First Prints - Troubleshooting

[Alpacaman]

I did some printing for the first time last night, and I am disappointed with my results. I have attached a poor quality scan (multifunction office flatbed FTW) so you can see what I mean. It is a print from one of my father's negatives from his time in Iraq. It is all blotchy, as you can see. Why is this? How can it be fixed? It was not part of the negative.

As far as the contrast etc. is concerned, does anyone have any advice? I am planning to print it again with quite a bit more contrast.

Also, is that reticulation in there?

 

[gns]

Did you make more than 1 print of this neg?
Did you print any other negs?

Gary

 

[Alpacaman]

I made more than one print of this, and they all had the fogginess, but it was in different places. I didn't try any other ones last night, it might be worth a shot tonight.

 

[gns]

If the pattern remained constant, but could not be seen in the neg itself, I would have said look at the enlarger.
Since it varies with each print, you can probably narrow it to paper or developer.
Try a different batch of paper, then developer.
The print also looks very flat. Nothing even nearing black (but this could be the scan, too). How long did you develop this?

 

[tlitody]

I hope your fingers haven't got fixer on them and you are using them to push prints around. Chemicals get into skin pores and will mark subsequent prints.

Also thoroughly mix chemicals in tray before using them.

 

[tlitody]

If you are using glass neg carrier make sure it is very clean and also lens should be clean.

 

[tlitody]

reticulation is very rare and is usually seen in negs when putting into very cold water from much warmer water. Highly unlikely you could induce reticulation in a print even if you were trying.

 

[Alpacaman]

I hope your fingers haven't got fixer on them and you are using them to push prints around. Chemicals get into skin pores and will mark subsequent prints.

Also thoroughly mix chemicals in tray before using them.

I was careful to only touch the edges of the paper, so I don't think that is a problem. I did mix the chemicals, but as far as trays are concerned I was using a Paterson Orbital.

Try a different batch of paper, then developer.
The print also looks very flat. Nothing even nearing black (but this could be the scan, too). How long did you develop this?

I will try new paper tonight, that sounds like it should work. It was developed for 60 seconds @ 20 degrees with PQ universal. So, what it says on the bottle. Is that long enough?

reticulation is very rare and is usually seen in negs when putting into very cold water from much warmer water. Highly unlikely you could induce reticulation in a print even if you were trying.

Okay, that makes sense. What is that constant(ish) grid-like spotty pattern then? The grain of the paper and the negative look a lot smaller than that, and it doesn't appear in the neg, so I have no idea what it is.



Thanks for the help!

 

[shadowfox]

You have to give us more information.
What kind of paper (graded? variable contrast?),
what f-stop did you use?
what filter grade (if any)?

Unless you use f/64 or smaller, 60 seconds exposure is uncommonly long. A negative with typical contrast would have printed almost black.

I'd say check the expiration of the developer.

And finally, to be extra sure, scan the negative. If you see clear and nice image, then you know for sure that it's the developer.

 

[Alpacaman]

Okay, it was Kodak Polymax II RC at grade 3, and f/8. I didn't expose it for 60 seconds, I developed it for 60 seconds. That is what it said on the bottle, but I have since looked at the Ilford website, and it says 2 minutes there. I might try that, and he exposure was around 5 seconds. The developer is new, so it should be good.

The paper is not new, however, and I currently think that is where the problem lies.

And on a slightly related note: has anyone here used Universal PQ to develop 35mm film? How did it turn out?

 

[tlitody]

developing film in print developer will usually turn out with grain the size of golf balls.

 

[tlitody]

if that printing was for the first time was there a possibility of the paterson not being clean as it could have contained contamination from whatever was in there last time it was used. But I expect it is the old paper causing a problem. Old paper loses contrast.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Develop for longer. Development to completion (2-3 minutes) is essential for maximum black and even development. Agitate well, too: a ripple of dev across the paper every 20 seconds at least.

Reticulation is usally MUCH smaller and would not be visible at the size you posted.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MartinP]

I'd regretfully suggest that the paper belongs in a museum. You can certainly try to develop for the full time, as that will improve the density a bit, but Kodak b+w paper hasn't been made for half a decade (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g26/g26.pdf). EDIT: It does look like a print which has been pulled out of the developer too soon, so if you are lucky full development might improve things a lot.

Having said that, a quick search shows that some stockists still have it in their web-shops ! With dev-incorporated paper, like this, the results might be very heavily dependent on the storage conditions.

It may be possible to try to replace your pack from the shop/store which sold it, as the age suggests it cannot give optimal results. Needless to say, any other paper from the same stockist might have similar storage problems, but at least a current paper might be newer.

 

[Alpacaman]

Thanks for the replies! I tried again, this time using some brand new Ilford paper with a longer development time, and it turned out quite well, which makes me happy 😀 My first marginally satisfactory print 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd regretfully suggest that the paper belongs in a museum. You can certainly try to develop for the full time, as that will improve the density a bit, but Kodak b+w paper hasn't been made for half a decade (http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g26/g26.pdf). EDIT: It does look like a print which has been pulled out of the developer too soon, so if you are lucky full development might improve things a lot.

Having said that, a quick search shows that some stockists still have it in their web-shops ! With dev-incorporated paper, like this, the results might be very heavily dependent on the storage conditions.

It may be possible to try to replace your pack from the shop/store which sold it, as the age suggests it cannot give optimal results. Needless to say, any other paper from the same stockist might have similar storage problems, but at least a current paper might be newer.

Dear Martin,

Indeed.

To quote an ex-Ilford man, "Kodak were much cleverer than we were. After the use-by date, their materials go off MUCH faster."

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Looks like bad paper to me. Get some fresh Ilford or Kentmere paper. If the negative has good contrast a typical grade 2-3 8x10 will print around 10s. 2 minutes in Dektol and you should good be golden.

 

[MartinP]

Glad to hear that fresh paper worked much better !

When I Googled for the discontinuation-date of Polymax I was really surprised to get hits from places still selling it. This was the stuff (or maybe that was the previous version?) that I had to print on for normal print runs when it was my job, more than twenty years ago. I have to say that it was never one of Kodak's best products even when new...