Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,330   Online: 871
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,173
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    It's either the paper or the safelight. Do a safelight test, then ditch either the paper or the safelight.
    If they're getting beautiful prints on Seagull and lousy ones on Ilford, how can it be the safelight which is at fault?

  2. #12
    DieHipsterDie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Claire Senft
    No, a 4+5 does not equal nine in this application. If you need contrast higher than provided by a number 5 then you need to develop your film much more.

    Retry your Ilford paper with just a number 5. Any difference?
    I honestly didn't see much difference between 1 and 5.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242
    There should be a GREAT deal of difference between a number 1 and a number 5. I would contact the store that you purchased the paper from. It may have been sitting on their shelves for ages.
    Claire (Ms Anne Thrope is in the darkroom)

  4. #14
    Marc Leest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Hasselt, Belgium
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,267
    Images
    12
    Do your workflow without safelight - completely dark.
    Check if the red masking filter of the enlarger is not in your path of light.
    Sounds if you paper is possibly chemically fogged
    M.
    We cannot change how the cards are dealt, just how to play the hand...
    Randy Pausch

  5. #15
    rwyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    If they're getting beautiful prints on Seagull and lousy ones on Ilford, how can it be the safelight which is at fault?
    Didn't say which Seagull. If it is old, graded stuff it would probably be OK with a strong RED safelight. But "modern" VC emulsions don't always like RED safelights, better with the weakest possible OC/amber.

    But at this point is seems the paper is either upsidedown in the easel or fogged (chemically or "oops, I opened the bag").

  6. #16
    raucousimages's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Salt Lake
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    825
    The way I test paper is to cut it into thirds in total darkness.

    #1 goes into fixer to let me see the tone of unexposed paper
    #2 develop for 2 min. then fix to see if foged
    #3 develop with lights on to see max black
    DIGITAL IS FOR THOSE AFRAID OF THE DARK.

  7. #17
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    If they're getting beautiful prints on Seagull and lousy ones on Ilford, how can it be the safelight which is at fault?
    Papers can have very different spectral sensitivity even if they're of the same "type". The same safelight can be fine with one paper and fog another. It's not a fault of the paper, but a mismatch of paper and safelight.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  8. #18
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Red will generally be safer than amber - certainly MGIV is more sensitive to amber than to red. Graded paper usually rolls off it's sensitivity to light earlier than VC paper, so a safelight that is safe for a graded paper will not necessarily be safe for a VC paper, or indeed another graded paper with a different sensitivity curve.

    Do as others suggested and process part of an unexposed sheet of paper in complete darkness (or shade the safelight so there is just enough light to avoid bumping into the furniture, but no more) and develop another piece after exposing it to the room lights. Do the same to some of the Oriental at the same time for a comparison. If the Oriental sheets are white and black as they should be, and either or both of the MGIV are grey then there is obviously a problem with the MGIV, so take it back.

    Good luck, Bob.

  9. #19
    rwyoung's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob F.
    Red will generally be safer than amber - certainly MGIV is more sensitive to amber than to red.
    Good luck, Bob.
    OK, I had a feeling I said that backwards. Anyway, you get the idea. Not all safelights work with all papers.

    Isn't this fun! :-)

  10. #20
    DieHipsterDie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    73
    I found the problem. It is the (drum roll please) SAFELIGHT!!!

    In total darkness I exposed and developed a sheet of the Ilford and it looked great. No grey borders and nice highlights.

    Now how do I fix this? I'm using an amber light. Do I need to go with red?

    Thanks for all your answers.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin