like "miniature paintings" because if they are, they are too contrasty.

Exactly as Matt mentions, negatives for projection printing should have about 60 to 70% of the contrast of the original scene. Without needing a sensitometer or densitometer, you can decrease your development time 30% and report back.

npl · Dec 14, 2022

Foma does describe it's papers as "high sensitivity" (https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaspeed-variant-Ii). On my enlarger the times are quite short, too short sometimes for d&b even at f/11.

Chuck_P · Dec 14, 2022

I suggest you get this book by Steve Anchell.

jonmon6691 · Dec 14, 2022

npl said:
Foma does describe it's papers as "high sensitivity" (https://www.foma.cz/en/fomaspeed-variant-Ii). On my enlarger the times are quite short, too short sometimes for d&b even at f/11.

Yeah seems like speed would be a disadvantage at a certain point. You could use an ND filter under the lens but then it gets difficult to see what you're doing.

redbandit · Dec 14, 2022

But after a bit of work with various brands of film

Fomapan 100 seems to be the fastest with paper.

fully open lens, 3 seconds would give an "adequate" but slightly soft looking image when the paper was upside down.

Ilford 100 iso needed 9 or 10 seconds to get the same level. But the image even on the correct side was crap

koraks · Dec 14, 2022

redbandit said:
Fomapan 100 seems to be the fastest with paper.

That's an odd statement indeed. I never noticed any substantial differences in printing speed off of different films provided they weren't horribly fogged. If you compare dmin of several films you'll find the results to be quite close.

redbandit said:
fully open lens, 3 seconds would give an "adequate" but slightly soft looking image when the paper was upside down.

Errr....

redbandit said:
Ilford 100 iso needed 9 or 10 seconds to get the same level.

Delta 100 & Fomapan 100 won't be much different in terms of dmin and will print the same speed provided they're developed to the same contrast. But it seems you're quite consistently mixing up several concepts, so anything goes I guess.

Use whatever works for you. I do use quite a bit of Fomapan 100; it's nice in sheet film format and occasionally I even like it in 35mm.

Pieter12 · Dec 14, 2022

redbandit said:
But after a bit of work with various brands of film

Fomapan 100 seems to be the fastest with paper.

fully open lens, 3 seconds would give an "adequate" but slightly soft looking image when the paper was upside down.

Ilford 100 iso needed 9 or 10 seconds to get the same level. But the image even on the correct side was crap

I think you have some concepts mixed up. A properly exposed and developed negative of similar scenes should give approximately the same printing times regardless of film brand.

MattKing · Dec 14, 2022

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that redbandit is seriously over-developing his/her negatives.

Chuck_P · Dec 14, 2022

koraks said:
But it seems you're quite consistently mixing up several concepts...

That's why I suggested the book by Anchell as it will nicely convey VC printing concepts......others may recommend a different one but this helped me tremendously. No amount of posting seems to be doing it. I understand completely though, some things can be difficult to grasp in the beginning but then things will begin to line up.

cramej · Dec 14, 2022

jonmon6691 said:
Yeah seems like speed would be a disadvantage at a certain point. You could use an ND filter under the lens but then it gets difficult to see what you're doing.

My 23Ciii was too bright even at f11 - exposures were sub-10 seconds with the proper bulb - so I put a 600w dimmer in line and set it about 40% to solve that problem. It's worked great since then.

redbandit said:
But after a bit of work with various brands of film

Fomapan 100 seems to be the fastest with paper.

fully open lens, 3 seconds would give an "adequate" but slightly soft looking image when the paper was upside down.

Ilford 100 iso needed 9 or 10 seconds to get the same level. But the image even on the correct side was crap

Stop with all the variables. You'll never know what works and what doesn't when you keep changing things without testing.
In general, you should not be printing with the lens wide open. F8-11 is a good idea.
Why are you exposing through the paper?
We need more information to help you. Take photos of the negatives you're using with a backlight and of the prints you're getting from them an post them here.
Also provide:
1. Enlarger model
2. Lens used
3. Paper developer used

Next, start over with the absolute basics.

Develop a blank sheet of paper to make sure it's not fogged. It should be pure white after fixing. Fogged paper will make every print look like poo.
If the paper is not fogged, then proceed.
Select a negative that you believe is properly exposed and developed and place it in the enlarger.
Do not use any filters below the lens.
Put a scrap piece of photo paper on the easel, size and focus with the lens wide open.
Remove paper, stop the lens down to f8.
Turn off enlarger, set timer to 5 seconds.
Place new paper emulsion side up on the easel
Use a piece of cardboard or similar for masking. Start on one end of the print, leaving about 1-1/2 inches revealed. Expose for 5 seconds.
Continue, revealing another section of the paper and exposing for 5 seconds. Do this until you have exposed a total of 30 seconds (6 times).
Develop and fix normally.
Now you have a test print with exposures from 5 seconds to 30 seconds at f8.
One of those strips should look decent.
Report your findings and post a photo of the test print.

Problems with determining contrast and proper exposure on Multigrade

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency