CusopDingle Loc: central CT

Getting back into B&W film after a 35 year absence. Same old cameras/lenses, bought a good used Beseler 23c with Nikon objective and set up a darkroom.
I'm looking for two pieces of analysis and advice:

1. These seem to be typical of my prints; they are non-manipulated scans ("color" at 600 dpi) and well-represent the paper prints. They seem too gray, not enough "snap." It's been a pretty consistent problem, one I don't remember having way back. These photos were all taken on a sunny day with some clouds, early-mid afternoon in January. 35mm SLR with 50 mm prime objective, yellow or orange filter, TriX or Kentmere 400 film developed in D76 1:1 for recommended times + 10% (as Kodak suggests) in a small stainless tank. Ilford PC resin-coated paper with a #4 filter in the enlarger, developed in Dektol 1:3. Both film and darkroom temps around 66-68 degrees, all materials and chemicals equilibrated to room temp. What am I not doing right here?

2. Always interested in both technical and "artistic" critique.

Thanks.

CD

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

Couple of thoughts; if you're printing with a 4 filter it sounds like your negatives are flat. You might try rating
your film at about ISO 200 to get a bit more exposure and push the developing time to plus 20-25 %.
I would also us the Dektol at 1:2 rather than 1:3 and be sure it is fresh.
Also, how old are your PC filters? They don't last forever. The dyes eventually fade somewhat giving lower
contrast than expected.

jelecroy Loc: Huntsville, AL

I am thinking that if you used a hand-held light meter you may have neglected to add the filter factor to your metered exposure. Those pictures look to me like classic underexposed film.

That said, what was your agitation schedule in development, and how was temperature controlled? Was the film fresh?

Poor agitation can cause low contrast, particularly in thick emulsions. In a small tank I agitate 10 seconds every 30.

Low developer temperature can result in under-development. You added 10% "per Kodak recommendation"? What was the basis for the recommended extension?

Old (out-of-date) film can have an overall grey tone that robs contrast. Old developer can have lower activity, and result in under-developed film. Were both film and developer fresh?

I agree with the previous post that a #4 filter is seldom needed with properly exposed/developed negatives, particularly of your high-contrast subject matter.

The last thing I'd check is lens condition - is there any fog or fungus visible on the internal glass surfaces? Any kind of contamination in the lens will kill contrast. You last picture looks like it might indicate a lens problem, due to flare.

Hope this helps!

Jerry

CusopDingle Loc: central CT

Jerry and Ricardo,

Thank you for the comments. The common thread seems to be underdeveloped negatives... These images were made on film obtained from one of the leading NYC retailers in December (2016) and was not outdated, and developed in D76 that was perhaps 2 wks after mixing and kept in a sealed container in a cabinet. I used de-ionized water for solution preparation.

I've been shooting these films at 400, and have confirmed my cameras' inbuilt lightmeters against my digital camera and a lightmeter app for my cell phone (my former handheld lightmeter is an ancient Weston that has not aged successfully!). The only camera requiring some fiddling is one that spec'ed a mercury battery for its meter, and now it uses one of those Wein cells - that meter reads dark by 1 f/stop and so that meter is set to 200 to make it be the same as the other cameras.

Unless my thermometer (a glass lab thermometer) is wrong, temps are pretty consistent in my work area where the chemicals, paper, and equipment are all kept.

The added 10% is referred to on a Kodak document I downloaded for TriX, they suggest adding the 10% to recommended times if one is using a small tank. I've been doing it with Kentmere film as well.

I am not as compulsive with agitation as I probably should be. Generally it ends up being every one-two minutes for 5-10 seconds. I hadn't thought that could be such a problem, but I'm always willing to learn.

The fourth picture was taken into the sun and that's probably the glare/flare. But the lens could be part of the problem - it's a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 from the early '70s - I got it used around 1990 when I was shooting a lot of Ektachrome. While I was happy with the contrast and color from that lens on Ektachrome, I always thought that the 50mm f/2.0 lens I have (same vintage) made contrastier slides. I'm not an expert at evaluating lens defects, but I don't see any obvious differences from my other glass. But this would be an easy experiment to take duplicate photos with the two lenses. You are correct, all of these scenes were very contrasty and I had expected some pretty dramatic images.

The enlarger filters came to me along with the enlarger - they are the Kodak sheets that fit into the Beseler's filter tray (with a little trimming). The enlarger showed little sign of use, and the filters were still new-in-box. I don't know about their age but judging by the rest of the equipment I bought along with these things, I'll bet they date back to the 1980s.

I think the place to start might be to shoot a roll of film swapping the lenses back and forth, increase my development time to 20% over recommended and/or be more compulsive with my agitation, and see what my negatives look like. From there I will consider a new set of PC filters.

One other thing: my contact sheets look beautiful. That's why I had not considered my negatives as a source of the problem.

I'll put up some results once I've done this.

Thank you..

CusopDingle Loc: central CT

One more thought: I've thought that red filters would fake TTL meters and so one would have to "overexpose" by 1 1/2 stops, but that yellow and orange filters (as well as ND) required no compensation. Am I off-base on that?

ricardo7 Loc: Washington, DC - Santiago, Chile

The filter box/instructions should give you a filter factor. As I recall, a dark red filter might need as much as 3 stops more light
than without the filter. (Not 3 more from a TTL meter reading).

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

Check and make sure your darkroom is dark and your safelight is safe. - Dave

jelecroy Loc: Huntsville, AL

I agree with the PP comment about checking your safelight. Take a piece of unexposed paper, and a same-size piece of cardboard, and put the paper with an inch or so exposed on your enlarger easel. Every 30 seconds pull the cardboard back to expose another inch or so of the print paper. In five minutes you will have ten progressively exposed stripes on your paper - process normally.

The exposure lines will tell you how long you can safely hold paper in your darkroom on the enlarger baseplate. Just count how many stripes appear totally white, subtract one, and multiply by 30 seconds, and you have the max safe open time in your darkroom with your safelight. It may be less than a minute, especially if you have any light leaks in the darkroom.

Light leaks can come from outside the room, or from the enlarger itself. Look carefully for any light that is escaping the lamphouse or bellows. Small leaks can usually be fixed with darkroom tape (like black masking tape).

Ideally, your developer tray area will be lit much less than the enlarger area.

Good luck!

Jerry

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

What (colour) are the enlarger filters you are using. Are they for multigrade papers? IE. Yellow for soft contrast, Magenta for hard contrast..?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

underexposed

nison777 Loc: illinois u.s.a.

The water is very important..
We used to always use distilled water.
And a number 4 poly contrast filter..
You may try a Very light mixed pre soak in photo flow about a half cap to 500 millimeters of distilled water just before going into the developer.. also if you are serious about doing your own developing,
Go to B and H and look for some glycine probably spelled wrong and mix your own chemistry, pyroligolic acid was a favorite of ours also.
The difference in the quality of the out come will amaze you.
This is what the old masters used..
My prints still look amazing after 45 some years..

bluescreek Loc: N.C. Sandhills

Make sure their is no outside light coming in, also.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

From what I can tell in these small images, the negatives seem to have recorded all the information, even in the shadows. Without seeing the negatives it's hard to diagnose the problem. Are the shadow areas clear and devoid of any detail? If not, then you did not underexpose them in the camera, and the issue is contrast.

Have you tried just decreasing the exposure in the enlarger to get a brighter print? Possibly go to a higher contrast filter?

cthahn

A good black and white print requires white and black somewhere on the print. If you do not have that, you will never have a good print.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

What he said. I think underexposure is a main cause. Old film camera meters often lose their calibration due to mechanical failure of the variable resistor used to set the film speed. Meter a gray card. Set manual exposure. Photograph a Q-13 gray scale under controlled, consistent lighting:
( https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=714596&gclid=CJHGnIXU09ICFYWEswod0EwLkw&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&c3api=1876%2C92051677562%2C&Q=&A=details ). Be sure to expose the Q13 manually, at 1/3 - stop intervals, from three stops under to three stops over the recommended exposure based on the gray card. LABEL each frame in the scene with the exposure offset (-3, -2.67, -2.33, -2, etc.)

Process film precisely, according to the manufacturer's specifications, paying particular attention to time, temperature, and recommended agitation technique. Pick the negative where there is just a bare minimum of density in the deepest shadow area of the Q13, compared to the film base. THAT is your "normal" exposure. If need be, adjust your ISO by that offset.

Correctly exposed prints from correctly exposed negatives should look fine with a #2 variable contrast filter, with clean whites, solid blacks, and all tones of the Q-13 visible in the negative.

Beyond that, pick up a book on the Zone System...