Unable to get beyond grade 2 with my color head enlargers

[Steve Smith]

the magenta filter in your enlarger has faded, and you will need to get a replacement.

If they are dichroic filters, they can't fade.


Steve.

 

[mcilroy]

As i said: it can't be a filter problem, because using no filtration doesn't show grade 2 as usual, but something around grade 0.5 (estimated).
Although they shouldn't in theory, i have seen dichroic filters fade after many years of heavy use. But the filters in my enlargers are ok so far, at least they were the last time i used them before moving to the new apartment...

But i got myself some Dektol and N113 today, so i will be able to tell of it's developer fault sometime this week.

 

[MattKing]

It could be the light source itself. If there isn't enough blue in the source, no amount of filtering is going to give the necessary contrast.

Any chance that there is a yellow filter stuck somewhere in the light path?

What condition are the diffuses in the enlargers?

Did you buy the enlargers used, from a devotee of the work of Mortenson ?

EDIT: Oops - just noted that they had been used by you successfully before. Did you somehow become a a devotee of the work of Mortenson as a result of your recent move ?

 

[mcilroy]

I already changed the bulb against a new one of the recommended type. And as my second enlarger shows the same behavior, i'm more or less certain, that is isn't an enlarger problem. But who knows, i will look further if the new developer doesn't solve the problem.

 

[PhotoJim]

On the off chance... since I don't know how experienced a darkroom worker you are...

Are you developing to completion? I'm not familiar with the Moersch developer, but if you extend development by a minute, do you see a noticeable deepening of density and a tendency toward cooler image tone? If so, you are underdeveloping and that will affect contrast.

 

[mcilroy]

I developed for 3 minutes, which should be plenty with fresh developer.

 

[cowanw]

Are you sure the stouffer step wedge reads 1/3 or 1/2 steps?

 

[Bill Burk]

Matthias,

It would be funny if it came down to Bill C's suggestion

21-step scales are 1/2 stop, which fits the instructions you have been following

But the scales with more steps are more gradual, there would be more steps to count if you use one with 31 or 41-steps.

 

[mcilroy]

That would be funny (but also relieving) indeed.

No, it's a 21 Step wedge with 0.5 steps.

 

[nworth]

If they are dichroic filters, they can't fade.


Steve.

Yes they can, and they do.

 

[nworth]

As i said: it can't be a filter problem, because using no filtration doesn't show grade 2 as usual, but something around grade 0.5 (estimated).
Although they shouldn't in theory, i have seen dichroic filters fade after many years of heavy use. But the filters in my enlargers are ok so far, at least they were the last time i used them before moving to the new apartment...

But i got myself some Dektol and N113 today, so i will be able to tell of it's developer fault sometime this week.

You're right. No filter should give something around grade 1-1/2 to 2, depending on the light. When you make a regular print, does it look too low in contrast? Someone suggested that the light source may be too yellow. If your line voltage is low, that could happen. Most modern color heads have regulators, but not all. Also, the regulator can fail. Are your exposure times longer than you would expect?

 

[mcilroy]

The Kaiser has a regulated power supply, the lamp in the Kienzle is directly connected to mains voltage (which is uncommon with color heads but nice to have).
Normal prints also look too soft and only get "normal" contrast with a significant amount of magenta filtration. Exposure times are normal (as far as i can tell).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I think it's safe to exclude the enlarger if you're getting the same result from two different light sources.

Either it's safelight, paper, or developer.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think it's safe to exclude the enlarger if you're getting the same result from two different light sources.

Either it's safelight, paper, or developer.

Agree, and since it's showing up as soft pictorial prints - it's not a question of testing tools/interpretation.

 

[mcilroy]

Paper and safelight are most likely not the cause. I did a safelight test with pre-flashed paper, which didn't show any fogging up to 16 minutes. The paper is fresh, and the problem applies to Fomatone FB as well as Adox MCP.

So, yes, i keep on thinking it's the developer.

 

[Steve Smith]

Yes they can, and they do.

Manufacturers of dichroic filters think otherwise.

http://www.thorlabs.de/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=986
Dead Link Removed
http://www.uqgoptics.com/product_custom_filters_dichroic.aspx
http://www.oceanthinfilms.com/products/optical-components/dichro-light.html

Beseler and Durst think otherwise too:

http://www.beselerphoto.com/light-sources/
http://darkroom.ru/info/manuals/durst_m_670_manual_eng.pdf


Steve.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

The clue is .5 grade with #2 setting. Your neg is severely under developed. Calibrate your printing to #2 filter or no filter, they are the same or very close. Keep increasing the developing time until you get a proper black and proper white of the step wedge with no burning or dodging. Must be a straight print.

Do not save diluted paper developer more than 4 hours or you get weak contrast.

one sheet of 4x5 or 6 exposures on 35mm film, 12", is all you need. Ok to dry with a hair dryer for this test only.

I normally print to get blacks correct and then look at the whites. If they are grey, they need more density which you get from longer development. If the first two white steps do not have clear separation,there is too much contrast.Cut development time.

The two darkest steps must show separation also. This is controlled by exposure. If they do not separate, the neg is under exposed. If they separate on the neg, but not on the print, then the print is exposed too long. Get exposure correct first, then work the time to get highlights correct.

No matter what anyones development chart tells you, you must establish your own time.

A fogged up enlarger lens will make a muddy print. Turn on enlarger light and look up. The lens should look clear.

This is basic expose for shadows ,develop for highlights. All photography hinges on this and you can not compensate more paper contrast for not enough development and get a great print . There is no substitute for not going thru this exercise. Plus you will learn a bunch.

I have been calibrating this way for 50 years now and it translates to a real subject very well.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi Ronald Moravec,

Thanks for offering some good general advice for things worth checking.

To catch you up to speed, Matthias used a 21-step Stouffer test strip, and also used no filter.

This takes the negative, filters and optics out of the situation.

We're all looking forward to the next tests which I'm confident will prove successful.

The clue is .5 grade with #2 setting. Your neg is severely under developed.

Maybe you meant your "paper" is severely under developed! That's the best guess.

 

[mcilroy]

I don't calibrate my negative exposure and development, but they are certainly not severly under- or over-exposed/developed. I'm using good old D76 with recommended times which should at least result in printable negs at more or less normal grades.

But as Bill mentioned: I got myself a step wedge because i don't have calibrated negatives for testing purposes.