Pherdinand
the snow must go on
On a more serious note: I dont know your LPL version, but i also have LPL, one with a color head and the filter wheel lamps leak light like mad. I had to cover the green lamp especially, with red foil othjerwise during a 10-15 sec exposure the paper got fogged (non-uniformly).
You can test this easily with a paper in the enlarger on for the correct exposure time but with the projected image blocked. The paper should stay unexposed bright white.
You can test this easily with a paper in the enlarger on for the correct exposure time but with the projected image blocked. The paper should stay unexposed bright white.
bence8810
Well-known
flat is good, right? Mine are always curled
Good one
Thanks for the tip, I'll try the paper trick. Just leave the lens cap on and go or block light with my hand?
My exposure was set at 1sec so I don't believe I could have gotten fogged that quick.
I got another tip from a friend to find out if my developer isn't contaminated by anything falling into it while I was warming the water up for mixing etc. just drop a light exposed paper in and see if it gets pitch black once developed.
Ben
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Good one
Thanks for the tip, I'll try the paper trick. Just leave the lens cap on and go or block light with my hand?
My exposure was set at 1sec so I don't believe I could have gotten fogged that quick.
I got another tip from a friend to find out if my developer isn't contaminated by anything falling into it while I was warming the water up for mixing etc. just drop a light exposed paper in and see if it gets pitch black once developed.
Ben
you're right, in 1s chance is low that you get it fogged.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
One second exposure? I'm not the expert, but to me it will be simply impossible to get correct exposure. And 1 sec exposure with f16... Something is wrong here.
x-ray
Veteran
I don't know that the LPL take regular enlarging lamps. I think they're hallogen.
A filter isn't going to make any more difference than if it's on his camera. At this point we just want him to make a properly exposed print then deal with other issues later. Until he has a good bit of experience he's not going to be worrying about museum quality prints.
Your developer is fine. Everyone wants to blame equipment, chemicals and paper when it's just a lack of experience.
DominikDUK
Well-known
X-ray he should also be able to get 75W halogens but the link he posted looks like a classic opal bulb. As for the filter I agree it doesn't matter all that much but the filter should be off good quality.
Many People buy the most expensive camera lens they can get and use a 3 element enlarging lens and wonder why there Images aren't as sharp as those made with a 6 element lens. The enlarging lens is as important as the camera lens also the way the image degrades is not identical as on a camera with filter.
Many People buy the most expensive camera lens they can get and use a 3 element enlarging lens and wonder why there Images aren't as sharp as those made with a 6 element lens. The enlarging lens is as important as the camera lens also the way the image degrades is not identical as on a camera with filter.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Are you sure the aperture on your enlarger lens works fine?
x-ray
Veteran
I didn't read back far enough. This is good. By the way this is the enlarging lamp not the lens.
Go to a hardware store and buy a dimmer. You can buy one built into a short extension cord. Dim the bulb until you get a proper exposure for 10-15 seconds at F8. I had to do that on my Durst 5x7 enlarger for 11x14 prints even.
Use the developer and paper you have until you do this. It's not your paper or developer. You did everything correct mixing it and it sounds like the color of it is correct. Developer isn't easy to contaminate so relax. You're getting some off the wall suggestions so relax and use what you have for now.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
The one on the right looks good
The one on the left sems to be overexposed. Stop the lens down and try to get your times in the 10s range as it is easily manageable.
I do not know if you can get your hands on and enlarger meter ? I use the Ilford EM10
The one on the left sems to be overexposed. Stop the lens down and try to get your times in the 10s range as it is easily manageable.
I do not know if you can get your hands on and enlarger meter ? I use the Ilford EM10
Dwig
Well-known
A note about fogging:
Since the borders on the "bad" print are reasonably white there is absolutely no chance that there was any significant fogging occuring at any time other than possibly during the actual exposure. The safelight and the paper's condition are not suspects to any significant degree.
If it's a fogging issue, the enlarger's light is the source. light leaking out at the carrier and reflecting off of an overly close white wall or operator's white shirt are possible sources. Also, severely damaged bellows can be a source. I've also seen situations where the lens board had a red plastic rod designed to pipe light onto the lens' f/stop ring that was missing thus leaving a large hole.
Still, I think it is a developer and/or exposure issue.
Since the borders on the "bad" print are reasonably white there is absolutely no chance that there was any significant fogging occuring at any time other than possibly during the actual exposure. The safelight and the paper's condition are not suspects to any significant degree.
If it's a fogging issue, the enlarger's light is the source. light leaking out at the carrier and reflecting off of an overly close white wall or operator's white shirt are possible sources. Also, severely damaged bellows can be a source. I've also seen situations where the lens board had a red plastic rod designed to pipe light onto the lens' f/stop ring that was missing thus leaving a large hole.
Still, I think it is a developer and/or exposure issue.
x-ray
Veteran
This is not developer. In the hundred thousand + prints I've made over my career I've never seen muddy prints like this from developer unless the developer was completely exhausted then they are just flat. Read back and see that the developer was freshly mixed and was clear not tea colored. Also his enlarger is new out of the box.
Why does everyone blame equipment and supplies? The paper would have to be extremely old to be fogged to any degree. The developer would have to be severely oxidized and look like tea to give this kind of result.This person has made very few print in his life and has very little idea where to start. Could this be the problem? My guess is this is the problem and I'm honestly not sure many of the people giving advice have much more experience. This is simply over exposure and under development. He may need to bump up contrast with a filter or higher grade pf paper but get a correct exposure first and properly developed before messing with contrast. One thing at a time.
I'm not trying to be rude but a lot of this advice only serves to confuse someone more that is already confused.
x-ray
Veteran
Your print also indicates POSSIBLY a thin, underexposed, negative. I's not the same negative as the one the lab printed. Does it look the same density? Try printing the neg the lab printed. This way you have a standard print to match. You may have an under exposed neg to complicate things.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Yes it's an overexposed print on that most People pretty much agreed on since the beginning of the thread. The Equipment answers were sometimes more related to the op believe that his tools are limited in their capabilities. New paper can be fogged as well if a small amount of light hit the paper at any development stage prior to complete fixing which is quiet clearly not the case here. I agree with you the op should first learn how to walk before he starts to run.
Drago
Established
Fogged paper ? No, i have print on years old paper without problem. It's overexposed like most suggest. I wouldn't bother with such developers though - just get liquid concentrate. It's easier to work with, but don't throw away what you have right now - keep experiment. And check what paper do you have - everyone has guidlines for the time you have to develop it - mostly 1-2 mins. Yours look like it went black in the first secs ( that's called overexposed )
Dwig
Well-known
Developer can be weak as a result of improper mixing without it turning dark, either from mixing powders at too low a temp or by excessive dilution. Such weak developer will act much like exhausted developer. It will produce flat weak images with normal exposure but if you overexpose in an attempt to get decent density you get results similar to the OP's "bad" print. Classic test strip methods for getting the blacks correct will lead to such overexposure under these conditions. As others have noted, the two are not from the same negative and that may be a factor in the equation.
Also, "new out of the box" doesn't guarantee proper function. Things could be assembled incorrectly.
rlouzan
Well-known
The print is way overexposed.
The LPL 3301D is a condenser enlarger, and the pro lab is probably using a diffuser enlarger. . To diffuse your enlarger head and increase exposure time, use a piece of Milky White Plexiglass 1/8th inch.
The LPL 3301D is a condenser enlarger, and the pro lab is probably using a diffuser enlarger. . To diffuse your enlarger head and increase exposure time, use a piece of Milky White Plexiglass 1/8th inch.
bence8810
Well-known
Hello all,
Lots of responses overnight, thanks for all your suggestions.
The pro-lab print was also printed by myself, I think I can get away with a simple print as i have managed about 10 already at the lab.
The problem is I've introduced a lot of new variables, new paper / new enlarger / new developer etc and I have not the experience to tell what's wrong.
Tonight I'll sit in the dark and try to test a few things. According to what was suggested, this is what I'll do:
1. Take a negative that I've successfully printed back in the lab. I have the notes with all the exposure / aperture values and will use the same size paper from the Lab, so I would get longer expo times. The paper I used in the lab was 8x10.
2. I will develop it for 90-120 seconds and won't pull it early.
3. And even before all of this, I will just cut a piece of paper in my darkbag and drop into the developer after exposing it to room-light to see if it turns black in the developer.
To recap on my first and failed attempt, let me explain again what I've done this far.
I went to the dark and adjusted the projected image to the desired size and set the focus using a loupe (or whatever that is called) by finding the grain on the negative. I did put a piece of paper under the loupe to have the right height. I then turned the aperture from f3.5 all the way to f11 and saw the light getting dimmer and dimmer at every stop I turned. Once ready, i turned off the enlarger, moved the red filter in front of the lens and removed the paper from the box. Added the paper on top of my easel and turned the enlarger on at f11 with the red filter blocking light. I made sure the projection was on target, turned off enlarger, moved red filter out of the way and then turned on the enlarger for 1 second. Once done, I dropped the paper into the developer - moved it around for 2 minutes, then stop for a minute and then fixed for 2 minutes.
Above you saw the result, and this is why i started this thread. Again, both the good and the bad prints were made by me.
I will post back once I got my results tonight.
Thanks a lot once again for the pointers.
Ben
Lots of responses overnight, thanks for all your suggestions.
The pro-lab print was also printed by myself, I think I can get away with a simple print as i have managed about 10 already at the lab.
The problem is I've introduced a lot of new variables, new paper / new enlarger / new developer etc and I have not the experience to tell what's wrong.
Tonight I'll sit in the dark and try to test a few things. According to what was suggested, this is what I'll do:
1. Take a negative that I've successfully printed back in the lab. I have the notes with all the exposure / aperture values and will use the same size paper from the Lab, so I would get longer expo times. The paper I used in the lab was 8x10.
2. I will develop it for 90-120 seconds and won't pull it early.
3. And even before all of this, I will just cut a piece of paper in my darkbag and drop into the developer after exposing it to room-light to see if it turns black in the developer.
To recap on my first and failed attempt, let me explain again what I've done this far.
I went to the dark and adjusted the projected image to the desired size and set the focus using a loupe (or whatever that is called) by finding the grain on the negative. I did put a piece of paper under the loupe to have the right height. I then turned the aperture from f3.5 all the way to f11 and saw the light getting dimmer and dimmer at every stop I turned. Once ready, i turned off the enlarger, moved the red filter in front of the lens and removed the paper from the box. Added the paper on top of my easel and turned the enlarger on at f11 with the red filter blocking light. I made sure the projection was on target, turned off enlarger, moved red filter out of the way and then turned on the enlarger for 1 second. Once done, I dropped the paper into the developer - moved it around for 2 minutes, then stop for a minute and then fixed for 2 minutes.
Above you saw the result, and this is why i started this thread. Again, both the good and the bad prints were made by me.
I will post back once I got my results tonight.
Thanks a lot once again for the pointers.
Ben
x-ray
Veteran
If you used a different kind of paper before your notes will not be valid. Different brands and grades of paper have different printing speeds.
It appears you need about a half to a stop less exposure. It's hard to tell because I don't know how long you developed the print. Again 1 second is WAY too short.
It appears you need about a half to a stop less exposure. It's hard to tell because I don't know how long you developed the print. Again 1 second is WAY too short.
bence8810
Well-known
I'll do some experiments tonight and get back.
1 know 1sec is way to short and even at 1sec it seems from the above comments that it's over exposed.
I'll use a bigger paper tonight so I can raise the head (and the seconds). Or just do a cropped enlargement on the small paper with the head further up.
Tonight I'll take notes too and with that information hopefully it'll be easier to tell.
Thanks,
Ben
bence8810
Well-known
Just came out of the bathroom - test concluded.
I did the safe light test for five minutes with a pair of scissors on the paper - came out of the developer white like snow. Did the exposed paper test by leaving it in the room with lights on for a minute, came out pitch black from the developer.
Did some further enlarging with the democracy girl from the pro lab, all came out washed out flat.
I was devastated - came out packed and washed everything away when I thought I'd check the lens out. Guess what! Milky haze inside like I haven't seen on a lens before. I opened the lens from its factory packaging and didn't even bother to look.
I am off to a store tomorrow and buy a 2nd hand lens. EL Nikkor 50 ok?
Knowing the lens was milky, does my previous outcome make sense or I should look further?
Thanks
Ben
I did the safe light test for five minutes with a pair of scissors on the paper - came out of the developer white like snow. Did the exposed paper test by leaving it in the room with lights on for a minute, came out pitch black from the developer.
Did some further enlarging with the democracy girl from the pro lab, all came out washed out flat.
I was devastated - came out packed and washed everything away when I thought I'd check the lens out. Guess what! Milky haze inside like I haven't seen on a lens before. I opened the lens from its factory packaging and didn't even bother to look.
I am off to a store tomorrow and buy a 2nd hand lens. EL Nikkor 50 ok?
Knowing the lens was milky, does my previous outcome make sense or I should look further?
Thanks
Ben