Getting Blacks on Wet Prints

JeremyLangford

JeremyLangford

I'd really Leica Leica
Local time
3:41 AM
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
685
Location
Knoxville, TN
View My Gallery
Me and my classmates are having trouble getting good blacks and whites in our darkroom prints during our highschool B&W film photography class. I made a contact sheet on Ilford Multi-Grade paper with a #5 filter, Aperture wide open, for 5 seconds and all the frames had good contrast, and perfect blacks/whites. But after we try to enlarge a single negative with a stopped down aperture and longer times, we end up with a mostly gray print that has no true blacks. Where the blacks are supposed to be, there are just very dark grays.

Is this a common problem? I thought that the developer was simply going bad again, but today I made another contact sheet to test it, and the contact sheet still had perfect contrast/blacks/whites. Also, how do you choose what aperture to set the enlarger lens to normally?
 
You might need to use magenta filters to increase contrast if your prints look really flat. (I develop on a colour machine, so I'm not sure what the equivalent is with straight up B&W enlarger.)

When printing I usually start with f/8 and do a 3 second test strip, and the move from there.
 
Make sure that you're developing the print long enough, at least 90 seconds. If your darkroom is colder than 68 or 70 degrees you'll need to develop longer than that to assure getting a deep black. It also seeems that your negatives are too low contrast to begin with. This might be due to underexposure, or more likely under development.

When you make contact sheets or prints try to pick an f/stop that lets you expose in the 10 to 15 secod range. 3 is too short. It's too difficult to give a 10% increase of your exposure if you're using a 3 second exposure. With a 10 or 15 second exposure it's easy.
 
A widely used exposure for making contacts, as an exposure guide, is just enough light to make the film-base barely distinguishable (really only the smallest possible shade different) from the uncovered parts of the paper. And use Grade 2 as well.

For my setup, that is about 10 seconds at f8, with a grade two filter and the lens-stage height set to cover the 10x8 paper being used. If a contacted neg looks ok, then you can make a 10x8 work-print of it using the same exposure. If there are some obvious changes to make, then you can make them to get the first print - based on the always standardised contact-print exposure

To figure out what changes might need to happen relative to what you see on the contact-sheet, make a ringaround of prints varying in half-grades of contrast and (say) 1/4 stop of exposure over a range of plus and minus 1 1/2 stops. Put those on a board so you can refer to them constantly. That will give you a second guideline to work from, for the prints you make from the negs seen in the contact-sheet.

Handy to recall that if the light covers a 10x8 sheet it is over 80 sq inches. If the same neg covers a 5x7 then it is over 35 sq inches - or roughly one stop less exposure (as the enlarger bulb is the same for both sizes).

Basically this a quick-and-dirty way of approximating the inverse square law that relates the enlarger head height and the intensity of the light per unit area on the baseboard. And again, you can use the contact-sheet time/aperture to give a good starting point for the first work-print, based on whatever the ratio is between the 10x8 contacts and the paper size you are using to print.

Edit: And like the very, very competent Mr.Kaplan says above, don't pull the prints out too soon ! It should be pretty difficult to overdevelop if your print exposure is right, so go with the longest time suggested in the instructions of the specific developer.
 
Last edited:
JeremyLangford said:
Me and my classmates are having trouble getting good blacks and whites in our darkroom prints during our highschool B&W film photography class. I made a contact sheet on Ilford Multi-Grade paper with a #5 filter, Aperture wide open, for 5 seconds and all the frames had good contrast, and perfect blacks/whites. But after we try to enlarge a single negative with a stopped down aperture and longer times, we end up with a mostly gray print that has no true blacks. Where the blacks are supposed to be, there are just very dark grays.
Click to expand...

Contact sheets should not ever be made with a #5 filter. Your film should be exposed & developed so you get excellent contrast on a #2 filter contact print. As suggested above, use test strips, but get your film base to give you maximum black. You will loose contrast upon enlargement, so if you have sufficient contrast with a #2 on a contact sheet, an enlargement might require a #2.5 or #3 at most.

If you are overexposing or overdeveloping, you'll never get true blacks, but the properly made contact sheet will tell you that.
 
MartinP said:
A widely used exposure for making contacts, as an exposure guide, is just enough light to make the film-base barely distinguishable (really only the smallest possible shade different) from the uncovered parts of the paper. And use Grade 2 as well.

For my setup, that is about 10 seconds at f8, with a grade two filter and the lens-stage height set to cover the 10x8 paper being used. If a contacted neg looks ok, then you can make a 10x8 work-print of it using the same exposure. If there are some obvious changes to make, then you can make them to get the first print - based on the always standardised contact-print exposure

To figure out what changes might need to happen relative to what you see on the contact-sheet, make a ringaround of prints varying in half-grades of contrast and (say) 1/4 stop of exposure over a range of plus and minus 1 1/2 stops. Put those on a board so you can refer to them constantly. That will give you a second guideline to work from, for the prints you make from the negs seen in the contact-sheet.

Handy to recall that if the light covers a 10x8 sheet it is over 80 sq inches. If the same neg covers a 5x7 then it is over 35 sq inches - or roughly one stop less exposure (as the enlarger bulb is the same for both sizes).

Basically this a quick-and-dirty way of approximating the inverse square law that relates the enlarger head height and the intensity of the light per unit area on the baseboard. And again, you can use the contact-sheet time/aperture to give a good starting point for the first work-print, based on whatever the ratio is between the 10x8 contacts and the paper size you are using to print.

Edit: And like the very, very competent Mr.Kaplan says above, don't pull the prints out too soon ! It should be pretty difficult to overdevelop if your print exposure is right, so go with the longest time suggested in the instructions of the specific developer.
Click to expand...

This is going to really help me. I am printing to 8x10 so I can easily keep my enlarger height the same as it was for the contact sheet and figure out the correct exposure/filter based on the contact sheet results. I will also keep in mind not to ever underdevelop. Right now I always develop for 90 seconds.

What is the reasoning behind trying to stop down the enlarger aperture as much as possible for the best results. I know that with a camera, f/8 and f/5.6 are supposed to be sharpest and provide broad depth of fields but the depth of field doesn't matter when enlarging does it?
 
Closing down the enlarger lens more than two or three stops will potentially reduce quality due to diffraction effects (light fringes from around the edge of the opening of the diaphragm, you can look it up) but the same actually goes for most camera lenses too. A couple of stops down is often the most effective balance of qualities, if there is no particular reason to choose a different stop of course. Also, it is unlikely that the paper is perfectly flat, or that the enlarger is lined up perfectly, so a slightly increased depth of focus is actually useful.

The main printing benefit from a reduced aperture is a longer exposure time, which enables you to improve exposure accuracy and repeatability (1/2 second error is less % at 15 secs compared to 5 secs) and allows a lot more flexibility for holding back light off parts of the print, or for burning in other areas, for a practical amount of time.

Your namesake has written the standard textbook for photography students in the UK - but I guess you know that. It is worth reading both the Basic and Advanced editions, probably available from the library. Lots of useful details in there that can't easily be covered in a forum.
 
MartinP said:
Your namesake has written the standard textbook for photography students in the UK - but I guess you know that. It is worth reading both the Basic and Advanced editions, probably available from the library. Lots of useful details in there that can't easily be covered in a forum.
Click to expand...

I am assuming you are referring to Michael Langford. I actually have an uncle named Michael Langford but none of my family is interested in photography whatsoever except for my dad and his dSLR.
 
Well done for knowing which Langford I was thinking of ! I would have a hard time coming up with any well known people with my name . . .

And they are really very useful references, those books 🙂
 
try diluting your developer less. i went from 1+9 to 1+4 with ilford multigrade developer and that made a huge difference in contrast. you should be able to get deep blacks and pure whites with a #5 filter, then burn in some highlight details and midtones with a lower grade contrast filter.
 
Al Kaplan said:
When you makeprints try to pick an f/stop that lets you expose in the 10 to 15 secod range. 3 is too short. It's too difficult to give a 10% increase of your exposure if you're using a 3 second exposure. With a 10 or 15 second exposure it's easy.
Click to expand...

I've only made 6 prints, but I'm wondering about this... My contact sheets usually take ~6-8 seconds to achieve a proper blackness, but prints usually take about half that time.

I typically stop down the enlarger lens to f/11... if I go any farther, the image won't be sharp enough.

Does it make a difference that I am using a 75mm enlarger lens for 35mm shots?
 
If you are making a contact sheet with #5 filter, the print needs to be made with a 4 with a condenser enlarger, #5 with a diffusion.

If you require a #5 to make a decent contact, something is wrong. The negative may be under developed which would be my first guess. Many causes for this.

Make your contact at the same height as an 8x10 print. The time and aperture will be close to what you need for the print. Contrast explained in paragraph one.

The print should be made at a time and stop to give detail in the darkest tones regardless of how the whites turn out. If the whites are grey, then the neg needs more contrast, ie more development. If the whites are featureless and have no detail, cut back development time. This should be done with no filter or #2 filter.

The basic rule is to expose to get proper detail in the dark tones, develope to get the whites correct.

All this supposed fresh film and paper developers and fresh non fogged paper. If the materials are not correct as they may well be in a community darkroom, you have no hope because you can`t figure what is wrong.
 
Using a 75mm lens should only be a problem if you can't get a large enough print with it. A lot of times I don't bother putting on a 50mm lens if I'm only printing a few 35mm negatives. It saves time to not have to make the lens swap.

If you're prints aren't sharp enough at small f-stops that's due to diffraction. A qualty lens, though, should still be giving you enough sharpness for an 11x14 print even at f/16. What lens are you using?

Here's another consideration: When I was a young poor student I bought a cheap 75/3.5 Spiratone lens. 48 years later I still have it and use it. Years later I bought an 80mm f/5.6 Componon, expensive and state of the art at the time! What I've discovered is that with the slower speed films, such as Ilford FP4 and Kodak Plus-X, the Componon will clearly resolve the grain on an 11x14 print. The Spiratone won't, it just gives you nice smooth tones. For some subjects, such as portraits, I use the cheap lens. After spending half an hour getting her make-up just right a girl doesn't like to see grainy cheeks. For landscapes, buildings, etc, the Componon gets used
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
What lens are you using?
Click to expand...

not sure if you are referring to the enlarger lens, or the lens on my camera. Don't know about the enlarger lens, but the Yashinon on my Electro 35 produces images this sharp (scanned from the lab development).

image.php
 
I'm referring to the enlarger lens. The camera lens doesn't resolve the grain on the print. The enlarger lens choice can make a big difference. Whether it's an ancient uncoated lens, older single coated or modern multi-layer coated has a big effect on contrast. The older lenses have a bit less contrast.
 
Last edited:
I'm referring to the enlarger lens. The camera lens doesn't resolve the grain on the print. The enlarger lens choice can make a big difference. Whether it's an ancient uncoated lens, older single coated or modern multi-layer coated has a big effect on contrast. The older lense have a bit lenses contrast.

The type of coating on the taking lens can have the same effect on contrast. Shooting with an uncoated lens folloewed by printing with one might reduce your contrast by a full paper grade.

Also make sure that your enlarger lens is clean, no fingerprints on the front, and on the back side, if it's been on the enlarger for years, it probably has a nice layer of dust on it.
 
post some examples- will make giving you direction much easier.

Proofsheet should be made with no filter or a 2 or 2 1/2 filter.

Expose the proofsheet long enough to make the film base (sprocket holes) barely visible.

Proofsheet should be developed for 1 minute to 90 seconds- but be consistent.

If a proofsheet at grade 2 has no black and no white then mix some fresh developer- you should have both, and must have black to properly evaluate your film exposure & development.

Sounds like either gross under-exposure or under-development (or both) of the film, and/or exhausted or incorrectly mixed paper developer.

This is regular B&W film, not chromogenic (on the orange base)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom