water bath for prints

Doc W · Feb 19, 2016

Recently I bought Carson Graves' book on black and white printing. He has a section on printing high contrast negatives and outlines a number of techniques including flashing and water bath development. I had never heard of the latter before. Flashing would be a little complicated for me right now, so I am thinking of giving the water bath a go. Have any of you done this?

amellice · Feb 19, 2016

Yes, basically you put the paper in the developer and then take it to another tray of water. The idea is that the developer will be exhausted fast in the heavily exposed areas (shadows) and will continue working in the highlights to bring more details into it. Now what you need to do is to figure out the timing in each and how many times you want to repeat this process. I believe that this can be done by experimenting and it depends on the negative itself.

Doremus Scudder · Feb 19, 2016

Water-bath development is an older technique for reducing contrast. The idea is the same as compensating development for negatives; the developer in the densest areas of the paper exhausts quickly while the mid and lower values continue to develop. I've used it successfully on a number of occasions.

My technique is to give the paper an initial immersion in the print developer with vigorous agitation and then a thorough drain. I try to keep this to 30 seconds total. The print is then transferred to a water bath, quietly submerged and left undisturbed to develop for two minutes. Repeat the process for the number of cycles needed to achieve the desired print density.

Although water-bath development can help tame contrast, my first choices would be to use a soft-working developer like Selectol-Soft or Ansco 120 (there are a lot of formula for such developers here in the formulas section).

I also like flashing if the highlights only need taming since it retains the contrast in the mids and low values. Flashing is really not hard at all. See les Mclcean's great website for a tutorial: http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=27 .

Best,

Doremus

juan · Feb 19, 2016

I get a similar effect by putting the print in the developer, agitating normally for part of the orienting time, then letting the print sit still for part of the time. For instance, agitate for one minute, then let it sit still for the second minute. The amount of time for each is an experiment, as is everything else in printing. Sometimes I would get uneven development which I cured by agitating for the last 15 seconds.
Juan

Maris · Feb 19, 2016

If you want to push this "restricted development" idea to the limit try the Emmerman process:

Soak unexposed photographic paper in developer until it is saturated.
Lightly squeegee the paper onto a piece of glass.
Expose the wet paper under the enlarger and watch what happens.
Give extra exposure (one shot or intermittent) if needed, dodge /burn, try different contrast filters successively, sponge on extra developer in selected areas, and so on.

The number of variables is so vast you could use a lot of paper and waste a darkroom session. Or you could get some unique results!

NedL · Feb 19, 2016

Maris said:
If you want to push this "restricted development" idea to the limit try the Emmerman process:

I've been doing this quite a bit lately to make paper interpositives. I didn't know what it was called, thanks Maris. Now I can search around and learn more about it.

If you do try it, here are a few things I've found:

Soak the paper at least 3 minutes and preferably 4. Less will lead to splotches and uneven areas.
Any kind of sponge or wiping on the surface will leave marks, if you use a squeegee, do it very lightly and it must be perfectly even.
Drain the paper well. A big sheet of glass will help protect your baseboard and the paper will stick flat to it.
Try it with a high contrast filter, and if you leave your safelight on, the clouds or highlights should absolutely glow with that color. It gets to be pretty easy to see what will happen in the sky or in highlight areas.
Amount of exposure controls contrast more than anything else. If the skies don't look amazing with contrast in the highlights, you didn't go long enough, if the shadow areas block up you went too long. The reduction in contrast starts in the shadows and proceeds to the highlights ( which is great if you are going to contact print again to make a negative... it keeps the shadows open )
Close a stop or two so that the total time is around a minute or even more.. this will give you great control over when to end the exposure.

The result does not look like any print you have made before. But what is very interesting is that if you then contact print a negative, and make a final contact print from that, it can look almost identical to a print made normally. Usually that many contact printing steps would increase the overall contrast at each step and the shadow areas would get muddy.

Doc W · Feb 19, 2016

Thanks for the replies. The problem negatives are all from the same roll. I shoot mostly large format and thus have a little more control over individual negs, but some of my favourite negatives are from several rolls of 120 that I shot about 10 years ago in an old locomotive repair shop in southwestern Ontario. It was very dark inside but the windows - and there were plenty - were extremely bright, and even with reduced development, are almost impossible to print,

I did some tests today and it looks like the water bath technique might be the right choice. I used Dektol 1:4 and used Graves' suggested starting point:

- agitate in developer for 15"
- transfer to water bath, face down, for 60", no agitation
- agitate in develop for 10"
- transfer to water bath, face down, for 60", no agitation
- repeat the last two steps until the total time in the develop is about 2/3 the normal time in this developer

As I said, so far so good. The mid and especially lower values look really nice and there is faint and very fine detail in the windows, although I still want a little more.

Flashing is not an option right now, until I get my second enlarger up and running, but it is definitely something I want to try with these negatives.

I hope to post some results fairly soon.

removed account4 · Feb 19, 2016

NedL said:
I've been doing this quite a bit lately to make paper interpositives. I didn't know what it was called, thanks Maris. Now I can search around and learn more about it.

If you do try it, here are a few things I've found:

Soak the paper at least 3 minutes and preferably 4. Less will lead to splotches and uneven areas.

Any kind of sponge or wiping on the surface will leave marks, if you use a squeegee, do it very lightly and it must be perfectly even.

Drain the paper well. A big sheet of glass will help protect your baseboard and the paper will stick flat to it.

Try it with a high contrast filter, and if you leave your safelight on, the clouds or highlights should absolutely glow with that color. It gets to be pretty easy to see what will happen in the sky or in highlight areas.

Amount of exposure controls contrast more than anything else. If the skies don't look amazing with contrast in the highlights, you didn't go long enough, if the shadow areas block up you went too long. The reduction in contrast starts in the shadows and proceeds to the highlights ( which is great if you are going to contact print again to make a negative... it keeps the shadows open )

Close a stop or two so that the total time is around a minute or even more.. this will give you great control over when to end the exposure.

The result does not look like any print you have made before. But what is very interesting is that if you then contact print a negative, and make a final contact print from that, it can look almost identical to a print made normally. Usually that many contact printing steps would increase the overall contrast at each step and the shadow areas would get muddy.

thanks ned and maris !
i thought it was mortenson who was doing this - i've heard and read but never done this .. have wanted to, but .. never done it.

Doc W said:
Thanks for the replies. The problem negatives are all from the same roll. I shoot mostly large format and thus have a little more control over individual negs, but some of my favourite negatives are from several rolls of 120 that I shot about 10 years ago in an old locomotive repair shop in southwestern Ontario. It was very dark inside but the windows - and there were plenty - were extremely bright, and even with reduced development, are almost impossible to print,

I did some tests today and it looks like the water bath technique might be the right choice. I used Dektol 1:4 and used Graves' suggested starting point:

- agitate in developer for 15"
- transfer to water bath, face down, for 60", no agitation
- agitate in develop for 10"
- transfer to water bath, face down, for 60", no agitation
- repeat the last two steps until the total time in the develop is about 2/3 the normal time in this developer

As I said, so far so good. The mid and especially lower values look really nice and there is faint and very fine detail in the windows, although I still want a little more.

Flashing is not an option right now, until I get my second enlarger up and running, but it is definitely something I want to try with these negatives.

I hope to post some results fairly soon.

doc w

when you say the windows were bright, do you mean they were blocked and you can't print them down ?
one thing i learned about printing down windows like that is you put your print in developer and pull it out when the image begins forming.
you get one of those safe light filters for your enlarger and you line the print back up under the enlarger beam and negative, and you burn the hot spots
in with the enlarger and negative projecting and semi solarizes the dense spots. you have to do some tests to see how long you need to do this. THEN
you put your print back in the developer and finish the development and into the stop/water and fix. im not sure what this kind of burning is called
but it can work, or at least give you a little tonality in the hot spots that can't be burned down any other way.

good luck !
john

NedL · Feb 19, 2016

jnanian said:
i thought it was mortenson who was doing this - i've heard and read but never done this .. have wanted to, but .. never done it.

That's how I learned about it. You might not have tried it, but you tried something way cooler, remember? You tried to do it in a camera. I thought that was genius. I know it didn't work for you, and I keep forgetting, but I'm going to try that too. Thanks for reminding me. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow!

removed account4 · Feb 19, 2016

NedL said:
That's how I learned about it. You might not have tried it, but you tried something way cooler, remember? You tried to do it in a camera. I thought that was genius. I know it didn't work for you, and I keep forgetting, but I'm going to try that too. Thanks for reminding me. Maybe I'll try it tomorrow!

that's right !
I totally forgot I tried that in camera. I remember we talked about it ...
I don't think I had enough exposure or patience ( or I used rc instead of fb )
you seem to be made of patience ! I am guessing you will get it to work
( and then will be in awe )

MartinP · Feb 20, 2016

Doc W said:
Flashing is not an option right now, until I get my second enlarger up and running, but it is definitely something I want to try with these negatives.

You don't need a second enlarger! To keep things convenient one doesn't disturb the negative<->paper arrangement, but the flashing exposure just needs to be even and repeatable. Try a hand-torch in a paper-cup, or behind a typing-paper diffuser, held near the lens position. Also remember that it is perfectly practical to put a contrast filter (or any green / blue material) on the hand-torch behind the diffuser if required.

Regarding the timing, if you have a flash-exposure over ten seconds, for example, then an error of counting of an entire second is still only a tenth of a stop.

David Allen · Feb 20, 2016

MartinP said:
You don't need a second enlarger! To keep things convenient one doesn't disturb the negative<->paper arrangement, but the flashing exposure just needs to be even and repeatable. Try a hand-torch in a paper-cup, or behind a typing-paper diffuser, held near the lens position. Also remember that it is perfectly practical to put a contrast filter (or any green / blue material) on the hand-torch behind the diffuser if required.

Regarding the timing, if you have a flash-exposure over ten seconds, for example, then an error of counting of an entire second is still only a tenth of a stop.

Yes there is absolutely no need for a second enlarger. THE simplest way is to buy a piece of opaque acrylic and hold this under the lens and do your pre-flash. No need to remove the negative, no need for an extra enlarger, etc.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

Doc W · Feb 20, 2016

David Allen said:
Yes there is absolutely no need for a second enlarger. THE simplest way is to buy a piece of opaque acrylic and hold this under the lens and do your pre-flash. No need to remove the negative, no need for an extra enlarger, etc.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

I just read about that and discovered that a photographer friend does exactly that. I am going to give it a go probably later this week after a little more exploration of the water bath technique.

David Allen · Feb 21, 2016

Doc W said:
I just read about that and discovered that a photographer friend does exactly that. I am going to give it a go probably later this week after a little more exploration of the water bath technique.

I am sure that you will find using this method of pre-flashing very easy. When done selectively (such as just pre-flashing a sky or an overly bright area within the image), it can be a very powerful technique that gives a different 'look' to selectively burning in an era at a lower grade.

Bests,

David.
www.dsallen.de

ChuckP · Feb 22, 2016

When you do your flashing with the negative in place do you normally do a test strip each time to determine the flash exposure time? I've always used an external light system that lets you calibrate the exposures ahead of time. I suppose you could use an enlarging meter. Exposure would need to be varied according to the density of the negative.

Zelph · Feb 22, 2016

Trying water bath development to control contrast works well with very vigerous developers.
Amidol is one of the best around for this.
Contact printing 8x10 and larger negatives using Amidol developer and Water Bath development works well with Silver Chloride papers made for contact printing.
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoamidol.html This has some information on Water Bath development with contact printing paper. Read it and then extrapolate and try it with your enlarging papers. Might be a way to improve results.

RalphLambrecht · Feb 22, 2016

Doc W said:
Recently I bought Carson Graves' book on black and white printing. He has a section on printing high contrast negatives and outlines a number of techniques including flashing and water bath development. I had never heard of the latter before. Flashing would be a little complicated for me right now, so I am thinking of giving the water bath a go. Have any of you done this?

Yes, with absolutely no success or effect.I think the idea is that dev will starve itself in the highlights and will continue in the shadows, which made sense to me in theory but, I had more success with over exposure and reduced development ala the Zone System

Patrick Robert James · Feb 22, 2016

I do the same as David when flashing. The only downside to doing it this way is each image will require a different time. If you have something dedicated, once you figure it out you are set.

Using a water bath works to some extent but you really need to be using an aggressive developer. An alternative to the water bath is stand development which I think was mentioned earlier. With a normal paper developer it works.

You could also try a pre-development bleach (SLIMT) with a print exposed for the highlights. I have done this before to tame contrast and it is really easy. It is easier than trying to burn or dodge little areas.

Another alternative is to make an unsharp mask. That is a lot of work though and will change the look of the image if a lot of adjustment is needed.

I always flash the paper first. It is the easiest route to take. If that isn't really working, I go from there.

removed account4 · Feb 22, 2016

Zelph said:
Trying water bath development to control contrast works well with very vigerous developers.
Amidol is one of the best around for this.
Contact printing 8x10 and larger negatives using Amidol developer and Water Bath development works well with Silver Chloride papers made for contact printing.
http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/azoamidol.html This has some information on Water Bath development with contact printing paper. Read it and then extrapolate and try it with your enlarging papers. Might be a way to improve results.

I think you are right, it works best with some papers and with some developers. I remember reading the words of
someone like sandy King ( maybe someone else? ) about softening the contrast grade of Azo from 3 to 2.5?
but he ( or whomever) reported it didn't work with Azo and ansco/formulary 130 ...
I regularly use a water bath to weaken the contrast of paper negatives .. it's best to experiment/dry run with one's
own methods and chemistry, what works for one sometimes won't work for another. ( ymmv )

Doc W · Feb 22, 2016

RalphLambrecht said:
Yes, with absolutely no success or effect.I think the idea is that dev will starve itself in the highlights and will continue in the shadows, which made sense to me in theory but, I had more success with over exposure and reduced development ala the Zone System

Ralph, you are talking about over exposure of the film, right? Normally, I would agree, but it is a little too late for that! I already messed that up and have two rolls of terrific shots with insane highlights. This is all about trying to tame that.

water bath for prints

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency