# Incredibly Frustrated Newbie...Please Help!!!



## BGAndrea (Jun 12, 2009)

Hello, 
I just finished taking a black and white darkroom photography class in college to fulfill my fine arts credit.  I was really good at it and enjoyed it so much that I had pretty much given up my digital camera for b/w film.  Anyway, the class ended and I wanted to continue developing my own pictures so I went on craigslist and bought someone's enlarger, lens, trays, etc.  I went out and purchased identical chemicals to what I used at school.  I am having the following extremely frustrating problems and I don't know how to fix them:

My pictures printed at home look milky, flat, not sharp, and lack detail.  At school, my pictures had an almost 3-d, tack sharp, exhibition quality to them.   The school enlarger was a Beseler 23CIII and mine is an Omega B66.  Does this make a difference?  I was usually using a #3 ilford filter at school.  At home, my enlarger came with a System 7 kit and I am using the #3 as well.  It seems that if I want highlight detail on my enlarger at home, I have to lengthen the time of enlargement to the point that the image is too dark overall.  Some of my exposures that were 10 seconds at school are taking me 2 minutes with the same exact negative at home.

Please help!!! I found darkroom photography really relaxing and enjoyable at school and would like to return to that feeling.


----------



## ann (Jun 12, 2009)

it is not unusal for these changes. altho, 10 secs to 2 minutes is extreme.

is it just the burning in time for the highlights, or the over all time?

you need to run some test with your present equipment to determine your new times, etc. 

I am not familar with System 7 but perhaps you need to use a higher grade filter .

the lens, the filters, the timer will all have an effect on the outcome.

in our lab i ran a test of the same negative , use the same variables on 11 different enlargers. none look alike. this was not a surprise for myself, but it certainly surprises students.

i would suggest you start from the beginning, do the same steps with your equipment that you did in the lab from school. 

Double check that you have mixed the chemistry correctly, as sometimes if one is used to someone else taking care of that particular duty it can be confusing.


----------



## Torus34 (Jun 12, 2009)

'... milky, flat, not sharp, and lack detail.'

This sounds like more than one problem.  'flat' suggests low contrast.  'not sharp, and lack detail' suggests focussing or lens problems.

Much more information is needed to diagnose this.

Please indicate the enlarging paper [the full name] and developer you are using.  At what aperture are you focussing the negative on the baseboard?  At what aperture are you making the exposure?  Please indicate the numbers of the filter set you are using.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jun 12, 2009)

Exhausted fixer ?


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 12, 2009)

Paper
Chemistry
Aperture
negative format
paper size
size you are enlarging to
your process in detail

all of this might help


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

christopher walrath said:


> Paper
> Chemistry
> Aperture
> negative format
> ...


 
Paper: Ilford MGIV Multigrade IV RC DE LUXE 8x10 PEARL
Developer: Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer (1:9) I make a working solution of 1 quart at a time.
Aperture: F8 for focusing and enlarging
Negative format: 35mm
Negative carrier: factory Omega...enlarger came with homemade glass covered carrier but I have not used this yet
Paper size/size enlarging to: 8x10
Stop Bath: Kodak Indicator
Fixer: Whatever cheap fixer is available...Adorama B/W fixer is what I am using now.  I notice the problem before even getting to fixer so I know it is not the fixer.  
Enlarger: Omega B66-do not use aux condensor as I have the new lamp style.
Heat absobant glass: on order
Current lens: El-Omegar Omega factory lens
Future lens: Nikkor 50mm F2.8
Filtration: system 7 in filter tray (using #3 filter)
Darkroom: converted bathroom.  There are probably some minor light leaks.  Not sure if this contributes to the problem.


----------



## DSPhotography (Jun 13, 2009)

Have you printed a test sheet? I personally am still setting my darkroom up, but I've read many places that this is essential to ensure getting proper exposure for prints.

Cut a strip off a sheet of paper and put it under the enlarger. Then use a piece of cardboard and cover all but 1 1/2" of the strip. Set your timer for 18 seconds, and every three seconds, move the cardboard down another 1 1/2", then develop the strip. You'll have 6 areas: one exposed for 3 sec, one for 6 sec, 9 sec, 12, 15 and 18. The first section that's as dark as you'd want the darkest part of your image to be is your exposure time. 

The only things I can think of that could be causing your problem is expired/fogged paper or exhausted fixer. Did you buy them new or used (old stock)?

I would maybe talk to your old professor at the college and ask them if you can try printing a couple prints in their darkroom with your paper.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

Also:
I spoke with an Omega dealer in Canada who suspected my problem was caused by a poor lens so I ordered a Nikon 50mm f2.8.  However, I just thought of something:  the problem still occurs when making contact sheets (I don't believe a quality lens makes a difference in contact sheet printing right?).  What happens with contact sheets is this:
If I set a normal exposure time (lets say 20 seconds), the highlights are still completely washed out while the blacks are too dark.  For example, I can't read the name of the film on the edges of the contacts as it is too dark.  The detail in the highlights in the images though are too light.  I know it is not the negatives causing the issue as I made a contact sheet at school with the same negatives and had no problem.    

I have been developing for 3mts.
Stop for 30 scnds.
Fixer for 5 mts.
perma-wash for 2mts.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

DSPhotography said:


> Have you printed a test sheet? I personally am still setting my darkroom up, but I've read many places that this is essential to ensure getting proper exposure for prints.
> 
> Cut a strip off a sheet of paper and put it under the enlarger. Then use a piece of cardboard and cover all but 1 1/2" of the strip. Set your timer for 18 seconds, and every three seconds, move the cardboard down another 1 1/2", then develop the strip. You'll have 6 areas: one exposed for 3 sec, one for 6 sec, 9 sec, 12, 15 and 18. The first section that's as dark as you'd want the darkest part of your image to be is your exposure time.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for your response.  I do make test strips but I either get detail and too dark overall or too light and no detail.  Also, the image ends up looking out of focus even though I use a fine grain focuser and have checked alignment.  As far as paper, it is new and is the same box and everything as the paper I used at school.


----------



## Sjixxxy (Jun 13, 2009)

BGAndrea said:


> Also:
> I spoke with an Omega dealer in Canada who suspected my problem was caused by a poor lens so I ordered a Nikon 50mm f2.8.  However, I just thought of something:  the problem still occurs when making contact sheets (I don't believe a quality lens makes a difference in contact sheet printing right?).



You may have a subtle light leak, or a safe light that isn't 100% safe.

Try running this experiment that is pretty much essential for any new darkroom set up. You'll need a stack of coins.

1) With all lights out, take a piece of paper and immediately develop it. If any area develops past perfect white, your box of paper may have been compromised.

2) Turn on your safe light and put a sheet of paper on you enlarging easel. Lay the coins out on the paper in a grid, and DON'T turn on you enlarger. Every 10 seconds or so, remove one coin until they are all gone, then develop the paper. If you can see the outline of any of the coins, then your safe light is too bright, and it is muddying up your prints

3) If you do see outlines, turn of the safe light and run the test again in complete darkness, just to make sure that there isn't a subtle light leak somewhere in the room. It can sometimes be shocking how bright a seemingly dark room can be after you sit in it for several minutes without a safe light on.

4) Turn on your enlarger and cap the lens. Look around on the chasis for any light that may be leaking out. If you haven't already, put as much flat black material on the walls immediately around the enlarger as possible to help soak up any loose light, and try cover up any spots where heat doesn't radiate.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

Sjixxxy said:


> BGAndrea said:
> 
> 
> > Also:
> ...


 
Thanks for your response.  Great suggestions and I will do them next time I develop.  I do know that my enlarger head has some small light leaks around the screw holes, etc...  How should I fix these?


----------



## Torus34 (Jun 13, 2009)

Focus with your enlarger lens wide open.  Then stop down to an aperture that will give you about a 15 sec. exposure for a correctly-exposed print.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> Focus with your enlarger lens wide open. Then stop down to an aperture that will give you about a 15 sec. exposure for a correctly-exposed print.


 
When I focus wide open and then stop down and check my focus, it seems to change. I'm not 100% sure though so I will check again.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

Does anyone know how to check/adjust alignment on the B66?  What I have done so far is focus and check focus around all edges and everything seems ok.


----------



## CaboSailor (Jun 13, 2009)

Hi there,

Out of curiousity what temperatures are your solutions? and are you agitating the print? if so, just how are you agitating.

Rich

Edit: Duhhh! After spending some time floating in the pool with a glass of ol'thought provoker I think I see your problem. At this point, IMO. it has nothing to do with your enlarger or print processing. I do believe you are trying to work from a crappy negative. There is no way your enlarger exposure should jump like that unless you're using a flashlight bulb for a light source!  

Try holding up to the light a negative from your class next to a negative that is not printing correctly. I'd be willing to bet that the new negative is a LOT darker. You might also try printing one of your old negatives that worked so well in class. If, indeed, your new negatives are very much darker, we would need to address that problem first.

Soo.... if your new negs are noticeably darker, then it would help to know the following:

1. What film.
2. What developer
3. What temperature (remember for best results developer, stop bath, and fixer should be pretty durn close)
4. How long in the developer and with what kind of agitation ( I used to aggravate my film for about 15 seconds every minute)

I hope this helps.

Rich


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

CaboSailor said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Out of curiousity what temperatures are your solutions? and are you agitating the print? if so, just how are you agitating.
> 
> ...


 
Rich, 
Thanks for your response.  I almost hate to bring you bad news after such an enthusiastic response...lol  However, the negatives are the exact ones that printed well in class.  As a matter of fact, same exact sheet that I used for the contact sheet in class.  I used the same ones to compare.  

Film is both Ilford HP5+ 400 and Kodak TMax 400: problem appears with negatives from both

Developer is Ilford Multigrade Paper Developer
All chemicals are at 68 degrees


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

Question:  If the room has a light leak, what will happen to the prints?  Wouldn't they just be a little darker overall?


----------



## CaboSailor (Jun 13, 2009)

Dang, I was sure that was it.

As to the light leaks, paper can handle a bit more than film can before becoming noticeable.

The prior poster suggesting using the coins test is a good one for leaks.  Even easier is to try processing after dark with the adjacent room lights off.

The lack of tonal range is vexing.  I very much doubt the enlarger lens is responsible for such a huge difference.  Sharpness, perhaps but if you can focus on the grain......

Right now, unless you somehow have contaminated the chemistry or exposed the paper to too much light (easy to check, develop an unexposed piece of paper), light leaks are once again tops on the list.  Hmm.... have you checked to see if your safelight filter is compatible with the paper you're using?  There are different filters ya know, including one or two that are even compatible with some films to a degree.

Don't worry, with all the folks around here we'll solve it.

Rich


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 13, 2009)

CaboSailor said:


> Dang, I was sure that was it.
> 
> As to the light leaks, paper can handle a bit more than film can before becoming noticeable.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks.  The safelight I am using (Delta 1 Bright Lab Jr.) says safe for all polycontrast rapid and all conventional Kodak, Ilford, AGFA, DuPont, and GAF papers...so I guess I'm good on that end.


----------



## DSPhotography (Jun 13, 2009)

BGAndrea said:


> Torus34 said:
> 
> 
> > Focus with your enlarger lens wide open. Then stop down to an aperture that will give you about a 15 sec. exposure for a correctly-exposed print.
> ...



Focusing wide open though gives you the smallest DoF, so if you can focus THAT image, it will be just as sharp (or sharper) when you stop down and expose.  I've played around with my enlarger on the kitchen table (no paper, just getting used to using it) and that's what I did. It took me a few tries, as well as adjusting the tension on my focusing knob (I have an Omega C700).. but after a few tries, I'm able to focus perfectly at a wide open aperture and stop it all the way down to 11 and it still be in focus. Just experiment.

I can understand your frustration though seeing as how you went from doing it perfectly in a class, to having nothing but problems at home.. but like everyone else has said, every piece of equipment is different.


----------



## DSPhotography (Jun 13, 2009)

BGAndrea said:


> Thanks.  The safelight I am using (Delta 1 Bright Lab Jr.) says safe for all polycontrast rapid and all conventional Kodak, Ilford, AGFA, DuPont, and GAF papers...so I guess I'm good on that end.



Let me ask this.. what color is your safe light? Typically you'd want an Amber (usually labeled OC or #13) if you're using VC paper. If you're using a red or green safelight filter, that right there could be your problem.


----------



## BGAndrea (Jun 14, 2009)

DSPhotography said:


> BGAndrea said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. The safelight I am using (Delta 1 Bright Lab Jr.) says safe for all polycontrast rapid and all conventional Kodak, Ilford, AGFA, DuPont, and GAF papers...so I guess I'm good on that end.
> ...


 
Before I had the red bulbs I was using a small amber safelight and I still had the problem.


----------



## Sjixxxy (Jun 14, 2009)

BGAndrea said:


> CaboSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks.  The safelight I am using (Delta 1 Bright Lab Jr.) says safe for all polycontrast rapid and all conventional Kodak, Ilford, AGFA, DuPont, and GAF papers...so I guess I'm good on that end.
> ...


----------



## Sjixxxy (Jun 14, 2009)

Also., do you have access to a scanner? It would probably be really benificial if you can scan one of these contact sheets and post it.


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 14, 2009)

I printed on Ilford WT RC VC under a red safelight 2.5 feet away from the paper and had no ill affects. So, I doubt it's the color.

My suggestion would be to print again. Let's see if anything improves. If it comes out then we can pickeverything apart and see what differences there are from failure to this success. All we're doing right now is spinning wheels.

ANDREA. Print again and then fill us in on a new thread. Start with a summation from this thread and then we'll go from there.

Oh, and the only thing I saw in your process that differs from anything i have done is your development time.  1 1/2-2 minutes always seemed fine for my work (leaning toward the 1 1/2 minute mark).  Not only do some test prints but also fiddle with the process a little perhaps.  So what comes up.  Sorry we didn't get it yet but we are a persistent group of buggers.  We'll get it.


----------



## CaboSailor (Jun 14, 2009)

BGAndrea,

OK, as you can see a lot of nice folk are around to help fix your problem.  First, you can forget the enlarger, it is not a problem since you have the same symptoms printing contact sheets.  For that purpose the enlarger is no different than turning on the room lights.  On the subject of blurriness in the enlargements, it MIGHT be a function of those long exposures.  Heat buildup might be warping the negative after you've focused.  Also, during such a long exposure there is the added potential for vibration in the enlarger causing a cumulative problem.

You don't specify if you are using the System 7 filter to print your contacts as well as your enlargements.  If so, I'd suggest you ditch it temporarily in as much as it is a variable that we can eliminate.

There is no reason for a 2 min exposure, in my experience even a one minute exposure was extremely rare.  Please try the experiments that were suggested above such as using NO lights, safe or otherwise, develop a piece of unexposed paper.  You can do this by touch and use either your watch or a preset development timer.  It should turn out pure white.

Next, follow the poster's suggestion for exposing a piece of paper to just your safelight and using the coins as he suggests for a total of 2-3 min of total exposure.

Each of these steps will eliminate a potential problem from the list or identify the culprit.  Sooner or later we'll zero in.

Good luck,
Rich


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 14, 2009)

And it could have simply been a freak thing that will not duplicate itself and were chasing a shadow that's not really there.

Run your tests.  Make sure it's not something you can fix yourself.  And then do some more printing to see if it's there.


----------



## DSPhotography (Jun 17, 2009)

So.. whatever happened?


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 18, 2009)

Yeah, fill us in.  Pins and needles here. ;p


----------



## randerson07 (Jun 18, 2009)

I had some similar issues in my bathroom darkroom, Gray muddy prints, too dark and too light. 

Turns out my problem was mostly light leak related. First off my bathroom has a really big mirror and it was right behind my enlarger, second my enlarger leaks some light, my bathroom isnt big so the farthest I was setting my safelight from the paper was only a couple feet, and finally I was sealing the door jams with masking tape.

My fix was to buy black plastic tarps for gardening, I cover the mirror and the doors completely with this stuff, then I use little strips of it over the light leaks on my enlarger. And just to be completely sure I keep my safelight pointed into a corner of the ceiling.

I cant really see all that well in the room anymore, its especially hard to see test strips in the 11x14 white trays, but the prints are much much better.


----------



## Alerick (Jun 19, 2009)

It has been a while since I had to set up a dark room and I noticed you talked about your chemical temp at the working stage. Do you mix dry stock for your chemicals? I would think that if your developer is old or it is not mixed correctly it will affect the quality of the print. This and light leaks are the only thing that came to mind.


----------



## DSPhotography (Jun 20, 2009)

I'm beginning to think that Andrea couldn't figure out the problem, went insane, and joined a group of renegade pirates, never to post here again.


----------

