Completely agree with Bill. Keep things simple while troubleshooting the situation. Then move on to calibration etc.
I'm going to back to some prints I made last year (well, 2011) that had better contrast. I rescanned two of them tonight (side by side) using my current workflow, to reduce or eliminate the scanning variable. (I placed the print I posted previously in the background for comparison.)
enlarger exposure: f/11 for 5 sec
paper: Ilford RC Pearl Gr. 2
developer: Ilford PQ 1+9 60 sec.
enlarger exposure: f/8 for 6 sec
filtration: Ilford multigrade #1 filter
paper: Ilford MG Pearl
developer: Ilford PQ 1+9 60 sec.
I made #1 first and decided it was too contrasty. For #2, I switched to MG paper and added a filter; I thought it looked better.
Both #1 and #2 were made on my Omega B600 condenser enlarger -- not on the Omega C760 with dichro head that I'm currently using.
I'm a little nervous about sending my negatives out, but to compare, I scanned them side by side. The top negative was made with the Olympus XA4, the bottom with the Yashica T5 with on-camera flash. Both are Kodak Tri-X 400 developed in D76 1:1 at 68F for 9:45.
(Thanks again everyone. Your patience and good advice prompted to me to renew my membership -- something I would have done anyway, but it's good to be reminded why this community is so valuable. Happy New Year to all...)
I get it, I once gave a prize-winning negative to a co-worker because he wanted an example to try to match, and I never got it back.
Frames 17 and 26 show sufficient density in the highlights. This tells me you developed the film enough. But the frames you printed are thin. I think it's the scene lighting (flat light in the first place). So the advice to develop longer... would apply... if you get into the same situation again with the same kind of dull light. Otherwise, it's OK to stick with your current developing plan.
Your print #1 looks pretty good to me. Since it was done on a Condenser enlarger, you would need to use a higher grade to get the same look from your C760.
For the next print experiments, don't be afraid to overshoot and give filtration for Grades 4 and 5. At least then you'll know you went too far.
It's not easy for me to judge the film you are using, as I'm not familiar with that version of Tri-X, but the frames in question seem a little underexposed, considering the other points mentioned earlier.
Congratulations on having a safe safelight—surprisingly, not a common feat.
Well, the negatives still look significantly underexposed to me. Hard to tell for sure if they need more development without more exposure first. While underexposure doesn't necessarily lead to your overall contrast issue, it's definitely not helping things!
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Right! Try shooting at EI 250 or 320 instead of 400, see if that helps things
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Thanks again. The negatives look a tad underexposed and/or underdeveloped to me too. But if we agree that the two frames under consideration (15 and 27) have roughly the same density, I'm confused as to why I was able to get a really contrast print on grade 2 paper (frame 27, print #1). I might have to pull the B600 out of the garage and hook it up again...
A condenser enlarger will gain about a grade in results. The Callier effect is named as the reason.
You don't need to go back to that enlarger... just go up a grade.
[QUOTE=bvy;1440727] But if we agree that the two frames under consideration (15 and 27) have roughly the same density, I'm confused as to why I was able to get a really contrast print on grade 2 paper (frame 27, print #1).
If you are referring to the two pictures of the boys then the more contrasty print was in fact grade 2 as the paper's natural grade is 2 without any filtration. On the other you have used a grade 1 filter which is why it is less contrasty and flat looking. I much prefer the non filtered print but I'd give a grade 1.5 a try as the unfiltered grade 2 might be just slightly too contrasty but we are getting into a very subjective area now
The original negative (15) looks thin from underexposure to me. You might try to intensify that negative. I believe the issue is in the negative.