Success! My first good print.

dcy · Monday at 3:57 AM

I'd like to thank everyone for helping me along the way, from learning to develop better negatives to trouble-shooting in the darkroom. I am happy to report what I consider to be my first "good" print:

Setting aside questions of photographic talent, or whether the scene is interesting (I like it), I can at least say that I think this print was performed competently, at least on technical merit. I feel confident that the negative was developed correctly, and I managed to make a print that had no dust marks that I could see, no blemishes from contamination, had the highlights where I wanted them, the shadows where I wanted them, and the midtones where I wanted them.

Here's what I changed from yesterday:

Reduced the standard development time to 90 s.
Made a fresh batch of developer shortly before I started.
Added a pair of tongs to the final wash too in order to minimize contact between fingers and the unfinished print.
Diligently (obsessively?) washed and dried my glove-clad hands at the end of each print.

Final thoughts:

The shadows are not impressively dark, but I am using a budget RC paper (MultiTone Pearl) that is known to have a low Dmax. What matters to me is that I think the darkest spots on the image are close to the maximum dark that this paper + developer combo can deliver, and I managed to do that while also giving the highlights (sky and the grass at the bottom-left) the density I wanted, and the midtones (train cart) the density that I wanted.

I actually made many identical copies of the final print. I'm going to save them and use them to experiment with selenium and sepia toning, perhaps in a week or two.

cjbecker · Monday at 6:08 AM

It’s a good feeling, when it all comes together.

I have given up on trying to use my hands to develop the paper, it gave me way too many issues. Once I switched to using a set of Paterson tongs, printing was much simpler. One tong for the developer and stop. One for the fix and water bath.

koraks · Monday at 6:09 AM

Looks good, congrats!

warden · Monday at 6:46 AM

There’s no helping you now, you’re hooked.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 9:51 AM

Looks great. Bravo!

Question: what contrast grade did you use?

ags2mikon · Monday at 10:05 AM

It looks very good. Tongs are your friends.

GregY · Monday at 12:06 PM

cjbecker said:
It’s a good feeling, when it all comes together.

I have given up on trying to use my hands to develop the paper, it gave me way too many issues. Once I switched to using a set of Paterson tongs, printing was much simpler. One tong for the developer and stop. One for the fix and water bath.

Congratulations on the print success. The same, I have a set of 3 stainless steel tongs from the old Zone VI catalog days....

dcy · Monday at 1:31 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
Looks great. Bravo!

Thanks!

Alex Benjamin said:
Question: what contrast grade did you use?

On my Durst enlarger the setting was 50m which Ilford says is approx. Grade 3 1/2.

I am using Ilford's handy guide to contrast control to map Ilford grades to settings on the enlarger. Here's the table. My Durst C35 is on the second column.

Bill Burk · Monday at 6:36 PM

Looks great!

Try developing a scrap of fully exposed, and a scrap of undeveloped paper for three minutes. Drop another scrap right in the fix.

Three minutes development runs risk of fog with old paper, but is my standard. Unless I see fog, then I will back down to 90 seconds.

I don’t know what got me to three minutes, I might be making things hard on myself, but I sure get rich blacks.

awty · Monday at 7:27 PM

Nice work. Toning is great fun, I like to split with sepia and selenium.
Start practicing dodge and burn, thats the key to getting your pictures to pop.

Alex Benjamin · Monday at 8:21 PM

dcy said:
Thanks!

On my Durst enlarger the setting was 50m which Ilford says is approx. Grade 3 1/2.

I am using Ilford's handy guide to contrast control to map Ilford grades to settings on the enlarger. Here's the table. My Durst C35 is on the second column.
View attachment 401794

Interesting. Since you seem to have shot this either late morning or early afternoon, I would have expected a lower grade from the photo you posted. Doing a little research, though, I did read that this MultiTone Pearl paper is pretty low contrast, which might explain what I saw.

This will be an interesting negative for experimenting different papers, and different contrast grades. There's a lot of tonal variety.

One last question: do you remember which colours were the stop sign and the train wagon behind it?

Brendan Quirk · Monday at 8:41 PM

It won't be long until you hit 1000 different prints! (I have...)

RalphLambrecht · Monday at 9:14 PM

koraks said:
Looks good, congrats!

Yes,congratulations. It looks technically flawless. Good job!

mshchem · Monday at 9:41 PM

These look great. To increase your D max on neutral/cold tone papers try using Se toner, for Ilford neutral tone papers I usually start with 1+3 (25% solution) of Kodak Rapid Selenium toner. (Warm tone papers I use 1+9)

With neutral or cold tone papers you will see a fairly quick (60-90 seconds) subtle increase in density without a lot of tone change (at least with Ilford MG IV) fiber base papers tone change is more variable, thankfully the latest RC paper from Ilford seems amazing from what i've seen so no need to rush into FB.

mshchem · Monday at 9:51 PM

Also consider using the two filter (yellow and magenta) filtration Ilford lists for much, much less changes to exposure times between different contrast grades. Super easy when using dichroic filter heads.

David Lingham · Tuesday at 2:37 AM

Well done, it’s a good feeling.

dcy · Tuesday at 3:36 PM

Alex Benjamin said:
Interesting. Since you seem to have shot this either late morning or early afternoon, I would have expected a lower grade from the photo you posted. Doing a little research, though, I did read that this MultiTone Pearl paper is pretty low contrast, which might explain what I saw.

Last night I remembered something that might render my answer useless: I do not have a proper light source! The light bulb that my Durst C35 gets is into manufactured anymore. When I got the enlarger I seriously struggled to find a suitable replacement. The only incandescent source I could find was a wimpy 50W halogen bulb that required painfully long exposures.

In the end, I settled for this LED light source. The problem with LEDs is you don't get a blackbody spectrum, so who knows how they might respond to filters, or how photographic papers might respond to them. Still, I was able to get passable results with my paper without absurd exposure times, I was tired, so I took it and moved on.

Thinking about this made me revisit the question. Last night I ordered two other incandescent bulbs to try out. One of them is intended for lava lamps. The other is for a strobe light.

Alex Benjamin said:
This will be an interesting negative for experimenting different papers, and different contrast grades. There's a lot of tonal variety.

Oh, I didn't think of that!

Alex Benjamin said:
One last question: do you remember which colours were the stop sign and the train wagon behind it?

Oh... I don't. I would assume the stop sign was red, but I honestly do not remember.

Nige · Wednesday at 9:51 AM

I had a Durst C35.. bought new! If my memory is correct it needed a MELAMP 55 or a name something like that. It was a reflector globe that punched above it's weight, however exposure times were still longish. I couldn't get a replacement globe so I converted it to use a 12V 100W downlight... I made up a light wire frame to rest the globe on and away she went! much brighter. I are using the same 12V transformer from the downlight for a LPL C7700 which I was given that had no transformer. Recently bought a LPL M605 just for the transformer but haven't gotten around to working how I can get the cable into it cause it's not a simple plug in arrangement unfortunately.

pentaxuser · Wednesday at 3:07 PM

dcy said:
I'd like to thank everyone for helping me along the way, from learning to develop better negatives to trouble-shooting in the darkroom. I am happy to report what I consider to be my first "good" print:

Setting aside questions of photographic talent, or whether the scene is interesting (I like it), I can at least say that I think this print was performed competently, at least on technical merit. I feel confident that the negative was developed correctly, and I managed to make a print that had no dust marks that I could see, no blemishes from contamination, had the highlights where I wanted them, the shadows where I wanted them, and the midtones where I wanted them.

Here's what I changed from yesterday:

Reduced the standard development time to 90 s.

Made a fresh batch of developer shortly before I started.

Added a pair of tongs to the final wash too in order to minimize contact between fingers and the unfinished print.

Diligently (obsessively?) washed and dried my glove-clad hands at the end of each print.

Final thoughts:

The shadows are not impressively dark, but I am using a budget RC paper (MultiTone Pearl) that is known to have a low Dmax. What matters to me is that I think the darkest spots on the image are close to the maximum dark that this paper + developer combo can deliver, and I managed to do that while also giving the highlights (sky and the grass at the bottom-left) the density I wanted, and the midtones (train cart) the density that I wanted.

I actually made many identical copies of the final print. I'm going to save them and use them to experiment with selenium and sepia toning, perhaps in a week or two.

View attachment 401741
View attachment 401742

dcy, it might just be me or my screen as no-one else has mentioned it but each of the three prints look slightly different The first on the left looks to be a slightly higher contrast but I can't make up my mind of whether I prefer this or the middle one. The far right one looks lower contrast and "flatter"

Were the settings used such as exposure or contrast slightly different?

Thanks

pentaxuser

dcy · Wednesday at 5:33 PM

pentaxuser said:
dcy, it might just be me or my screen as no-one else has mentioned it but each of the three prints look slightly different The first on the left looks to be a slightly higher contrast but I can't make up my mind of whether I prefer this or the middle one. The far right one looks lower contrast and "flatter"

Were the settings used such as exposure or contrast slightly different?

I actually thought the one of the right looked like it had a slightly higher Dmax, but I assumed it was either the lighting or just my imagination. In any event, the exposure and contrast settings were identical, and I think I was pretty consistent with the agitation and development time. For what it's worth, the one on the left was produced first and the one on the right was done last, though I cannot imagine that that matters.

Craig · Wednesday at 5:39 PM

From a quick search the original Durst bulb was 55W, so a 50W replacement isn't far off.

Sirius Glass · Wednesday at 11:06 PM

The first time is the hardest and most hectic. It gets easier with more practice.

snusmumriken · Thursday at 2:55 AM

dcy said:
I actually thought the one of the right looked like it had a slightly higher Dmax, but I assumed it was either the lighting or just my imagination. In any event, the exposure and contrast settings were identical, and I think I was pretty consistent with the agitation and development time. For what it's worth, the one on the left was produced first and the one on the right was done last, though I cannot imagine that that matters.

The enlarger bulb warmed up, perhaps?

pentaxuser · Thursday at 7:56 AM

Thanks for the reply,dcy. I suspect that leafing through all 3 in front of me with the naked eye I'd have not seen any differences It might just have been the way the light on the 3 differed very slightly on the prints

Can I ask,dcy, which of the 3 lower prints has been magnified to form the bigger print that comes up first?

Anyone how does dcy test to see what might or might not be cause of the issue that Alex has drawn our attention to?

pentaxuser

Alex Benjamin · Thursday at 9:18 AM

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be something a bit odd going on in this photo. The more you get to the bottom, the less sharp it is. The "RAILROAD CROSSING" & "STOP" lettering is sharp enough, but the lower part of that sign, going to the ground, is completely off focus. This is strange, as they are (I think) on the same plane.

@dcy you should check the negative to see if it's indeed the case. If the lower part of the stop sign is as sharp in the negative as is the upper part, then you might have an enlarger alignment problem.

This said, I might totally be seing something that's not there, based on the first photo posted. It doesn't appear as bad on the second one, where you have the three prints shown.

Success! My first good print.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency