# Darkroom Woes Can't even make a test strip



## BubbaBear

Well, I am finally in my new darkroom after an unexpected detour. It turned out mucha s I expected with a few things to fine tune. The first session of film processing went thru without a glitch. But I am running into problems with enlarging. Keep in mind it has been forty years since I have been in a darkroom. Something is drastically wrong and I need help figuring out what it is.  I can't even make a test strip. Everything comes out either completely over exposed or just a muddy slop with no detail or contrast. I am using Ilford Multigrade IV and Kodak Polycontrast paper with Dektol developer. The negative looks clear and sharp. What am I doing wrong? Here are what my test strips look like.


----------



## 480sparky

Is your developer fresh?  Not just recently mixed, but not having set around for a millennia before mixing.


----------



## The_Traveler

Correct Filter in enlarger?


----------



## BubbaBear

Stock solution made from unexpired package.  Fresh tray made up everytime I try to make test strips.  And I have made several attempts. All with the same results. I try all aperture settings on the enlarger and exposure times. I get these results with very short exposure times.


----------



## BubbaBear

No filter in enlarger.


----------



## 480sparky

Have you tested your safelight?

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uplo..._motion_products_filter_K4_Safelight_1106.pdf


----------



## BubbaBear

I left a test strip exposed to the safelight for several minutes longer than it is exposed when I am making a test strip and then developed it. There was no fogging. It remained pure white.


----------



## KenC

Yeah, safelight is a good bet.  I'd also check for light leaks in the room.  You didn't mention the paper - is that old?


----------



## 480sparky

Another problem can light leaks from the enlarger.

Also, have you actually light-proofed the darkroom?  You really can't tell if there's light leaks from outside right after you turn off the lights.  It can take 5-10 minutes for your vision to completely dark-adapt, so minor light leaks might not be visible immediately.


----------



## BubbaBear

Paper is current. Had same problem when I tried to make contact prints from some larger negatives. Don't think it is light leaks.


----------



## tirediron

BubbaBear said:


> No filter in enlarger.


 Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there.  These are poly contrast papers.


----------



## 480sparky

I'd check the safelight then.



tirediron said:


> BubbaBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No filter in enlarger.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there.  These are poly contrast papers.
Click to expand...


I see no whites on any of the test strips, which is an indication of fogging.


----------



## tirediron

480sparky said:


> I'd check the safelight then.
> 
> 
> 
> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BubbaBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No filter in enlarger.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there.  These are poly contrast papers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no whites on any of the test strips, which is an indication of fogging.
Click to expand...

 Depends on how he's making the test strips (and the exposure of the negatives).  I'm looking at the actual image on the paper and I'm seeing clear detail, but very low contrast, and it looks to me not unlike the results I would get with Ilford MC when using rather 'bleah' negatives to start with and noticing after the exposure that the #7PC filter was still sitting on the darkroom table...


----------



## dxqcanada

BubbaBear said:


> Paper is current. Had same problem when I tried to make contact prints from some larger negatives. Don't think it is light leaks.



Contact prints are also fogged or over-exposed ?
How long was the exposure time ?


----------



## dxqcanada

What type of enlarger/head do you have ?


----------



## 480sparky

tirediron said:


> Depends on how he's making the test strips (and the exposure of the negatives).  I'm looking at the actual image on the paper and I'm seeing clear detail, but very low contrast, and it looks to me not unlike the results I would get with Ilford MC when using rather 'bleah' negatives to start with and noticing after the exposure that the #7PC filter was still sitting on the darkroom table...



Still... underexposure should produce some pure whites _somewhere_.

How about just pulling out an unexposed test strip and running it through the trays?


----------



## 480sparky

Here's how I test safelights:

With a new box of paper (NEVER been opened, even under a safelight), I take out a sheet IN COMPLETE DARKNESS (no safelight on!!!!), and place a sheet on my work surface, emulsion side up.  I close up the remaining sheets in the box, and turn on my safelight.

I let the sheet sit there under normal safelight illumination for 5 minutes.  I then place a solid object on the sheet, like my keyring or a pair of scissors.. something small and opaque. I let it sit there for another 5 minutes under the safelight.

I then process the paper, letting it sit for 5 minutes in the developer.  After it's in the fixer for a while, I turn on the room lights.  If I can see an outline of the object I placed on the paper, I know I have a safelight issue.


----------



## The_Traveler

BubbaBear said:


> No filter in enlarger.





tirediron said:


> BubbaBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No filter in enlarger.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there.  These are poly contrast papers.
Click to expand...


It's been a good long time since I used polycontrast paper but, as I remember, a filter is required for any print.

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g21/g21.pdf


----------



## timor

tirediron said:


> BubbaBear said:
> 
> 
> 
> No filter in enlarger.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there.  These are poly contrast papers.
Click to expand...

Not really. VC papers exposed without filter print as #2, which is normal contrast. 
Developer should be no problem, Polycontrast and Multigrade contain embedded in emulsion own developing agents, it is enough to provide any fluid of pH 8 and they will develop. However, if real developer is used, too strong concentration (not diluted) may cause very rapid development with effects exactly like in the picture.
Kodak Polycontrast cannot be "current". Kodak stopped making it a long time ago.
I am not quite sure, what represents picture OP provided, are those strips of negative ?


----------



## The_Traveler

Memory failed again.


----------



## timor

The_Traveler said:


> Memory failed again.


?


----------



## Dave442

How about a contact print. Whats the dilution on the Dektol. 
Could just be old paper, try a quick exposure to light and run through the Dektol and stop.


----------



## BubbaBear

I will run the safelight test recommended. The Dektol dilution is 1:2 I have a ton o enlarger filters that came with a bunch of darkroom stuff I bought. Which filter should I use? I may even change safelights. I have a Thomas Duplex Safelight that came with the lot of stuff I bought.  Should I be using it?


----------



## timor

If your current red light is OK, no point of change. For now. Fog from bad light should affect all exposed paper, but I don't see much of the fog in white portion of your picture. Start with filter #2. If neg is very light then #3. Higher with the number you go, more contrast. What temperature you have in the darkroom ?


----------



## gsgary

To me these are not test strips, start again with a strip cover all of it except about 15mm with some mount board expose for 2 seconds then move the mount board another 15mm and expose for another 2 seconds, repeat until there is about 15mm left then remove card and expose all the strip, your last 15mm will be 2 seconds exposure then 4 6 8 10 12 and so on pick the section with the best exposure or the one you like and make a print then you can make notes of where you need more and less exposure by dodging and burning


----------



## gsgary

And dont forget to focus the grain with the lens wide open then step it down to about F5.6


----------



## vintagesnaps

What if you project the image onto the easel before you get out a piece of paper? how does the image look?

I do test strips similar to what Gary described, but learned to do 5-10-15-20 (25) sec. on a strip, then see; if it looks like between 10-15 looks good I'll do 12, 13 etc. and see.

The longtime owner of a local camera store (that since closed and he retired) said that f8 and 11 sec. (or vice versa, f11 and 8 sec.) is a good starting point and sure enough, that works as well as anything! I like to adjust to get more time, at least 10-15 sec. to have enough time to dodge if needed.

I find that thin negatives are hardy worth trying to do anything with, while a dense negative can be usable but takes longer than usual exposure times.


----------



## vintagesnaps

In the original post, to me the ones to the far left and far right look usable, but the ones in the middle look too dark/dense and too light/thin. I'd start with one that at least looks the best. But are these test strips or negatives? Are we looking at those thru a lightbox or on a scanner or in room light? I'm just wondering how light or dark they actually are.

Wasn't Polycontrast discontinued years ago?? If it's old paper that's why you aren't getting anything, the paper would be fogged and you'd probably have to zap an awful lot of light to get anything (if even). I use it for lumen prints, which are sun prints, and I leave them on a table in the window for hours, days (really!).


----------



## BubbaBear

I don't understand the question about are we looking at the test strips thru a lightbox or on a scanner.............    I will check all expiration dates. I bought a bunch of paper and chemistry with a darkroom I bought so I might need to throw some of it out.  I will also test my safelights and report back.


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> And dont forget to focus the grain with the lens wide open then step it down to about F5.6


Hmm... Some lenses (most :=) ) has focus shift, when stepped down...


----------



## Derrel

How long are you developing your enlarging paper in the Dektol? Are you allowing for a good, full-term, proper development of the paper, for something like 90 seconds? The Duplex safelight is a wonderful light to work under, I love them!

I am wondering if the developer is at a decent temperature, like 69 to 72 degrees Farenheit, and that it was mixed up properly, and not say, accidentally diluted through some type of innocent mistake,like, oh, I dunno'...maybe adding an extra quart of water or something?

If the safelight is good, and the covered paper part (that which was underneath say a row of 25-cent pieces or a pair of scissors, a flat rocke,etc.) still looks pure white, we've eliminated safelight and light leak fogging; so...that seems to point to a problem in the developing solution, or the way it's used. Are you agitating the print in the tray? Developing face-down for 90 seconds, so you're never tempted to "yank" the print early? are you 110-percent, double-dog-darnit, swear-to-gosh-darn-sure _the developer is mixed properly_?

If the safelight test paper is not PURE white, you've got a fog issue somehow.

Was the paper shipped via an air carrier? Could it have gone through a horribly maladjusted, massive deep X-ray type machine at an airport?


----------



## Derrel

Ummmmm, you know, I just looked at those test strips again, and I hope this is not offensive--but are you sure you have *the enlarging paper emulsion side up* on the easel???????????

It can be difficult to tell emulsion side from back side on modern, resin-coated paper that you are not familiar with.

I used to be a darkroom monitor at a University darkroom with 13 enlarging stations and 6,7,8 people working at a time--I have seen a LOT of weird darkroom screw-ups. On some of the semi-smooth poly papers, the emulsion side is sort of like the back side, and it's not really super-clear-cut which is which sometimes to some folks.


----------



## 480sparky

Derrel said:


> .....but are you sure you have *the enlarging paper emulsion side up* on the easel??????????.....
> .



Good call!


----------



## vintagesnaps

Sounds like it might be the paper. Especially if it came with the enlarger; I've found condition can vary with paper that's been in some darkroom somewhere (depends on how it was stored and for how long).

I was wondering about what we were looking at because if it was negatives (I thought maybe 120 not 135) I think those can look different on a lightbox/brighter lighted surface. If those are test strips it looked to me like maybe the images didn't go all the way to the edge or something.


----------



## meoce

I had a similar problem when I set up my in apartment darkroom a few years ago.  From what I recall a new lens and a set of filters fixed my problem.  Make sure your lens isn't foggy, this could be your issue.


----------



## BubbaBear

Thanks for all the suggestions. I will be giving them a try. With regard to the filter do you mean a filter in the filter drawer just below the lamp or the filter holder below the lens? I have different safelights so I will try those too. I will make sure I am using fresh paper and chemistry. I plan to make each change interdependent of others so I can isolate the problem and hopefully know for sure what was the cause or combination of causes.


----------



## timor

Filter in the drawer is better, filter bellow the lens will work to, but remember, it is an optical obstacle and may influence in the print things like sharpness by diffussing and softening the light. Especially visible on the edges of the print. Filter above the condensor may also diffuse the light if it is dirty or scratched, but only that. This is an another trick with printing, with negatives which are a bit too harsh in contrast I use a fogged glass in the drawer to soften the contrast, effectively changing condensor enlarger into diffusing enlarger, softening the image and loosing somewhat too excessive grain.


----------



## BubbaBear

Derrel said:


> Ummmmm, you know, I just looked at those test strips again, and I hope this is not offensive--but are you sure you have *the enlarging paper emulsion side up* on the easel???????????
> 
> It can be difficult to tell emulsion side from back side on modern, resin-coated paper that you are not familiar with.
> 
> I used to be a darkroom monitor at a University darkroom with 13 enlarging stations and 6,7,8 people working at a time--I have seen a LOT of weird darkroom screw-ups. On some of the semi-smooth poly papers, the emulsion side is sort of like the back side, and it's not really super-clear-cut which is which sometimes to some folks.


No offense taken. I'm perfectly capable of that mistake but am sure I didn't make it.  At least not everytime and I have made plenty of attempts at this. The exposures are way too short to have to go thru the paper.


----------



## BubbaBear

It's the safelight. Boy is it the safelight. I ran the test suggested of five minutes under the safelight then some keys and five minutes more and I might as well have turned on the white light. It's a rather bright yellow green and I always prefered red but it came with some stuff I bought. I want to use the Thomas Duplex but am not sure how to use or hang it. It appears to hang upside down and reflect off the ceiling but that won't work as I painted my darkroom the traditional black. 

The paper is a secondary issue. It is expired.  I can't find a date on the Ilford. Is is coded? I will buy some new paper.  All of this paper again came with a darkroom I bought.  Thanks again for all the help.


----------



## timor

Good going ! Mystery solved !
I don't know, how much you love Ilford papers, but if you in USA take a look at this :
NEW Ultrafine VC ELITE Variable Contrast RC Paper  - Traditional Black-and-White Photo Papers
This are very good papers, I am using them for years. They have also FB version, maybe not as good as Bergger, but still nice.


----------



## Dave442

I think with the light output of the Thomas you can use it with the black ceiling. 
I read an interesting article about these safelights here:
Thomas Duplex Super Safelight Archives - jbhphoto.com Blog


----------

