My test prints are so-o-o dark!
First, thanks to everyone for helping me along so far in my first printing endeavors...
I've printed a few negs with good contrast successfully at grades 3-3.5 (dual filtration dichroic head), at f11 for 6-7 sec with my head on the LOW light setting. I'm printing small enlargements from 6x7 negs on 5x7 Ilford VC RC Satin paper.
When making my test strips today for a flat negative, I tried using f16 to lengthen my exposure times and print a test strip from 2-10 seconds with grade 0. (I was entertaining the idea of trying some sort of split grade method). The test strips were almost all black. Tried grade 1, very dark and muddy, basically unusable.
I kept experimenting (mindlessly, I might add) and using my instincts just to see what would happen. I got a decent print but still very middling contrast by exposing 2 sec at grade 3.5 and 4 sec at gr 5 all at f16.
Now, regardless of my lame methods and results, I am still wondering about these exposure times. I mean, to get into the 10-20sec range I'd have to stop down to f22...and I'm already set to LOW light on my head.
What am I doing wrong?
PS...paper and chems are all fresh, just bought and mixed fresh at the session. Temps for all chems were fine as well...
Using too short a focal length lens. I use a 105mm
Originally Posted by PVia
for same size negatives. For those small prints use
as long a lens as your enlarger will take.
What lens are you now using? Dan
The small enlargements are part of it but unless the negatives are really thin I wouldn't expect times that short. So my guess is negatives are thin. Which enlarger is this?
If the head can accept sheet filters you could try placing some ND filter material in there.
I don't think you are doing anything wrong, I would expect to have to stop down to f22 or f32 to make a 5x7 print. Why do you consider that be a problem?
I agree with a previous post suggesting that your negatives might be too thin. Maybe it's time to start thinking about whether you're giving the negative sufficient exposure, your negative development, and the density of the negatives.
Looking at the negatives in front of a light, you should be able to see good details in most of the shadows (very small if any areas of negative that are as transparent as the unexposed film edge), and the dark areas of the negative should almost completely obscure print if you lay it on a book or newspaper.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Having not printed in the previous twenty or so years, I was surprised by the rather short exposures I came up with on my first recent session. Part of it may be due to having used a rather crude homemade enlarger in the past. But also, a 5x5 inch or so test print is only a 2.5x or so enlargement from a 6x6 frame (much earlier work was 35mm). I finally splurged on a 2-stop ND filter which works out pretty nicely. And it fits my 50, 80 and 105 Nikkors, so I'm covered. I find it vaguely handy that an 11x11 print with the ND filter off is right in the ballpark exposure-wise with a 5x5 print and filter on (not 100%, but a good first cut).
A 5x7" print from a 6x7cm negative is not a lot of enlargement and short times at small apertures are to be expected (though under 2 seconds is a bit short!). Stop down to whatever your lens will allow - why not? Some will argue about diffraction but frankly, if you can't see it, it's not there as far as I am concerned - so try it and see.
It may be that your negative is very thin - you say it is flat so it could well be that it is simply badly overexposed in which case it is never likely to make a decent print so forget it and move on. Trying to produce a silk purse from a sow's ear is an exercise in frustration (believe me, this is a subject I know about )and your efforts are probably better spent on getting a good print from a good negative.
BTW, changing grade will not effect times much - and there is no point in doing so even if it does. As a general principle you find the best exposure time to get good highlight detail and bright whites where appropriate and then choose the grade to get good shadow detail and a good solid black (again, where appropriate). This is the mantra: "expose for the highlights, grade for the shadows". It does not apply in all cases, but will get you in the ball-park 90% or more of the time.
Have fun, Bob.
if your negs are flat you would be better using a much higher filter than a grade 0 maybe like a 4 or 5 even.
stop down way past f/16 make a test strip see where it goes.
I'd go with the advice from DWThomas and Bob F. If your negative is thin, then you won't get a good print from it. If your negative is not thin, then you should invest in a neutral density (ND) filter for your enlarger. Trying to adjust the exposure time by playing with contrast won't get good results. (A partial exception: If you've got a color enlarger with color filtration dials, you can try adding significant amounts of both magenta and yellow filtration. This will have the same effect as adding ND filtration.)
More generally, I don't know if today's B&W enlarging papers are significantly faster than those of a decade or two ago, but I'm pretty sure that color papers are faster than they used to be. When I print in color, particularly at sizes smaller than 8x10, I routinely have to add significant amounts of cyan, magenta, and yellow filtration to get reasonable exposure times. If B&W papers are faster than they used to be, then it wouldn't surprise me if you'd need to use the same trick. (Cyan filtration will have no effect on most B&W papers, though.)
Oh, one other idea: Try opening your enlarger, checking the bulb, and seeing what the manual says about bulbs. If you bought the enlarger secondhand, it's possible that the previous owner stuck a too-bright bulb in it. Swapping out that bulb for the recommended one would probably help. Even if the bulb is the recommended one, using a lower-wattage bulb would presumably increase the exposure times.
Dan, the lens is an 80mm Componon-S...
Dave, I just always thought that it wasn't that great to have the lens stopped down that much...
All, the neg is on the thin side but not anywhere near my nearly clear ones that are super low light and pushed...although there isn't a really dark or light on it...
Bob...your silk purse from sow's ear is probably a good suggestion, just to move on...
I guess I'll try another lens, the next size up I have is 135mm, but most likely I'd have to make the best print I can and then do some d&b and possibly a little toning or bleaching depending on the final print result...
I remember Jean Loupp Sieff saying his negs were so thin you could barely see anything on them, and yet his prints were so wonderful and full of atmosphere...
Thank you all so much for all the advice and comments. It it so appreciated by this fledgling printer. I will say that it is so much fun to actually print this way and to learn, as opposed to the "other" thing I was doing with my negs... ;-) It's so addictive to be in the darkroom...