Hallo! Last night I placed negatives on the plate (with a glass plate on top) under the enlarger with the intention of making a contact sheet. After first making a test strip, which showed that with F11 enlarger, 8 seconds were sufficient to just distinguish a continuous drawing in black. The result of the shedding was deplorable. A very pale result. Then increased the exposure time to 20 sec (from 8 sec) and therefore very sharp contrasts from black to white. Did several tests but nothing helped. Now I'm sad that my developer has lost strength, although I find it strange that the test strip had a nice flow. Could it be that a developer (Ilford Multigrade) shows that the power is gone in this way? And yes, afterwards it turns out to be 4 years old, but I am curious whether this could be a characteristic. Thanks in advance.
Very pale result
-
A
- Thread starter CDU
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Yashica Atoron - Minox Compatible Subminiature Camera
- Started by davela
-
Want to Buy Compur 3 Shutter
- Started by ivan35mm
-
For Sale Manfrotto 502AH Pro Video Head
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Canon AF35ML
- Started by Chan Tran
-
For Sale Nikon Lite.Touch AF
- Started by Chan Tran
Forum statistics
Sorry, what do you mean by 'shedding' and 'flow'?
Can you post some pictures of the test strips/sheets you've made, with a brief description how you exposed and processed each of them?
What kind of paper are you using? Assuming it's variable contrast paper, are you using any contrast filter, or just plain white light?
Have you tried developing much longer? Paper development goes to completion, which basically means that you develop until nothing happens anymore. The time this takes, depends on a couple of factors. With very old or dilute developer that has lost strength, the development times suggested by the manufacturer may not be sufficient anymore. You may have to mix it less dilute, and/or extend development time (sometimes quite a lot, too) - if you're fortunate enough to get full development in the first place.
Note also that there's a relationship between exposure, development and contrast. Assume that you're not developing to completion, and that development is actually cut short long before it's really done (e.g. because your developer is too old). In this case, if you give more exposure, you may still get good overall density (somewhat decent blacks in the shadows). But contrast will be low. Conversely, if you give less exposure, you end up with an overall pale/low-density print. It's sort of comparable to printing at a low contrast grade, with the exception that you're never going to get really good black/dmax if you under-develop the paper.
Was the developer bottle opened before, or was this a factory-sealed bottle that you recently opened?
You can remove a factor of uncertainty by using fresh chemistry.
Koraks, Thanks for your fast reply
Sorry, what do you mean by 'shedding' and 'flow'? -->
I ment by shedding was deplorable that the result after developing was very "light", low contrast and very pale.
'flow': I made a teststrip of 11 steps, each step one second, and 8 sec was the time that black became not more black.
Can you post some pictures of the test strips/sheets you've made, with a brief description how you exposed and processed each of them? Yes on a later moment it is possible
What kind of paper are you using (Adox Easy Print RC)? Assuming it's variable contrast paper, are you using any contrast filter (NO), or just plain white light? (YES)
Was the developer bottle opened before, or was this a factory-sealed bottle that you recently opened? YES!
You can remove a factor of uncertainty by using fresh chemistry. I DID
So I want to check I when I heve the new one and inform you in this thread!
Sorry, what do you mean by 'shedding' and 'flow'? -->
I ment by shedding was deplorable that the result after developing was very "light", low contrast and very pale.
'flow': I made a teststrip of 11 steps, each step one second, and 8 sec was the time that black became not more black.
Can you post some pictures of the test strips/sheets you've made, with a brief description how you exposed and processed each of them? Yes on a later moment it is possible
What kind of paper are you using (Adox Easy Print RC)? Assuming it's variable contrast paper, are you using any contrast filter (NO), or just plain white light? (YES)
Was the developer bottle opened before, or was this a factory-sealed bottle that you recently opened? YES!
You can remove a factor of uncertainty by using fresh chemistry. I DID
So I want to check I when I heve the new one and inform you in this thread!
Graag gedaan, en altijd welkom om een keer hier in de doka samen een aantal dingen te doorlopen. Koffie is zo gezet!
OK, thanks; I get it now!
So you're using fresh developer, correct? How long do you develop and what dilution do you use? Easyprint should develop pretty rapidly.
The photos will surely help once you manage to get them up.
I'll respond in English for the convenience of other participants.
For a contact sheet, you do need to ensure good contact between the negative and the paper, yes. I was assuming you're using some kind of contact printing frame. If not, this can also explain part of the problem. Just putting the negatives on top of the paper like that will give a poor result.
A heavy sheet of glass is a good substitute for a contact printing frame. Any type of glass will do; it's very nice if you have AN glass (anti-newton), but this is difficult to obtain and very expensive. Glass from a picture frame will work just fine. You can weigh it down by putting something heavy on it on both ends so as to press the sheet down onto the negatives and the paper. Just ensure these heavy objects don't block the light path. I'd avoid plastic 'glass' as often found in cheap picture frames today as it won't stay perfectly flat, which will result in poor contact between your film and the printing paper.
On the second hand market you can often find contact printing frames with convenient slots for strips of 35mm film. They're rare for larger formats.
For a contact sheet, you do need to ensure good contact between the negative and the paper, yes. I was assuming you're using some kind of contact printing frame. If not, this can also explain part of the problem. Just putting the negatives on top of the paper like that will give a poor result.
A heavy sheet of glass is a good substitute for a contact printing frame. Any type of glass will do; it's very nice if you have AN glass (anti-newton), but this is difficult to obtain and very expensive. Glass from a picture frame will work just fine. You can weigh it down by putting something heavy on it on both ends so as to press the sheet down onto the negatives and the paper. Just ensure these heavy objects don't block the light path. I'd avoid plastic 'glass' as often found in cheap picture frames today as it won't stay perfectly flat, which will result in poor contact between your film and the printing paper.
On the second hand market you can often find contact printing frames with convenient slots for strips of 35mm film. They're rare for larger formats.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,317
- Format
- Multi Format
I have a 35mm contact printer and I use a sheet of glass. My 35mm contact printer is a pain to load as the clips that hold the negs in are so strong it hurts fingernails if using them to pry them up... I gave up on it a long time ago. I find glass is quicker and less likely to get your smudgy fingers on the negs plus I need to use the glass for MF and LF anyway.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |