What am i doing wrong?

[TattyJJ]

It looks like it has a little filter holder under the lens. Does it?

It has a little filter that swings into place, but i don't think there is a way to change the one that is already build into it.


I'll be doing a list (a long list) of tests next time i'm there. I need to make sure i've eliminated all outside influences to make sure the problem is in fact with my lack of printing skills and i'm not being hindered by anything else.

 

[TattyJJ]

What for to thank him for playing you all for fools..........

Seriously, you're just going to go round this forum posting crap on any threads i post?! Have you any idea how pathetic that is!

 

[pentaxuser]

I think you are using a darkroom that isn't yours. Is this the case? If so let me ask the obvious question. Is the developer yours and is it fresh? I have already mentioned the filters which I take it were just there in the room and are of an indeterminate age so might be faded. This is not intended to insult you or anger you but I am finding things out slowly by a certain amount of inference on my part.

It might be better if you give us more detail about exactly what you are doing. It means more work on your part and then more but better responses on our part but could actually result in getting to a quicker solution.

pentaxuser

 

[TattyJJ]

I think you are using a darkroom that isn't yours. Is this the case? If so let me ask the obvious question. Is the developer yours and is it fresh? I have already mentioned the filters which I take it were just there in the room and are of an indeterminate age so might be faded. This is not intended to insult you or anger you but I am finding things out slowly by a certain amount of inference on my part.

It might be better if you give us more detail about exactly what you are doing. It means more work on your part and then more but better responses on our part but could actually result in getting to a quicker solution.

pentaxuser

Indeed the darkroom is a university one. The developer i mixed myself last week, its only done 5 prints, and i don't believe it was used by anyone else in the interim. According to the logbook no one else has been in there, in fact i'm the only one who has used it so far this year and only got used 8 times all last year! The developer, stop and fix were also all new bottles that i opened. The old ones were almost empty, and not having any idea how old they were thought it was best not to use them.

 

[Saganich]

Geeez did this thread go to heck? Process of elimination is cruel when your in the dark. When I got prints like that it was from either paper being old and foggy, safe-light problem or exhausted developer. First develop and fix an unexposed piece. It should be white. Second check the safe lights by putting some object on the paper and leaving it out under the safe lights for a 5 minutes (crude test) and develop normally. Shouldn't see any density difference. Third check developer for freshness (I see above that may not be the issue but any assumption is suspect!). I generally found 2 minutes was a normal development time regardless of the instructions but let it develop for 5 minutes and see what happens. If you get added density or a print closer to what your looking for then mix new developer. If no smoking guns emerge from the process of elimination then and this happens to me as well, the combination of low contrast neg, perhaps short exposure, and perhaps short development or soft working developer all conspire together to mess with your head. So first step is make test strips (refer to texts about how to do that properly) and go from there. Sometimes starting in the middle when all the other things mentioned aren't managed can cause some kind of circular spiral of horror that's difficult to recover from. Its worth testing each component in the system and throw all assumptions to the wind when things are amiss.

 

[TattyJJ]

A tidy little recap there Saganich, saves me trawling back threw all the posts and making notes

Though i do wonder if the issue has become somewhat lost, I'm thinking the most likely issue is simply that i don't really know what i'm doing yet. Remember this is only the second time i have done this, and the first on my own!
But it's always wise to be sure, belts and braces and all that...

 

[Harry Stevens]

Seriously, you're just going to go round this forum posting crap on any threads i post?! Have you any idea how pathetic that is!

Have you tried Youtube.

15 Mins that may be of benefit.

 

[pentaxuser]

You mention mixing the dev last week. So when you used the dev for the poor print how old was it? Does the mixed dev stand in open trays until you use it again? What developer is it? Some devs can last a few days in open trays but most will last only a day or so. Unless the prints were made from a developer that was mixed that day then it is suspect.

I'd try and read a book on printing as soon as possible. Yes it means postponing any more printing until you do but it will put you in a better position to understand what it is all about. If the university has a darkroom then I'd have thought it has at least some books on printing. At the very least do what Saganich has said and tell us your findings.

It is one step at a time. If the dichroic( colour head) is missing then is there anyone there who can say how old the MG filters are and do you know if there is any funds for the replacement of the filters. Someone must have responsibility for the subject of photography in the university and there has to be someone who can unlock funds for the darkroom surely?

pentaxuser

 

[TattyJJ]

You mention mixing the dev last week. So when you used the dev for the poor print how old was it? Does the mixed dev stand in open trays until you use it again? What developer is it? Some devs can last a few days in open trays but most will last only a day or so. Unless the prints were made from a developer that was mixed that day then it is suspect.

I'd try and read a book on printing as soon as possible. Yes it means postponing any more printing until you do but it will put you in a better position to understand what it is all about. If the university has a darkroom then I'd have thought it has at least some books on printing. At the very least do what Saganich has said and tell us your findings.

It is one step at a time. If the dichroic( colour head) is missing then is there anyone there who can say how old the MG filters are and do you know if there is any funds for the replacement of the filters. Someone must have responsibility for the subject of photography in the university and there has to be someone who can unlock funds for the darkroom surely?

pentaxuser

As i said, it was a brand new bottle i opened as the old was almost empty and of unknown age. I believe it has an unopened shelf life of 2 years, and the last chemical order was last year, so pretty safe to say it was a'ok. The developer was also exposed to the air in the trays for no more than a couple of hours, i have only spent 2 court evenings there, much of which was doing other things.
As for how i stored it, yes of course i put it in bottles when i was done and didn't just leave it in the trays! I used the ones that collapse to get the air out, and yes i also gave them a good scrub out, seeing as i had no idea how long the last lot of chemicals had been in there thought it best. And yes, i also used the one labeled as B&W developer for the developer, the same for the stop and fix.

As for books, i'm keeping an eye out for second hand ones

No idea at all how old the filters are, as i understand it most of the kit is donated so could well be very old! I did have a thumb threw them, many were pretty tatty, marks, scratches, creases etc. So probably not as good as they once were....
As for funding to get new stuff, not a chance i'd say! Seeing as the darkroom is so rarely used i doubt even fresh chemicals would be invested in!

But on the plus side, i'm off tomorrow to go get a colour enlarger and whole host of darkroom equipment even including a jobo print processor for the crazy bargain price of £20!!

 

[klownshed]

Good luck with your new equipment. It's amazing what can be picked up (still) for so little cash.

My advise is to go to ilfords site, download the guides and print them out. They are well written step by step guides that I found (and still find) very useful. There's plenty of more advanced stuff there too.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=34

Once you are doing the basics right you can learn about split grade printing and dodging and burning to get the print the way you want it. Then the real art of printing will begin, but you need to master the basics first to cut down the variables.

Luckily the basics are easy to learn and you should have it nailed in a day or two.

Ps. Developer doesn't last very long in open trays. The Ilford guides have info on how long to expect the chemicals to last in bottles, mixed and in trays.

 

[M Carter]

Generally at the start of a non-lith printing session, I figure out the size and focus for my first negative and lock off the enlarger, and take a guess on filtration; then I put in a negative from the same roll, from the leader area (basically clear film with only the tint of the film stock), and do a test strip. I look for the time when the blacks don't get any blacker - I know this is the exposure to get full blacks from this roll at this size - where adding exposure won't make blacks any deeper. When I do this, I use the easel or a black card to block off an edge of the paper so it gets no exposure.

I start all my test strips from this exposure - if you lessen exposure to control highlights, there's a good chance you're cheating yourself out of max black. You might change exposure moderately due to a filter change - you might increase exposure for a neg with shadows a bit denser than the film base - but generally, you want to be pretty close to that max-blacks exposure.

Starting a session this way is also a good test of your developer - if you can't reach a good deep black, you've got a developer problem and you haven't wasted a lot of time & paper with it. And if the masked-off area isn't clean white, you've got a fog problem - in my darkroom it means my latest eBay find of classic paper needs to go in the lith pile.

 

[MattKing]

M Carter's suggestion is a good one, in that it is one way to get yourself "into the ballpark" right at the beginning. There are a number of different ways to do something similar. One is to do that same sort of "blank film" test using a Kodak or Delta Projection Print Scale - like this one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/15711-REG/Delta_12610_Projection_Print_Calculator_Scale.html

The whole purpose of any such test is to make sure that your tests with the negative in place give you a range of results that will be informative - ideally from too light, through acceptable, to too dark.

You can also use that scale with the negative in place, provided you place it carefully.

There are also technological solutions - darkroom meters essentially - that help you get repeatable results once you have learned enough to be able to achieve good results in the first place. Don't worry about those for now.

 

[MattKing]

duplicate post

 

[TattyJJ]

All the help above is much appreciated, I'm back in the darkroom tomorrow so will be carrying out many of the tests talked about and attempting some more prints. Hopefully better will be achieved!

But... There are a couple of questions from my original post that are yet to be answer, namely:

There are a few blemishes/marks/imperfections... Are these likely caused by dust or marks on the negative or is there something else going on?
Do you use photoflo on prints?

Ta muchly

 

[MattKing]

There are a few blemishes/marks/imperfections... Are these likely caused by dust or marks on the negative or is there something else going on?

Dust or marks on the negatives. Probably from either handling the negatives in an unclean environment or in a way that resulted in dirt on, or damage to the negative.

A lot of the problems come from how negatives are dried.

Do you use photoflo on prints?

Not with RC paper. And basically not with fibre based paper (except under very specific conditions).

And good luck tomorrow. I'm just going through a bunch of negatives myself, with an eye to deciding which ones to print. If I've got anything that shows a "test through near final progression" that might encourage you, I'll try to scan and post them here.

 

[TattyJJ]

Dust or marks on the negatives. Probably from either handling the negatives in an unclean environment or in a way that resulted in dirt on, or damage to the negative.

A lot of the problems come from how negatives are dried.



Not with RC paper. And basically not with fibre based paper (except under very specific conditions).

Thanks, just making sure i'm ticking all the boxes

 

[NJH]

Dust on negative will show up as light spots on your print, dark spots or lines where the emulsion has a pin prick hole or scratch. I have had occasions where it was stuff stuck onto the shiny side of the negative, luckily just a bit of breath and a soft cloth has wiped those sort of particles off for me without having to resort to chemicals. I haven't seen a single emulsion defect yet though for me so I have no idea how common they are. I have however got into a routine of inspecting the negative and the enlarger carrier outside of my darkroom under a strong light, rather not see spots on the prints than think about re-touching afterwards.

One very good reason for printing under an easel with borders is to avoid touching the emulsion side of the print as far as possible (soft tongs but never fingers), the corners and edges will get touched and maybe roughed up a tiny bit during handling, agitation in the trays etc. but I had it drummed in to me many years ago never to touch the surface where the image is. In particular some people will do stuff like pushing the print down in the tray when you really don't have to, agitation will gently bring developer over the print. Also of course many of us hang the prints to dry the old fashioned way and this will leave marks were the peg holds the print to the line (again not over the image but on the white bit that was under the easel). Once the print is dry the blank areas that were under the easel will be either hidden in the frame or cut off when mounted anyway so they are not visible in the end presented form.

 

[pentaxuser]

Depending on how careful you are with negs and how often you need to touch, manipulate, move etc them in a print session, a pair of clean lint free cottoen white cotton gloves might be worth getting.

pentaxuser

 

[NJH]

Yes good tip, they are only a couple of quid so I always use them for handling negatives and the carrier.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

For dust on negatives, lenses, etc I find a short handled (~ 2 inch) cosmetics brush to be very handy. The bristles are soft and wont scratch. A baby ear syringe is also good for blowing off loose dust particles. Both are cheap ~ two dollars and available just about anywhere. Don't touch the bristles with your fingers to avoid transferring oil from your skin to them. Keep the brush is a plastic bag when not in use.

One more point, I use glassine sleeves for my negatives because they will not create a static charge to attract dust on the negatives. More plastic sleeves do cause static electricity when you remove a negative.

 

[TattyJJ]

Results are in from another evening in the darkroom, will start a new thread of results for those interested