Very difficult to get some contrast

[arnodepachter]

hello everybody,

I have an issue with or my negatives, or my paper processing. I hope somebody can help me.

I don't just get the real black contrast I want nor the real 'blacks'. In school with Durst enlargers, same paper and chemicals, everything was so easy. Now at home I just get 50 shades of grey (not the book)...

I take pictures using a Leica R, mostly on Ilford HP5 negatives.
I prewash my negatives for a minute, then use 6,5 minutes Ilfosol developer, 1minute stop using amoloco; then fix for 8 minutes, wash 10minutes, wetting agent (Ilfotol), and done.

My negatives look blue-ish to me, which is for me very difficult to tell because I'm colorblind, I attached a professional taken picture (iPhone) of my negative and my developed photo to this thread. I didn't want to scan, so you would extra-notice the issues I'm having... i hope...

To develop the picture, I use a Leitz Focomat 1c (littlebit of scratches on the lens; no mold and still very clear), brand new Ilford Multigrade paper, semi glossy, Ilford Multigrade filters (on this picture I used filter 5!!!), Ilford paper dev 1 minute, 10sec stop, 30!sec Ilford fixer. I tried different times, different everything, ...

Does anybody know what I'm missing? I'm getting a little depressed of this... Thank you in advance!


Arno

 

[Neal]

Dear Arno,

It looks as though you underexposed the image and did not agitate sufficiently during fixing (and possibly developing as well) because the film appears as though it has not cleared properly. Eight minutes should be enough time in good fixer if properly agitated. You don't say what dilution you chose for Ilfosol. If you chose 1+14 then you need much more time in development. Still, you have a photo and re-fixing might help if you feel attached to the images.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[Pierre Barrellon]

It seems to me that your neg is overexposed and underdeveloped, resulting in denses low contrast negatives. Maybe the pre-wash isn't necessary. I personally find it very difficult to have consistency in development while pre soaking the film.
My advice would be to check your lightmeter and your dev times, and maybe get rid of the pre-soak which is not very useful in 35mm format.

 

[arnodepachter]

Hey

Thank you for your fast responses!
I checked my camera, It was (accidently) put on -1 stop.
I refixed the test-negative shown here (first time dilution was 1+9; second time + some new fixer). I agitate every first full minute, then 5 seconds per 30 seconds...

Tomorrow I will try a new film, should the film come out really that clear as in the text-books? Or should it be a little blueish?
So for tomorrow my camera is set to 0 stops, but how long should I develop my film? I did as Ilford told me I think: +/-22 degrees Celcius for 6,5 minutes. Should I try the 8,5 minutes?
I also ordered a brand new bottle Ilfosol for tommorow...

Thanks!

Arno

 

[MattKing]

There is a whole thread on APUG on negatives with a tinge of colour. General agreement is that it doesn't matter, but if it bothers you just extend the fixer time a bit and it will likely go away.

The negatives look under-developed to me.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The negatives look under-developed to me.

+1 There seems to be plenty of shadow detail, but the highlights are a bit thin. Can try printing on a higher grade paper.

 

[mehguy]

+1 There seems to be plenty of shadow detail, but the highlights are a bit thin. Can try printing on a higher grade paper.

He is printing on the highest possible. Grade 5.

 

[pentaxuser]

On a quick check you have appeared to have done everything correctly at EI 800 but the negatives do not look right, nor does the print if we are seeing a scan of the print here.

It may be your metering is wrong. Can you check this with another meter?
I'd try you new bottle of Ilfosol and shoot at 400 for the recommended Ilford times and agitation. If the negs are no better then I'd strongly suspect you metering. There is a lot of sky in the negative which might have fooled the metering into seriously underexposing.

Are all the other negatives as thin and do they require grade 5 as well? This looks like a very low subject brightness ratio. Were all shots taken in a similar light and are there any shots taken with less or no sky? Do they need grade 5 as well and still look as soft in terms of lack of contrast?

pentaxuser

 

[Arvee]

I had negs that looked like that when my Xtol was going south. I understand Ilfosol 3 doesn't keep well. How old is your developer and how is it stored?

 

[MartinP]

The print looks somewhat fogged and 'pulled' from development, so check your safelight -- this could very easily be the difference between your home darkroom and a hire darkroom, while using the same negs.

To get a qualitative idea of the state of your negatives, and only if no problem is found with the safelight, make a so-called 'proper' contact-sheet. This will give you a good idea of the density and contrast you are getting in your negs, now and in the future. Unfortunately the picture you have attached is not very clear for evaluation, though is certainly the right idea (much better than a scan).

 

[Craig75]

I had negs that looked like that when my Xtol was going south. I understand Ilfosol 3 doesn't keep well. How old is your developer and how is it stored?

This would be my thought as well

 

[Neal]

Dear Arno,

Your plan to expose and develop according to the Ilford instructions is the best course of action at this time. Once you have the negative a bit better, combine that with some printing practice and you will be in good shape. Again, when printing, follow the manufacturer's recommendations.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[winger]

The print looks somewhat fogged and 'pulled' from development, so check your safelight -- this could very easily be the difference between your home darkroom and a hire darkroom, while using the same negs.

To get a qualitative idea of the state of your negatives, and only if no problem is found with the safelight, make a so-called 'proper' contact-sheet. This will give you a good idea of the density and contrast you are getting in your negs, now and in the future. Unfortunately the picture you have attached is not very clear for evaluation, though is certainly the right idea (much better than a scan).

What I put in bold was my first thought, too.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I'm not familiar with the Ilford paper developer but 1 min seems very short. Try extending print development by 50 to 100% and see if contrast perks up. BTW a 1 min development time runs the risk of mottled prints. What does Ilford recommend?

The sample print certainly gives the impression of a gray, overcast day. Under such conditions one would not expect a whole lot of contrast (poor blacks). It would have been nice if we knew the brightness range for the subject.

 

[bvy]

I'm not familiar with the Ilford paper developer but 1 min seems very short. Try extending print development by 50 to 100% and see if contrast perks up. BTW a 1 min development time runs the risk of mottled prints. What does Ilford recommend?

Do we know if the OP is using RC or fiber paper? And what Ilford developer he's using and at what dilution? One minute is the shortest time Ilford publishes for its Multigrade Developer, and that's for RC paper at 1+9. Adding time won't hurt, but if he's developing for the recommended time already, I doubt it's going to give him the boost in contrast he's looking for.

 

[Peltigera]

Tomorrow I will try a new film, should the film come out really that clear as in the text-books? Or should it be a little blueish?

Thanks!

Arno

the actual material used to make the film has a bluish tinge if it is HP5. Some films are made with PET base which is entirely colourless, but not Ilford films.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You will get poor blacks low contrast unless prints are developed to completion. I have seen very dramatic changes when prints are pulled too soon. This is a common error in people not experienced with printing.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If the film base is dyed as opposed to the emulsion then no amount of fixing or washing will remove the color. The dye would be in the plastic itself. Before Kodak discontinued Plus-X it had a very disagreeable dark greenish-blue base which made it hard to evaluate negatives.

 

[jimjm]

If your paper developer is diluted 1:9, Ilford recommends 1 min at 20C. At 1:14, develop at least 1.5 mins. I'd agree with the other posters that the print does look like it was pulled from the developer early, or your bottle of developer is going stale. Once I open a bottle of Ilford Multigrade concentrate, it rarely keeps longer than 2 or 3 months before turning brown and losing it's effectiveness. If you're unsure about the time, it's better to keep the print in the developer a bit longer than pulling it early. No significant change from keeping it in the developer an extra minute or so, unlike film.

Don't worry about a slight bluish or purple tint to the negatives. This won't impact your printing, and can usually be totally eliminated by adequate fixing and washing the film a bit longer. Also, what is the temperature of your wash water? Colder water (less than 20C) will take longer to sufficiently wash film than will warmer water.

There may have been an exposure or developing issue with your film as well. From the clarity along the edges and between frames, your fixing appears adequate, but the frames themselves appear very dense (from the example you provided) as if they were 2 or more stops overexposed, or they are underdeveloped or your Ilfosol is getting old. How long of an exposure was required to make the print you showed, and at what f-stop?
Did you follow the recommended times and agitation for Ilfosol? Ilford states 6.5 mins @ 20C for a 1:9 dilution, and 11 mins for 1:14. If your developer is less than 20C you need to increase those times.

There may be a combination of factors here, but I would check the following:
1. Camera meter is accurate and shutter/aperture are functioning correctly.
2. Film, paper and chemicals are fresh. (although B/W film can often be expired for years without any problems)
3. Consistent temps for your chemicals and wash water - especially critical for film developing
4. Use the manufacturer's recommended times and agitation for film and paper, based on chemical and water temps

 

[BMbikerider]

A long while ago, prior to the era of multigrade I was at a club talk where there was demo of advanced quality B&W printing and there was a question of how long he prefered to develop a print. Was it shorter or longer than the manufacturers recommended. I always remember his reply "As long as you like. At least 2 minutes. You pay for the silver on the paper so why not make full use of it. I think at the time he was developing graded Kodak paper for about 3 mins (and no, there was no staining).

He also demonstrated how to locally increase contrast during develoment by lifting the print part out of the developer and painting neat developer onto the area he was working upon. Likewise, he showed how to reduce contrast by developing for less than recommended, say 1 minute then rinsing the print in plain water and then popping it back into the developer as many times as it needs.

 

[flavio81]

Hi Arno,

I agree with the other posters in that perhaps there is insufficient development of the paper, perhaps by an exhausted developer.
Perhaps you should try getting a correctly exposed negative from a friend (i can't judge it from the picture you provided), and try new paper developer like Ilford Multigrade following the temperature and concentration on the Ilford PDFs.

PS: Also, you're using "amoloco" which in spanish means "crazy master", are you sure this crazy master isn't messing with the film?

 

[MattKing]

If the film base is dyed as opposed to the emulsion then no amount of fixing or washing will remove the color. The dye would be in the plastic itself. Before Kodak discontinued Plus-X it had a very disagreeable dark greenish-blue base which made it hard to evaluate negatives.

Speak for yourself! I love that Plus-X look .

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Hello Arno,

it is always difficult to identify a specific problem without knowing all the process details. So there are a lot of possible sources for error and most probably a step-by-step approach will identify your problems fastest.
As already mentioned, you negative seems shallow on the pic you showed us. You have already identified that you camera meter was set to -1, which was definitely part of the problem. Assuming that your meter and your shutter are working fine (do you have an option to confirm that?), also assuming that your developer is fresh and up to the task - the rest of your process seems fine the way you describe it (do you use the same agitation scheme for developing & fixing?) - but you need to be aware that a pre-wash/pre-rinse of the film will reduce the development rate.

There have been many bitter discussions on APUG whether a pre-wash of film is recommended, useful, necessary, ... all ending with the agreement that these is no agreement. Jobo recommends a prewash (5 min) for rotational development as it slows the development rate at about the rate as the permanent agitation increases it. Ilford recommends not to pre-wash / pre-rinse but suggests reducing the development time by 15% with continuous agitation (see HP5+ data sheet). You are pre-washing, not using continuous agitation, and have not adjusted your development time. Unless you have specific issues you solve with the pre-wash, you might want to try without to see if that helps. Or if you believe in the pre-wash, you might want to try with a slightly longer development time.

Slightly pinkish/bluish negatives are quite common with HP5+, don´t worry about it. Do you have a possibility to measure the contrast of your negative? Once you are sure you have a negative with reasonable contrast, then it makes sense to look into your printing process and search for possible interferences.

I wish you good luck with your next film !

 

[GregW]

Possibly the print is over exposed and under developed. Not sure if ilford paper developer gives different contrast by dilution? But a more concentrated developer can give more contrast in my limited experience.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with developing to a specific time as Ilford suggests is that it assumes too many things. Besides having a properly exposed and developed negative it requires:

o That the developer is fresh.
o That it is mixed correctly.
o That the thermometer is accurate.
o That the timing is correct.

It's much better to develop prints to completion. Here you watch the print and not the clock. The print will tell you when it is properly developed. It is important to get development to a point in the shoulder of the H&D curve where development slows. I might also add that this is another case where it is important to be completely familiar with your materials.