What could be causing this? B&W print not appearing after exposed

[pentaxuser]

That certainly changes things

Yes, just a little but it generated a good discussion on a source of b&w panchromatic paper and being able to use it in a darkroom to get authentic tones on a print from a C41 colour neg

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

I tried some Panalure paper about 50 years ago to see if it worked. It did. So I gave the rest of the pack of Panalure paper to a friend. It is probably still in his darkroom somewhere.

50 yrs ago! If it is still there I'd want to bolt the darkroom door on Walpurgis Nacht just in case it came out of its box

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Trying to remember back, my color work involved colors, rarely any areas of black or white, so printing a color negative on Panalure resulted in a miasma of greys, which is fine if that is how you like your prints to look. I am sure someone somewhere would find it just the right look for a photo project. I will leave him to it. Perhaps professional portrait photographers back in the day used it as a less expensive option for their customers who might want a color 8x10 for themselves and some smaller black and white prints to send to the relatives.

 

[pentaxuser]

Trying to remember back, my color work involved colors, rarely any areas of black or white, so printing a color negative on Panalure resulted in a miasma of greys, which is fine if that is how you like your prints to look. .

I think you are the first I have seen on Photrio to make what I think is a criticism of what kind of a print Panalure made of a colour neg In any thread I have seen on the question of printing b&w from a colour neg inevitably someone or more usually several will tell the OP that there was only ever one paper that printed a colour neg properly on b&w and that was Panalure

I used to say in such threads that my attempts onto Ilford paper looked OK to me and to the others I had shown them to. Sometimes I felt like the kid that had shown the teacher his print of his Mom thinking it was pretty good and the effort was then compared with that of the smart kid in the class called Monet who had used Panalure for his Mom's print. I felt like creeping back to my seat at the rear of the class quietly

I even have an old photography book that demonstrates the difference in 2 b&w prints from the same colour negative using normal b&w and Panalure and I have difficulty distinguishing them - the difference seems very marginal

Anyway Mom still loved my print

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Trying to remember back, my color work involved colors, rarely any areas of black or white, so printing a color negative on Panalure resulted in a miasma of greys, which is fine if that is how you like your prints to look. I am sure someone somewhere would find it just the right look for a photo project. I will leave him to it. Perhaps professional portrait photographers back in the day used it as a less expensive option for their customers who might want a color 8x10 for themselves and some smaller black and white prints to send to the relatives.

I think you are the first I have seen on Photrio to make what I think is a criticism of what kind of a print Panalure made of a colour neg In any thread I have seen on the question of printing b&w from a colour neg inevitably someone or more usually several will tell the OP that there was only ever one paper that printed a colour neg properly on b&w and that was Panalure

I don't think faberryman was talking about how well Panalure worked.
IMHO he was talking about how with many colour photos, if you take the colour out, there isn't much interesting left - you are left with just a "miasma of greys".

 

[faberryman]

I think you are the first I have seen on Photrio to make what I think is a criticism of what kind of a print Panalure made of a colour neg In any thread I have seen on the question of printing b&w from a colour neg inevitably someone or more usually several will tell the OP that there was only ever one paper that printed a colour neg properly on b&w and that was Panalure.

My experience on Photrio is that most people think that films and papers that are no longer available were, without exception, the greatest things since sliced bread. I certainly feel that way about Kodachrome 25 film and Portriga Rapid paper. Panalure paper, not so much. Heresy, I know. There is also an outside chance that I am a totally incompetent darkroom technician. You just need to decide for yourself which random person(s) on the internet to believe, if any. Don't worry; if you don't think my opinion about Panalure paper is well founded, my feelings won't be hurt.

 

[pentaxuser]

My experience on Photrio is that most people think that films and papers that are no longer available were, without exception, the greatest things since sliced bread. I certainly feel that way about Kodachrome 25 film and Portriga Rapid paper. Panalure paper, not so much. Heresy, I know. There is also an outside chance that I am a totally incompetent darkroom technician. You just need to decide for yourself which random person(s) on the internet to believe, if any. Don't worry; if you don't think my opinion about Panalure paper is well founded, my feelings won't be hurt.

Mmmm so maybe your view on Panalure is not a million miles from mine. Of course I wasn't suggesting that a panchromatic paper does not replicate colour tones better than Ilford/Foma b&w but merely that the difference may not be as great as to make replication of a color neg in b&w a disaster or even in many cases much different from Panalure

Nobody I ever showed my Ilford print to said that somehow the tones were not what they expected and it was a poor representation of the scene in b&w

My experience is that most of Joe Public that I know still wonder why anyone can think that b&w is anything near reality. It is at best OK for some scenes but poor for most scenes so why bother with second best.

My most applauded shots have been of a black labrador and a black and white cat

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

I think it goes without saying that a black and white print from a color negative looks better on Panalure than on a traditional black and white paper. I assume that is why Kodak introduced Panalure paper. But I could be wrong. I frequently am.

 

[wiltw]

For all steps, I use constant agitation and a temperature of 68°F. First, the developer is used for two minutes, then the stop bath is used for 10-20 seconds, and then finally, the fixer for "30 seconds.

Not directly related to your issue...
From Ilford:

"Next pour in the ILFORD RAPID FIXER solution. Start the clock as you finish pouring, then agitate, as you did during development, until fixation is complete. This will take 3 minutes."​

Beginners Guide to Processing Film

Processing film need not be daunting. Our guide on covers the equipment, chemistry and methods for anyone new to processing films.

www.ilfordphoto.com

Magenta filtration reduces light, depending upon the density of the filtration. Its use will cause underexposure, compared to white light exposure.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think ashcorra is talking about paper developer here,wiltw

pentaxuser

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Trying to remember back, my color work involved colors, rarely any areas of black or white, so printing a color negative on Panalure resulted in a miasma of greys, which is fine if that is how you like your prints to look. I am sure someone somewhere would find it just the right look for a photo project. I will leave him to it. Perhaps professional portrait photographers back in the day used it as a less expensive option for their customers who might want a color 8x10 for themselves and some smaller black and white prints to send to the relatives.

The later Panalure Select RC, in three contrast grades, made excellent prints; many of which I have displayed here. Panalure allowed me to take vacation pics for the family, then select the best ones for B/W enlargement work.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I think you are the first I have seen on Photrio to make what I think is a criticism of what kind of a print Panalure made of a colour neg In any thread I have seen on the question of printing b&w from a colour neg inevitably someone or more usually several will tell the OP that there was only ever one paper that printed a colour neg properly on b&w and that was Panalure

I used to say in such threads that my attempts onto Ilford paper looked OK to me and to the others I had shown them to. Sometimes I felt like the kid that had shown the teacher his print of his Mom thinking it was pretty good and the effort was then compared with that of the smart kid in the class called Monet who had used Panalure for his Mom's print. I felt like creeping back to my seat at the rear of the class quietly

I even have an old photography book that demonstrates the difference in 2 b&w prints from the same colour negative using normal b&w and Panalure and I have difficulty distinguishing them - the difference seems very marginal

Anyway Mom still loved my print

pentaxuser

I have, in the past, posted a direct comparison between Panalure SW FB and Ilford MG IV FB for the same negative. I am sure it can be found. The Ilford was OK, but grainy and a bit dull, but usable. The Panalure was nicer.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

I don't think faberryman was talking about how well Panalure worked.
IMHO he was talking about how with many colour photos, if you take the colour out, there isn't much interesting left - you are left with just a "miasma of greys".

Of course. What makes an interesting color print and an interesting B/W print can be very different things.

 

[ashcorra]

Hello.

The negatives were shot on a Pentax 645, on Ilford Delta 400, 120 film. If anyone is curious.

I am using Ilford MGRC, Multigrade RC, Deluxe Pearl, print paper.

For chemistry, I am using Ilford rapid fixer, Ilford Ilfostop, and Ilford PQ universal developer for print and film.

For all steps, I use constant agitation and a temperature of 68°F. First, the developer is used for two minutes, then the stop bath is used for 10-20 seconds, and then finally, the fixer for 30 seconds.

My enlarger is a Durst and M605.

In the second picture, this shows how I began my session. This is with the knob on the front of the enlarger, set to ‘out’. and the lever on the left side, set to ‘out’. After I realized they were incorrectly, set to ‘out’. I switched both of them back to ‘on’ Then I turned the Magenta to 60, Yellow and Cyan are left at zero.

This is when my images began to not appear on the print paper. However, you can see at the very edges a small amount of the image from the negative is showing. I thought initially maybe it was my developer, and that, maybe, it became contaminated. So, I poured the chemicals out, washed the containers, and re-mixed fresh chemicals.

As I said before, I know the chemicals work, because before I switched those knobs, I was getting an image on the paper, just a faint one, because the light was switched to ‘out’, and no magenta was getting through in order to give the image contrast. Anyway, after I changed the chemicals to fresh, there is still no image on the print paper.

So, I am very confused, what could be causing this?

 

[pentaxuser]

I don't know but you did at least clear up the confusion and we all realised it was b&w paper on the other thread

I would try to set the lever to "out" as that way it uses white light only and should produce a grade 2 print. This may not be the right grade for the print but at least this should properly make a print

W e can move forward from there when you show us what kind of a print that produced

pentaxuser

 

[Rick A]

Did you set the correct filtration for your chosen contrast? Have you read Ilford's spec sheet for that paper? Have you read the owners manual for your machine? Have you done any test strips to determine exposure times?

Durst M 605 User Manual

View and Download Durst M 605 instruction manual online.

manualmachine.com

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MULTIGRADE-RC-Papers-J20.pdf

 

[ashcorra]

I don't know but you did at least clear up the confusion and we all realised it was b&w paper on the other thread

I would try to set the lever to "out" as that way it uses white light only and should produce a grade 2 print. This may not be the right grade for the print but at least this should properly make a print

W e can move forward from there when you show us what kind of a print that produced

pentaxuser

got it I'm going to attempt this, stand by...

 

[ashcorra]

Did you set the correct filtration for your chosen contrast? Have you read Ilford's spec sheet for that paper? Have you read the owners manual for your machine? Have you done any test strips to determine exposure times?

Durst M 605 User Manual

View and Download Durst M 605 instruction manual online.

manualmachine.com

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/MULTIGRADE-RC-Papers-J20.pdf

yes, yes, yes, and yes. Still fairly new at this ad you guys are always so helpful so here I am

 

[koraks]

The pictures you posted are quite small and poorly lit. This makes it hard to tell what we're actually looking at here. For instance, the 'start of session' pic (which appears to be a contact sheet of some sort?) shows a suspicious gradient with a lighter center and darker edges. There also seems to be some kind of striation pattern in the center. All this suggests insufficient development - but it might also be an artifact from a poor photo. Could you provide better photos especially of the first print that showed faint images?

Overall, if an image fails to appear on paper and you know the developer does something, insufficient exposure is the first place to look. What kind of exposure times are you getting?
Also, since we're seeing something that resembles a contact sheet, can you share some info/pics on the contact printing setup you're using?

Can we have a photo of your negatives, photographed against some kind of backlight (light table, computer monitor with a diffusion sheet etc.)?

To verify the functionality of the developer a bit, have you tried processing a strip of paper exposed to room light the same way you're processing your prints? This strip should come out pitch black with no blotchiness, coloration etc. Can you verify this, please?