Question about making prints from my negatives

[avizzini]

I made a proof sheet of 6x4.5 negatives via contact printing with the lens set to F11, #2 grade filter, and exposed the paper for 5 seconds. This images looked reasonably exposed though a bit light, and not a lot of contrast, they would need a fair amount added, But otherwise a good enough starting point.

The thing I’m wondering is, are my negatives underexposed if at F11 I can only go for about 5 seconds? Is there a rough aperture and exposure time to shoot for as a baseline with proof sheets?

If I wanted more time to be able to work with the image (dodging and burning) I would likely want about 20 seconds or so? And 20 seconds at F11 would probably have left things mostly, if not all, black.

If I go to F16 would the time increase to ~10s and going to F22, the time would go to ~20s?

I’ve read that the enlarger lenses tend to perform best around F8 or F11 (a couple stops from wide open). On a good lens would I have any issues printing at F22 on a 8x10 or 11x14 print? The 80mm lens I was using goes from F5.6 to F32.

If it matters, the film was Delta 400 metered for 400 ISO and developed in DDX at Ilford’s suggested time.

I realize there’s no hard numbers since each negative and enlarger is different, I just want to know what to aim for. I'm using a community darkroom so until I get a chance to go back I can't do any real tests.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

For 6x6 and 6x4.5 I use an old but very sharp Wollensak, it's uncoated and diffraction limited at f16. To get longer printing times I put a lower wattage bulb in the enlarger (Omega D2).
This lens likes somewhat dense and contrasty negatives, with a weak bulb I can get times of fourty seconds or so at f8 or f11, where the lens performs best.

 

[MattKing]

If you are speaking about using the enlarger as a light source for proofing contacts, the quality of the intentionally un-focused lens isn't going to matter at all!
And of course, when you set up the light to expose the proof sheet, the enlarger head and focusing will be different than when you actually make a print, and both of those variables affect exposure.
The exposure necessary for a contact proof sheet is usually shorter than what is required for actually enlarging the negative. So well the contact proof's exposure time may serve as a very rough indicator that things are functioning okay, you really can't use that to determine exposure for the enlargement.
I wouldn't worry too much about using the smaller apertures for small prints. The undesirable effects of diffraction that are associated with using a very small aperture aren't very visible in smaller prints.
Once you get into 11x14 print territory, if you are using f/16 - f/32 I would be surprised if you aren't dealing with exposures that are inconveniently too long, rather than too short, unless you have a really bright light source.

 

[eddie]

Is there a rough aperture and exposure time to shoot for as a baseline with proof sheets?

What you want to do is learn how to make a "proper proof". Once you determine your standard enlarger height, aperture, and exposure time, all of your proof sheets will be exposed identically. It will speed up your proofing process, and also alert you to any inconsistencies in your process and/or equipment. I've marked my enlarger columns with the height, but since you're working in a community darkroom, a tape measure will help keep you at the right height. There's a lot of information about proper proofs available, but it's basically a way to get the minimum time for maximum black on the rebate(and between frame area) of the film onto your proof sheet. It involves doing test strips of the proofs, and finding the first time where the non-exposed parts of the film print black.

 

[darkroommike]

Start with what "eddie" just said about a proper proof. A proper proof will help evaluate both your camera exposure and second with your contrast. To the second part of your question, most lenses, with the exception of very spendy APO and Super-APO designs work best 2-3 stops down from maximum aperture, let me suggest that if you are making modest prints and printing only black and white APO lenses are financial overkill and actually counter productive and the large apertures make the focus harder to hold as the negative warms up. If you need/want more time under the lens add a 2-2.5 contrast filter to your enlarger, this will double your work time. You could also add a sheet of ND material to your filter drawer or a glass ND filter under the lens. If you have a Durst color head you can accomplish the same thing by adding 30-30-30 filtration, the numbers on Durst color heads are calibrated in ND units.

 

[Vaughn]

Question, perhaps a silly one, but silly minds still want to know...by adding two #2 or 2.5 contrast filters, will the contrast remain the same (compared to just one filter), but be another stop slower?

 

[Arklatexian]

What you want to do is learn how to make a "proper proof". Once you determine your standard enlarger height, aperture, and exposure time, all of your proof sheets will be exposed identically. It will speed up your proofing process, and also alert you to any inconsistencies in your process and/or equipment. I've marked my enlarger columns with the height, but since you're working in a community darkroom, a tape measure will help keep you at the right height. There's a lot of information about proper proofs available, but it's basically a way to get the minimum time for maximum black on the rebate(and between frame area) of the film onto your proof sheet. It involves doing test strips of the proofs, and finding the first time where the non-exposed parts of the film print black.

If, when shooting film, you don't expose one frame so that it will be developed along with your other negatives. You can use this clear negative to determine via the "proper proof" mentioned above to find the shortest exposure to give you maximum black. Look up information by Fred Picker......Regards!

 

[avizzini]

For 6x6 and 6x4.5 I use an old but very sharp Wollensak, it's uncoated and diffraction limited at f16. To get longer printing times I put a lower wattage bulb in the enlarger (Omega D2).
This lens likes somewhat dense and contrasty negatives, with a weak bulb I can get times of fourty seconds or so at f8 or f11, where the lens performs best.

I was using a Saunders enlarger, not sure of the exact model. But, it's not my enlarger so I really can't change bulbs. Eventually I want to get my own darkroom setup at that point I'll have a bit more fine tuned control of things.

If you are speaking about using the enlarger as a light source for proofing contacts, the quality of the intentionally un-focused lens isn't going to matter at all!
And of course, when you set up the light to expose the proof sheet, the enlarger head and focusing will be different than when you actually make a print, and both of those variables affect exposure.
The exposure necessary for a contact proof sheet is usually shorter than what is required for actually enlarging the negative. So well the contact proof's exposure time may serve as a very rough indicator that things are functioning okay, you really can't use that to determine exposure for the enlargement.
I wouldn't worry too much about using the smaller apertures for small prints. The undesirable effects of diffraction that are associated with using a very small aperture aren't very visible in smaller prints.
Once you get into 11x14 print territory, if you are using f/16 - f/32 I would be surprised if you aren't dealing with exposures that are inconveniently too long, rather than too short, unless you have a really bright light source.

At F22 I got a reasonable print with a 20 second exposure. I used a 3.5 grade filter (the enlarger couldn't go to 4). I still would have liked better whites/blacks but not sure what more I could have done. I'll be able to scan the print tomorrow and post it here.

What you want to do is learn how to make a "proper proof". Once you determine your standard enlarger height, aperture, and exposure time, all of your proof sheets will be exposed identically. It will speed up your proofing process, and also alert you to any inconsistencies in your process and/or equipment. I've marked my enlarger columns with the height, but since you're working in a community darkroom, a tape measure will help keep you at the right height. There's a lot of information about proper proofs available, but it's basically a way to get the minimum time for maximum black on the rebate(and between frame area) of the film onto your proof sheet. It involves doing test strips of the proofs, and finding the first time where the non-exposed parts of the film print black.

I can upload my proof sheet tomorrow but, the one I made was near black on the frame, there's only a faint distinction between the non-frame area and pure black. So I suppose I wouldn't have been that far off.

 

[avizzini]

The above images are the images I was working with. The left side is what I achieved by scanning the negatives and doing basic adjustments in Lightroom with contrst, brightness, curves, etc. They are what I was aiming for (more or less) with my darkroom prints. On the right hand side are the scanned prints I made in the darkroom.

The enlarger I used had built in filters and it maxed out at an equivalent filter grade of 3.5. With a filter grade maxed out at 5, would I have been able to better "rescue" the whites/blacks? Is there a large jump in contrast, usually, from 3.5 to 5?

 

[MattKing]

The enlarger I used had built in filters and it maxed out at an equivalent filter grade of 3.5. With a filter grade maxed out at 5, would I have been able to better "rescue" the whites/blacks? Is there a large jump in contrast, usually, from 3.5 to 5?

Be sure to check the safelights with your paper. Your prints do look slightly fogged. And if the negative is normal, you shouldn't need a higher than 3.5 filter to get unfogged results.
That being said, you can increase the contrast by adding a below the lens 4, 4.5, 5 or 5+ filter. And there is a definite difference between 3.5 and 5.

 

[voceumana]

Try to match the highlights of the digital prints in your darkroom prints--if they cannot get that light, then the paper is either fogged or being fogged during your printing session. You could also develop a blank sheet as normal and if it comes out grey, then it is fogged.

If you can match the highlights and the darker tones are too light, then you need more contrast. But I suspect with the good tonality of the digital prints that the negatives are good and the issue is with fog. Maybe you have light leaks in your darkroom or maybe the safelights are not safe enough. I prefer red safelights for modern variable contrast papers.

 

[avizzini]

Be sure to check the safelights with your paper. Your prints do look slightly fogged. And if the negative is normal, you shouldn't need a higher than 3.5 filter to get unfogged results.
That being said, you can increase the contrast by adding a below the lens 4, 4.5, 5 or 5+ filter. And there is a definite difference between 3.5 and 5.

Try to match the highlights of the digital prints in your darkroom prints--if they cannot get that light, then the paper is either fogged or being fogged during your printing session. You could also develop a blank sheet as normal and if it comes out grey, then it is fogged.

If you can match the highlights and the darker tones are too light, then you need more contrast. But I suspect with the good tonality of the digital prints that the negatives are good and the issue is with fog. Maybe you have light leaks in your darkroom or maybe the safelights are not safe enough. I prefer red safelights for modern variable contrast papers.

There's Beseler enlargers without the built-in filters in the room also though, they didn't have the correct negative carrier size I needed for 6x4.5. I think they had 6x6 so I might play around with that and use the higher grades of filters.

The safelights in this darkroom room are more of a yellowish/orangish/off-red color than red. This is the only darkroom I've been in so I have nothing to compare it with but, I'm pretty certain it wouldn't be considered proper red. There's a number of lights in the room as it's a fairly large darkroom with multiple stations though, I was the only one there at the time. Once again, as this is a community darkroom I don't really have control over the lighting and I may need to do some tests to confirm if the safelights are degraded or harming my paper. Some of the lightning and stuff does look old. There's a two door system to get into the room so I don't expect any outside leaks.

The paper itself was new freshly opened Ilford MG RC Pearl. I kept all the paper in the plastic except for the single sheet I was working with. I developed within seconds of exposing.

Is it a problem if there's a fair amount of light shining out the sides around the negative carrier and its slot (even in the locked position)? Should this be light tight? The surronding work space is painted a mat black so I don't expect that it's reflecting.

To test fogging from the safelights, would I just take a strip of paper and leave it out in the open for a couple minutes and then develop the paper? In this case, it should be white even after the normal dev time and if it's not white then I know it's likely a lighting issue?

 

[MattKing]

Kodak Safelight Test.
Basically, you need to test if the safelights increase the exposure beyond the fogging level. So first you have to slightly fog the paper, then you put a few coins on the paper and take them off one by one over a period of time, while the safelights are illuminating the paper.
Then you develop the paper, and if you can see ghost images of where the coins were, then you know you have fogging.
Technically you should also try this with a post fogging exposure too.
Whoever it is who is maintaining the darkroom will most likely want to know if there is a problem with the safelights, and may very well have either done such a test recently or want to help you with the test.
Here is the link for the test: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles..._motion_products_filter_K4_Safelight_1106.pdf

 

[avizzini]

Kodak Safelight Test.
Basically, you need to test if the safelights increase the exposure beyond the fogging level. So first you have to slightly fog the paper, then you put a few coins on the paper and take them off one by one over a period of time, while the safelights are illuminating the paper.
Then you develop the paper, and if you can see ghost images of where the coins were, then you know you have fogging.
Technically you should also try this with a post fogging exposure too.
Whoever it is who is maintaining the darkroom will most likely want to know if there is a problem with the safelights, and may very well have either done such a test recently or want to help you with the test.
Here is the link for the test: https://www.kodak.com/uploadedfiles..._motion_products_filter_K4_Safelight_1106.pdf

I'll probably have a chance this weekend to give it a go and see what I get. Thanks!

 

[avizzini]

I've found out my problem (user error)... I didn't realize the enlarger I was using had a lever to engage and disengage the filter. I've never used enlarger filters so I didn't know what the light was suppose to look like (there's a big difference between no filter and filtered). So the entire time I had the filter disengaged which is why my prints lacked contrast.

I also dimmed the safelights more, just in case (though this probably wasn't my problem).

The results I'm getting now are much better.

 

[MattKing]

Great - and great results as well.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Nice work Well done .

 

[tezzasmall]

A big difference = well done on sorting it out, and the prints look much better. !

As with most problems, including non-dark room ones, the problems and the final answers are usually the simplest, and therefore overlooked by many.

Terry S

 

[pentaxuser]

Glad you got there. The solution is often simple and consists of something basic that has just been overlooked as in this case. Given how many of this kind of problems we answer, all of us with our own probable cause and which over say 20+ posts can be confusing, is there a case for an article to which newcomers to darkroom work can refer as a form of checklist whereby they check each point carefully. If this fails to find the problem then they tell us about each check and we can narrow down the cause together.

Solving problems this way can be satisfying for us, the helpers, and I often enjoy the process but I am not the one on the receiving end. It can take days/weeks and must be frustrating.

pentaxuser

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Question, perhaps a silly one, but silly minds still want to know...by adding two #2 or 2.5 contrast filters, will the contrast remain the same (compared to just one filter), but be another stop slower?

Looks like the OP's sorted out the problem and is not making great prints, so I'll address Vaughn.

Since contrast of VC papers is determined by the ratio of blue to green light, doubling up on the same filter, (e.g., using two #2 filters) won't change the paper contrast. It will result in some loss of light, requiring more exposure time, but the transmission spectrum will remain proportionally the same.

If you double up on different filters then you either get the effect of the stronger filter if they are in the same color family (e.g., a #3 magenta and a number 5 magenta filter together ends up being a # 5 with neutral density added, since the #5 effectively filters out the green the #3 passes) or neutral density if the filters are complementary colors (e.g., a #0 yellow filter together with a #5 magenta filter means that the #5 filters out the green the #0 passes, and the #0 filters out the blue the #5 passes resulting in almost no light getting through).

Best,

Doremus

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks. That's what I thought would happen, a way to increase exposure without changing contrast -- tho perhaps some slight image degradation due to two filters if used below the lens. While I have not used a color head with VC papers, I am intrigued (I'm easily entertained) by the use of magenta and yellow filters together in varying amounts to create the paper grades, yet keep the exposure constant. Fun stuff!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Thanks. That's what I thought would happen, a way to increase exposure without changing contrast -- tho perhaps some slight image degradation due to two filters if used below the lens. While I have not used a color head with VC papers, I am intrigued (I'm easily entertained) by the use of magenta and yellow filters together in varying amounts to create the paper grades, yet keep the exposure constant. Fun stuff!

Ilford publishes a chart with their speed-matched filter recommendations for color heads. Basically, they use equal amounts of yellow and magenta as neutral density to balance out the exposure times. I find using that method rather cumbersome, however, and just think in terms of yellow and magenta. I "proper proof" at about grade 2 (20M) and then choose a grade based on the proof. I still use a lot of graded papers, but I'm running out... Used the last of my Emaks last week and am on my last box of 11x14 Kentemere graded. I like Galerie and Fomabrom graded papers and use them a lot, but have moved to MC110 VC paper for a lot of work these days, using the dichro head to tweak contrast.

FWIW, with my 5x7 Chromega dichroic color head, I can get about a grade more contrast with VC papers than max magenta (170cc on this head) by using a #47B filter instead. I keep one around for those rare times I need it.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Vaughn]

Thanks Doremus.

Glad the OP worked out the filter issue! And his images are all of my favorite places!