Pot Bromide 10%

[RPippin]

Thanks, I checked and i'm using the same R40 flood, Canadian G2, and about 40" above the table, so it must be an issue with the developer. My negs are also a bit thin, so I'm going to try some 4X5 negs that are a bit more contrasty. Although I've not shot with Super XX or TMY, I do have some negs from FP4 that I developed in HC110. Lately I've been using WD2D+, so my negs look a bit thinner than with other developers. I use a digital timer and set it for however many seconds I get after doing a strip test. I'll keep at it with the advice I'm getting till I get it right.

[DanielStone]

try a LOWER WATTAGE BULB.

I've found a 30w to be a good alternative

-Dan

[c6h6o3]

try a LOWER WATTAGE BULB.

I've found a 30w to be a good alternative

-Dan

For Azo or Lodima?

[c6h6o3]

so it must be an issue with the developer.

I doubt it. It sounds like your negatives are too thin.

My negs are also a bit thin, so I'm going to try some 4X5 negs that are a bit more contrasty.

Don't confuse contrast with overall density. My negatives have less contrast than most, not more, because I place my shadows on Zone IV. I expose more and develop less to compress the scale from the bottom up. You need density, not just contrast. I also think that a staining developer helps. Pyrocat HD is a great one. So is ABC pyro.

[DanielStone]

mostly for enlarging papers, since that's what I can afford right now. Set about 36" above the contact frame, and with a sheet of white bedsheet as a diffuser material under the bulb(clamp-light from wal-mart, $7)

haven't used azo or lodima yet, but I've read that Lodima is faster in amidol than Azo, canadian or other runs

-Dan

[c6h6o3]

mostly for enlarging papers

If you haven't used Azo or Lodima yet, what do you mean by 'mostly'? To my knowledge they and the new Fomalux are the only contact speed papers around.

From the Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide, 1988: The ISO paper speed of both Kodabromide and Elite Fine-Art enlarging papers was 320 at grade 2. Grade 2 Azo has an ISO paper speed of 4. That's more than 6 stops difference. I don't think a 30 watt bulb will quite cut it for a silver chloride contact speed paper, which is what RPippin is using.

Azo was invented at the turn of the 20th Century. You want an old fashioned, plain incandescent bulb. It doesn't do well with modern UV-accentuated bulbs such as the ones they make for illuminating indoor gardens to accelerate plant growth. The frequency spectrum of your bulb is more important than the wattage.

[RPippin]

Thanks c6h6o3, I do have some 4X5 negs that have the density you speak of, so I'll try them out. There seems to be very divergent ideas about lights, which adds to my overall confusion. The light I use is one that was recommended by other photogs that do contact printing, yet I get a lot of advice to use regular incandescent bulbs. That seems to fit with the logic of what was available back in Westons day, I just don't know. Like most problem solving it could be one of the elements, exposure, developer, or negative, or a small combination of each. I need to narrow it down by getting rid of one of these as the cause so I'm not wasting time chasing down the wrong path. Your comments are very helpful and much appreciated. Thanks again.

[Sal Santamaura]

...You need density, not just contrast...

Jim, I'm curious about this. Other than resulting in longer print exposure times, why would a denser negative, assuming the less dense one it's compared to already has shadows high enough to be off the toe, make any difference?

I have many thousand sheets of Azo stockpiled. When I print on them using a 40-watt bulb in a 10-inch Smith Victor reflector with attached diffuser (18 inches above the frame), using negatives developed in non-staining developers, my times are around 20 - 25 seconds. I can't see any visual difference in prints made from negatives that were accidentally overexposed even further.

Thanks in advance.

[clayne]

Jim, I'm curious about this. Other than resulting in longer print exposure times, why would a denser negative, assuming the less dense one it's compared to already has shadows high enough to be off the toe, make any difference?

He might be wanting to compress highlights and then expand them at the printing phase.

[Sal Santamaura]

He might be wanting to compress highlights and then expand them at the printing phase.

I don't think so. Jim shoots TMY (perhaps now TMY-2), so he's probably got lots of straight line curve for highlights regardless of increasing his exposure. Jim?