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

[ashcorra]

Hello.

The negatives were shot on a Pentax 645, on Kodak Portra 400, 120 film. If anyone is curious, however I don't think it's relavant.

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?

 

[Don_ih]

Kodak Portra 400

The orange mask on colour film makes it hard to print on b&w paper. You need longer exposure times and probably higher contrast setting. You likely won't get a good b&w print from any of those negatives - they'll all end up muddy.

 

[pentaxuser]

If everything is fresh and the enlarger is working correctly including the lens then you are doing everything right but as has been said you may need grade 4 filtration and long exposures

If you use the lens at say f8, try f5.6 instead and use a test strip beginning at say 4 secs and doubling exposure each time so by exposure 4 you are at 64 secs. You are effectively "overshooting" but see which one gives the best image. Probably none will be OK but you will now have a range to aim for. Say the best image is somewhere between 32 and 64 secs. Then do another test strip between 32 and 64 in 8 secs intervals. You will by now be getting quite close to the right exposure so just repeat until you get the print you need

I tried C41 negs but not Portra many years ago and even at grade 4 they lacked a little punch but they were OK

pentaxuser

 

[btaylor]

The negatives were shot on a Pentax 645, on Kodak Portra 400, 120 film. If anyone is curious, however I don't think it's relavant.

Well, as others have pointed out this is entirely relevant. C41 isn’t made to print on the paper you are using. If you want a color print in the darkroom choose RA4 process. If you want a B&W print from your color neg I think the best looking solution would be to scan the negative, manipulate it in a photo editing program and make a digital print.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Magenta light has a hard time getting through the film's orange filter, hence little to no image will appear on the paper.

Use a white light setting in the enlarger - that will produce the same contrast as a #2 filter. However, the orange in the negative may lower that contrast. Better to use B&W film for B&W paper. There were papers for making B&W prints from color negatives but they are long gone.

Make a test strip - move cardboard over the paper at intervals of 5 seconds, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds ... The exposure on the paper will be 5, 10, 20, 40 ... seconds.

Expect the tones to be way off. Using CN film for B&W prints unnaturally darkens Caucasian skin.

 

[MattKing]

The orange mask in C-41 film is designed to transmit mostly red light.
B&W photographic paper is designed to mostly not respond to red light.
Both together mean you need a lot more exposure to get a result.
A larger aperture, plus a longer exposure will help. And you will get a result.
But the quality of the result won't be ideal. The colour dyes in the negative mess around with the tonal relationships in the result - for instance depending on the subject's skin colour, portraits can look strange - and the combination of those dyes and the mask mean that the contrast will need to be boosted.

 

[Alan9940]

Years ago, Kodak made a paper called Panalure that was made specifically for crafting B&W prints from color negs. No idea if any stock of this could be found or even if it would be any good nowadays.

As suggested above, I'd recommend scanning, converting to B&W, then printing via the desktop. Or, if you really wanted to go down the rabbit hole, you could create a digital negative and do an alt process print.

 

[redbandit]

ultrafine sells the paper that can do a good black and white print of color negatives... its what they call their "pinhole camera film". Not cheap, and its 5x7.

Also there is a few issues that i see.

You mention you are using

"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."

Your processing isnt right... havent seen a paper that doesnt demand at least 1 minute of fixer time. And the stop bath time hsould be at least a minute.

 

[koraks]

havent seen a paper that doesnt demand at least 1 minute of fixer time.

Fixing times for Ilford Rapid fixer. 30 seconds for RC paper at 1+4 dilution is just fine.

the stop bath time hsould be at least a minute.

Nope. With a modern acid and rapid fixer, a stop bath is facultative, so even zero seconds would be OK. It's still a good idea for longevity of the fixer. A fresh and/or well-buffered stop bath will also stop development effectively within 10-20 seconds, since that's roughly the permeation time of an RC emulsion.

 

[pentaxuser]

ultrafine sells the paper that can do a good black and white print of color negatives... its what they call their "pinhole camera film". Not cheap, and its 5x7.

What is it about this paper that makes it do a good black and white print of a colour negative?It sounds more like a film than paper so do you use it some way to make a b&w negative from the colour negative from which you then print onto b&w darkroom paper such as Ilford, Foma etc ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

What is it about this paper that makes it do a good black and white print of a colour negative?

It's panchromatic. I suspect it's this stuff: https://www.harmantechnology.com/gds-rc-glossy?___store=harman_brochure&___from_store=harman_uk
Intended originally for use with digital exposure systems.

 

[BobUK]

The lever around the left side needs to be switched to IN . This puts the filtration you have dialed IN to the light path.

The B Filter (small rotary knob on the front with the red light indicator) needs to be in the OUT position.


The B filter adds a load of extra filtration in the light path and is very rarely used. Never in my case.

On the few occasions that I ever printed colour negatives onto black and white paper they always came out grainy. I was told at the time it was due to the orange masking colour in the film acting a bit like an orange safelight.

Good Luck and keep us all posted with the results.

 

[pentaxuser]

It's panchromatic. I suspect it's this stuff: https://www.harmantechnology.com/gds-rc-glossy?___store=harman_brochure&___from_store=harman_uk
Intended originally for use with digital exposure systems.

Thanks for that. It appears from reading Ilford's specs that for all practical purposes a home darkroom person could not print from this paper. You would need to find a mini-lab that either uses this paper or can be persuaded to buy a roll for what would be the very occasional request for a a print from a colour negative onto genuine panchromatic paper

In summary it is the equivalent of Panalure but only for digital printing?

However it seems that Ultrafine are claiming that their 3P Panchromatic Paper is OK for normal analogue enlargers Here are the quotes

"For use with conventional enlargers"

"* Excellent contrast & sharpness Just as a note* We do have a number of people utilizing this with there standard enlarger (remember, total darkness) or playing around with it as a pinhole camera favorite, so we offer it in some "cut down" sizes as well. Cheers!"

So either there is a method of using the Ilford stuff in conventional enlargers or it is different stuff or Ultrafine are making a claim, based on presumably its customers that is at best making something that is incredibly difficult with conventional enlargers seem straightforward

If it is relatively easy to use this stuff with conventional enlargers then perhaps we need to alter our normal Photrio response when this kind of thread about making a b&w print from a colour negative arises

pentaxuser

 

[koraks]

It appears from reading Ilford's specs that for all practical purposes a home darkroom person could not print from this paper.

I don't read them that way at all. In fact, the tech sheet specifically mentions the stuff can be processed in trays, like any other RC paper. And the spectral sensitivity shows it's, well, sensitive to light, essentially. Doesn't really matter where that light comes from.
The only caveat is the safelight situation which of course is trickier than for regular B&W RC paper. But since we can do RA4 at home, this will work just as well.

You would need to find a mini-lab that either uses this paper or can be persuaded to buy a roll for what would be the very occasional request for a a print from a colour negative onto genuine panchromatic paper

Well, my bet is that Ultrafine most likely cuts this paper to sheets. If it's not this one, it's something eerily similar, but I doubt there are many manufacturers of this kind of paper left.

So either there is a method of using the Ilford stuff in conventional enlargers

Of course. Light is light. Enlargers project light. This paper is sensitive to it. What's the problem?

 

[MattKing]

The papers designed for digital exposure are usually optimized for very short, high intensity exposures. So when used with a normal enlarger, you may see issues with reciprocity failure.

 

[koraks]

So when used with a normal enlarger, you may see issues with reciprocity failure.

I doubt it. With pinhole photography, however, I'd expect that the effect is noticeable.

 

[MattKing]

I doubt it. With pinhole photography, however, I'd expect that the effect is noticeable.

In days of yore, this was something that former Harman Technology director Simon Galley said in response to questions about people considering buying the rolls of the Ilford Multigrade RC Express papers designed for machines.
This paper: https://www.ilfordphoto.com/multigrade-rc-express-pearl
As it says in the listing:
"The sensitivity of MULTIGRADE RC EXPRESS PF is optimised for very short exposures which ensures high printing throughput and delivers good print-to-print consistency. This robust paper is also easy to work with and suitable for all black & white negatives including chromogenic negatives, such as ILFORD XP2 SUPER."
I'm not saying that the reciprocity failure is fatal to good use. It often may, however, be something that has to be accounted for in situations where, with other papers, we can ignore it.

 

[koraks]

AFAIK when digital exposure equipment came along, the major problem that paper manufacturers had to solve was short exposure reciprocity failure. However, the fact that a paper is optimized for short exposures doesn't mean it automatically comes at the cost of longer exposures. Look at RA4 paper for instance; there's in practice no noticeable problem with LIRF when using that under a regular enlarger. I really doubt it's very much different for this kind of paper. I don't know what Galley said about it - did he provide any technical details?

 

[MattKing]

AFAIK when digital exposure equipment came along, the major problem that paper manufacturers had to solve was short exposure reciprocity failure. However, the fact that a paper is optimized for short exposures doesn't mean it automatically comes at the cost of longer exposures. Look at RA4 paper for instance; there's in practice no noticeable problem with LIRF when using that under a regular enlarger. I really doubt it's very much different for this kind of paper. I don't know what Galley said about it - did he provide any technical details?

I don't recall, other than it wasn't recommended because it was more difficult to use than the regular paper designed for enlarger use.
And of course, if you don't like how it performs, you've spent a lot of money on a lot of paper that you don't like!

 

[redbandit]

Ultrafine 3P Panchromatic Pinhole Paper - Traditional Black-and-White Photo Papers

Ultrafine BLACK AND WHITE PANCHROMATIC PHOTOGRAPHIC PAPER ON A RESIN COATED BASE FOR Pinhole Camera or Darkroom use Ultrafine 3 P is a premium quality black and white, panchromatic photographic paper that has a neutral image color. It is coated onto a bright white, medium weight (190g/m2), water...

www.ultrafineonline.com

going by the url for it, i would think it is the ilford product... cut to size. They show a 11x14 size that is out of stock..

Its NOT hard to do... have read about people who use their desk top monitor as the enlarger.

put their desired reversed image on screen, turn the screen saver settings to OFF.... turn the room lights off, turn the monitor off. Slap a piece of enlarging paper on it, turn the monitor on and off with the power switch.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks all for forwarding the discussion. It just seemed to me that if it is this Ilford stuff mentioned in the link that Ultrafine has cut into sheets and if it can be successfully exposed under an enlarger as Ultrafine is suggesting then we may need to change the response of: Only Panalure being a panchromatic paper was suitable for faithfully replicating all the colours in a colour negative as a b&w print but it is no longer produced

As you say Matt panchromatic is panchromatic so if we can use RA4 under a suitable safelight then presumably so can we use this Ilford paper and for those that can manage this in total darkness then it is definitely fine for them

The next question is : Has anyone tried printing this paper under an enlarger and if so what was their experience and if the answer is no-one then what might be the kind of exposure under an enlarger?

None of this may be news to some or most here on Photrio but it was news to me and given that redbandit has found a source for cut sheets then mentioning that as a resource for anyone wanting to use a new "Panalure" is welcome

pentaxuser

 

[ashcorra]

Hello.

The negatives were shot on a Pentax 645, on Kodak Portra 400, 120 film. If anyone is curious, however I don't think it's relavant.

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?

EDIT: I am sorry this was not Potra 400 I didn't mean to say that. It is Ilford Delta 400.

 

[redbandit]

why am i getting the idea the paper was upside down on the easel?

 

[MattKing]

EDIT: I am sorry this was not Potra 400 I didn't mean to say that. It is Ilford Delta 400.

That certainly changes things

 

[faberryman]

I tried some Panalure paper about 50 years ago to see if it worked. It did. Then it dawned on me that if I wanted a black and white print, I would be better off shooting black and white film and using regular black and white paper. So I gave the rest of the pack of Panalure paper to a friend. It is probably still in his darkroom somewhere.