What am i doing wrong?

[markbarendt]

Wowwww now I'm really confused!

Far as I can tell the negatives look good and developed nicely. They were developed in DDX for 9 mins
I thought everyone was talking about the print not being developed for long enough at 1min in ilford multigrade....

Hey Tatty,

I understand your frustration.

The first thing I'd suggest is picking one time to use for developing your paper. Use a time that assures you can get strong blacks and use it every time. (This removes a variable for now. Later on when you get the rest figured out you can play with the developing time as a fine adjustment.)

The next thing to understand is the concept of place and fall with regard to exposure of photographic materials. You only get to place one tone, say black, with any single exposure. If you place black the rest of the tones just fall where they fall.

When you do your test strip pick the time where say, in your example, the shadows in her hair just turn black enough. (Using in focus areas works better IMO.)

To get say a proper white to go with your placed black, you adjust contrast, paper grade. That's what the filters do for VC paper.

Changing contrast generally means finding a new print exposure time to place your chosen tone, like that black you are wanting. Use a new test strip to find your black time, then print a proof.

If the proof is still too gray you need to use an even harder paper grade. If the print is too white move to a softer grade. Adjust contrast, find your black time, yet again, and print a new proof and make a new decision, repeat as necessary.

Yes this can be tedious especially when learning, but it does get easier with experience.

 

[TattyJJ]

Ok that makes more sense now.

The ilford was used at 1:9, so the time was correct to what they publish.
There is a chance the temp had dropped a little from when I checked it. Was bang on 20c when I mixed it, it then sat in the tray for prob 20 min while I was focusing etc.
But it won't have dropped more than 1 or 2 deg, the room was reasonably warm.

 

[pentaxuser]

I'd be surprised if the small drop in developer temperature such as your describe would have resulted in such a grey print. Given you printed without filters I'd say that your negative needs a greater contrast than unfiltered paper( about grade 2) will provide.

As at least one other has said, get a set of new Ilford MG below-the-lens filters. Harman Express will despatch them directly to you in 24 hours if you order before 3:00pm without any postage charge as the cost is more than £50. If you need anything else that Harman sell such as liquid developer, fixer etc you can add this to your order.

Frankly you cannot do without filters for darkroom printing with MG paper.

pentaxuser

 

[TattyJJ]

£50 is WAY more than I can afford right now, especially as there are already some in the darkroom.
They are Ilford ones, thin sheets of red/yellow plastic....

I should be able to sandwidge them between the negative and the light source. Or does it have to be bellow the negative?
Squeezing it in there will be trickier.

 

[MattKing]

The manufacturer's print developing time recommendation is probably fine.
But to Ilford data sheet for Multigrade developer indicates that low temperatures aren't recommended. So to check on your developing time, expose two identical strips and then develop one for the recommended 1 minute and the second for 2 minutes. Use stop and fixer normally. Rinse both briefly. If the results are similar, than 1 minute is sufficiently long to develop to (virtual) completion, and should be appropriate for future use at similar temperatures.
If there is a large difference between the two strips, your temperature or dilution require a longer developing time.
The developer I use is accompanied by a recommended developing time range. My personal preference is to use times that are nearer the longer end of the range because it helps maintain consistency - but that is the way I like to work.
And yes, you need to use the filters.

 

[MattKing]

£50 is WAY more than I can afford right now, especially as there are already some in the darkroom.
They are Ilford ones, thin sheets of red/yellow plastic....

I should be able to sandwidge them between the negative and the light source. Or does it have to be bellow the negative?
Squeezing it in there will be trickier.

You can lay them on top of some negative holders.
What type of enlarger is it? Some of us may have had one, and know some tricks.

 

[TattyJJ]

I will do some tests on developing times.
There are 2 safe lights, both the other side of the room to the enlarger, but one is no more than a meter directly above the sink where I did the developing.
How would I go about checking if this is causing a problem?
Also how would I go about checking the paper is ok?

Honestly can't remember the make of the enlarger, but see the pic below. I can't make out all the writing, but someone might recognise it? It the one on the right, obviously....

 

[MattKing]

Here is KHB's information page for that enlarger: http://www.khbphotografix.com/LPL/LPL6600Cond.htm. That page indicates that there is a filter drawer in the condenser head.
You could also use the colour filtration in the other enlarger to adjust contrast for black and white work.

 

[Martin Rickards]

You'd solve the filter problem using the ome on the left. Just dial in the required yellow and magenta values.

 

[TattyJJ]

I would like to use the colour one, mainly so i could do colour prints (not yet though!) but upon fiddling around i discovered the control box for it has literally been cut off and is missing! The pic is old of their website...

 

[wiltw]

There are 2 safe lights, both the other side of the room to the enlarger, but one is no more than a meter directly above the sink where I did the developing.

How would I go about checking if this is causing a problem?
Also how would I go about checking the paper is ok?

If you suspect light leaks or safelight fogging, simply lay a piece of enlarging paper face up on the counter, put a few coins on the surface of the paper, and let it sit there for perhaps 5 minutes. At the end of the time, remove the coins and process the paper. If your darkroom is not 'safe', you will see outlines of the coins in the fogging around where the coins obscured the light.
If you see fogging, then you need to repeat the test to determine if it is incompatible safelight, or if the room has light leaks...run another test with safelight turned off, if fogging, then you know room itself has leaks.

 

[TattyJJ]

It does have a little drawer at the top with a glass plate and a lens in, i did wonder if that was where a filter would go, but it also got pretty warm in there after being on for a while focusing and lining the image up. Was slightly worried the filter would melt....

 

[wiltw]

It does have a little drawer at the top with a glass plate and a lens in, i did wonder if that was where a filter would go, but it also got pretty warm in there after being on for a while focusing and lining the image up. Was slightly worried the filter would melt....

That is probably the condensor lens which adapts the light head for a particular film format, and not a drawer for filters. Filter drawers are meant to be slid out rather simply, while condensor assemblies ordinarily require some modest 'dissassembly' of the head. Ordinarily filter drawers are a metal frame for filters with no optics. But one possibility is that there is a UV filter or heat absorbing filter.

 

[MattKing]

If you suspect light leaks or safelight fogging, simply lay a piece of enlarging paper face up on the counter, put a few coins on the surface of the paper, and let it sit there for perhaps 5 minutes. At the end of the time, remove the coins and process the paper. If your darkroom is not 'safe', you will see outlines of the coins in the fogging around where the coins obscured the light.
If you see fogging, then you need to repeat the test to determine if it is incompatible safelight, or if the room has light leaks...run another test with safelight turned off, if fogging, then you know room itself has leaks.

wiltw's test will work, but there are some refinements that make it better.
First, it works better if you can do it on a piece of enlarging paper that is partially exposed - to give a slight grey tone. This helps test for safelights that degrade contrast without fully fogging your print.
Second, if you have a number of coins, it is useful to use several sizes (1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, etc.) and leave them on for different times. Try putting 4 of them on at the beginning and removing one each at 1 minute, 2 minutes, 4 minutes and 6 minutes with the paper remaining where it is for a further 2 minutes. Then turn off the safelight and in complete darkness start developing the paper for 1 minute (count slowly to sixty). Transfer the paper to the stop bath, and you can turn the safelight back on and finish.
The paper will have had 5 different levels of exposure to the safelight - 8 minutes, 7 minutes, 6 minutes, 4 minutes and 2 minutes. If any of the coin outlines are visible, than you have a safelight problem. The outline or outlines that are visible tell you how much exposure is safe.

 

[cliveh]

You should look at the print NOT the clock when developing a print. The print will tell you when development is finished.

I would beg to differ, as you are then judging the print under darkroom lighting conditions. By keeping the time/temperature constant you can then adjust exposure after viewing the test strip/print under normal lighting.

 

[pentaxuser]

It worries me that you mention yellow and red filters unless these are the colours you think you see on the colour head. Actually the colours are yellow. magenta and cyan. On a closer look at the separate filters are they pale yellow and then progressively more magenta? This is what MG filters should be. You could use these but they may be old and faded. I'd use the colour head filters which don't fade and then as a test try out the separate filters to see if they match the grades from the colour head filters and give as good a print. Unless the separate filters have the grade numbers on them you may have to experiment to make sure you have them in the correct grade sequence.

Despite money being a problem I'd try and obtain Tim Rudman's book : "The Photographer's Master Printing Course" as soon as possible. Worth its weight in gold, in my opinion. Abe Books or Alibris should have secondhand copies for a reasonable price

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Second, if you have a number of coins, it is useful to use several sizes (1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, 25 cents, etc.) .

The way the GBP has fallen against the dollar, these coins are especially useful

pentaxuser

 

[TattyJJ]

It worries me that you mention yellow and red filters unless these are the colours you think you see on the colour head. Actually the colours are yellow. magenta and cyan. On a closer look at the separate filters are they pale yellow and then progressively more magenta? This is what MG filters should be. You could use these but they may be old and faded. I'd use the colour head filters which don't fade and then as a test try out the separate filters to see if they match the grades from the colour head filters and give as good a print. Unless the separate filters have the grade numbers on them you may have to experiment to make sure you have them in the correct grade sequence.

Despite money being a problem I'd try and obtain Tim Rudman's book : "The Photographer's Master Printing Course" as soon as possible. Worth its weight in gold, in my opinion. Abe Books or Alibris should have secondhand copies for a reasonable price

pentaxuser

I was referring to the box of square plastic filters, that appear red/yellow depending on which one your looking at.
Are they red, are they magenta (probably)? It's semantics really, you know what i was talking about

 

[pentaxuser]

I was simply wondering if they had faded in which case the magenta one might have changed to what looked like a red colour. Unless you can be sure that each filter gives the right change of grade then using them could be frustrating when trying to improve your printing skills.

pentaxuser

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Before doing anything like changing paper grade/filtration it is very important to determine whether you are developing the prints sufficiently. Make 3 test strips; recommended developing time (1X), 1.5X, and 2X. Then evaluate the results. As I mentioned before it is common to over-expose a print and then pull it when it starts to become too dense. You should always develop prints normally so that if hey are too dense you know how much to decrease exposure, Pulling them gives you know useful information.

Using VC paper without a filter usually produces the equivalent of grade 2.5. Of course the exact value depends on the manufacturer as they each have their own standards.

 

[rpavich]

It does have a little drawer at the top with a glass plate and a lens in, i did wonder if that was where a filter would go, but it also got pretty warm in there after being on for a while focusing and lining the image up. Was slightly worried the filter would melt....

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

 

[rpavich]

You know...with as confusing a thread as this is, you be farther ahead to have a phone conversation with a member, email pictures for reference while on the phone if necessary. Real-time communication would be valuable.

 

[LAG]

...There are 2 safe lights, both the other side of the room to the enlarger, but one is no more than a meter directly above the sink where I did the developing....

Safelight should be safe at any time but also in Any Area! (wet & dry), that means not only the safe-light itself / leaks (in & out). If you move from one side to another in the dark with sensitive material with you, you should also bear in mind "the distance" (intensity) from the point source (Inverse Square) then. If your light is fixed, you should test "those places" as well.

Best of luck!

 

[tezzasmall]

I've just sent a PM to you TattyJJ.

Terry S

 

[Harry Stevens]

I've just sent a PM to you TattyJJ.

Terry S

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