# How do I get better B&W prints???



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

Hello all, I am new here.  I have been out of the Photography seen for 30 some years.  I just finished building my darkroom and purchased all equipment.  Problem I am having is my prints are coming out so so.  I am trying to get a really good black and white print.  Dont know if its me or the equipment I purchased, Is there much difference in enalrgers?  I passed on a Omega D5XL because of its size. I am using an Omega C700 enlarger with the following chemical times.

Develop for 1 min
Stop for 30 sec
Fix for 3 min.

Thanx
Bob


----------



## ann (Sep 18, 2011)

Would need a lot more information.

Which paper, which grade, which developer, fstop and times for exposure.

Enlargers are basically the same, at least in concept. Some are better , meaning more stable able to do more formats.I would have opt for the d5xl for that reason alone.


----------



## Helen B (Sep 18, 2011)

What ann said. What do you mean by 'so so'? Low contrast? No deep blacks? No clean highlights? Poor definition?


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

ann said:


> Would need a lot more information.
> 
> Which paper, which grade, which developer, fstop and times for exposure.
> 
> Enlargers are basically the same, at least in concept. Some are better , meaning more stable able to do more formats.I would have opt for the d5xl for that reason alone.



Ilford RC paper, Glossy, Kodak D76 developer, 4 fstop, used various times on exposure.  I wish I went with the D5XL also, but I would have to redu the darkroom I already laid out for the enlarger height.  Could have got it for a steal, I tried to purchase it after the C700, but it already sold.


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

Helen B said:


> What ann said. What do you mean by 'so so'? Low contrast? No deep blacks? No clean highlights? Poor definition?



all of the above, tried using different filters and times, May just need more time in darkroom, was getting fustrated after several attempts and called it quits.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2011)

Hard to say without a LOT more information...but there are the usual suspects...first is 1)safelights that are not truly "safe" for your paper! Safelight lighting can easily cause low-level fogging that leads to dull prints. 2) Is the developer at the right temperature? Lower temps make for much less efficient development 3) Are you developing your prints face-down in the tray, and PROPERLY agitating the print while it develops? 4) Are you developing your prints strictly by time--that is to say, for a FULL 60 seconds, or 90 seconds? Too-short development times can be bad, and cause dull-looking prints 5)Are you allowing for any "dry-down effect"? When viewed in the darkroom, under the proper examination light, a wet print often looks a bit snappier and more contrasty than it will once it dried, and is viewed in flatter, higher foot-candle lighting...6) Is your chemistry fresh, and properly diluted? Is your paper fresh, and in-date?

I think with good safelights, that are TRULY SAFE for the paper in use, that a somewhat longer development time of say 90 seconds, or even two full minutes,with the print face-down in the developer, leads to a slightly better overall image than a 60-second development time as standard...I just never felt that 60 seconds was giving me "everything the paper had in it". 60 seconds always felt too short to me...this was working under good,tested safelighting also. The face-down development keeps the image away from the safelight, and also more importantly, causes the darkroom worker to stick to the fundamentals of getting the right exposure on the right grade of paper, with the right dodging and burning, and working "by the numbers", and never being tempted to "yank" a print that appears to "come up too quickly" in the developing tray.

You might wish to test your safelight for 100%R safeness"--if the safelight lighting is fogging the paper, you will have only so-so prints!


----------



## Helen B (Sep 18, 2011)

kabory said:


> Ilford RC paper, Glossy, Kodak D76 developer, 4 fstop, used various times on exposure.  I wish I went with the D5XL also, but I would have to redu the darkroom I already laid out for the enlarger height.  Could have got it for a steal, I tried to purchase it after the C700, but it already sold.



D76 is no good for paper. Use a proper paper developer like Dektol, or a 'universal' developer like Ilford PQ Universal (which is hardly ever used for film). Make sure the dev is up to temperature (shouldn't be a problem at this time of year) and develop fully - something like 2 minutes. Do not develop by inspection unless you are accustomed to it. Paper is developed to completion, so overdevelopment doesn't matter much if you have the exposure correct - I used to develop for 6 to 8 minutes, after someone* showed me the method. That was with different paper, however, but you get the idea. Try longer times and see how that affects the image. Get that experience.

An aperture of f/4 is a little too wide - try stopping down to f/8 or at least f/5.6.

Start by exposing for maximum black. Find out what maximum black is by fully exposing a small piece of paper to the light, then make sure that it is fully developed, washed and fixed. Then compare that black with the black you achieve in a normal print - always do a wet-wet or dry-dry comparison, not a dry-wet comparison, and do it in normal room light.

*Edit - I removed the name


----------



## ann (Sep 18, 2011)

Pay attention to Helen she knows what she is taking about.

SHe got to you before I did with regard to D76.  Only one thing I would differ about. Ilford recommends 90 sec. development time for RC paper, if it happened to be fiber then for sure 2 minutes.


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Hard to say without a LOT more information...but there are the usual suspects...first is 1)safelights that are not truly "safe" for your paper! Safelight lighting can easily cause low-level fogging that leads to dull prints. 2) Is the developer at the right temperature? Lower temps make for much less efficient development 3) Are you developing your prints face-down in the tray, and PROPERLY agitating the print while it develops? 4) Are you developing your prints strictly by time--that is to say, for a FULL 60 seconds, or 90 seconds? Too-short development times can be bad, and cause dull-looking prints 5)Are you allowing for any "dry-down effect"? When viewed in the darkroom, under the proper examination light, a wet print often looks a bit snappier and more contrasty than it will once it dried, and is viewed in flatter, higher foot-candle lighting...6) Is your chemistry fresh, and properly diluted? Is your paper fresh, and in-date?
> 
> I think with good safelights, that are TRULY SAFE for the paper in use, that a somewhat longer development time of say 90 seconds, or even two full minutes,with the print face-down in the developer, leads to a slightly better overall image than a 60-second development time as standard...I just never felt that 60 seconds was giving me "everything the paper had in it". 60 seconds always felt too short to me...this was working under good,tested safelighting also. The face-down development keeps the image away from the safelight, and also more importantly, causes the darkroom worker to stick to the fundamentals of getting the right exposure on the right grade of paper, with the right dodging and burning, and working "by the numbers", and never being tempted to "yank" a print that appears to "come up too quickly" in the developing tray.
> 
> You might wish to test your safelight for 100%R safeness"--if the safelight lighting is fogging the paper, you will have only so-so prints!



Thank You,
I am using a safelight bulb mounted in a fixture on the wall 2 feet above and behind enlarger and it is at least 4 foot away from chemical trays.
chemicals are at 68 to 70 degrees, room temp.
I have been developing face up and for only 60 seconds, I will try face down and 2 min.
chemicals are new, paper is old, but was unopened and refridgerated.
what does fogging the paper look like?


Here is the darkroom with the safelite location, hard to see, You can just see the bottom of fixture to the right and above enlarger, chemical trays go on counter to right of enlarger


----------



## ann (Sep 18, 2011)

fogged paper has a gray cast, from very light, too serious gray.

You really need to get a paper developer.


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

Thanks everyone, I got my work cut out for me now.  I also just read at the kodak site on how to test your paper with the safe lite location.  Going to do that first to see if I'm fogging.


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

maybe its the litter box, lol


----------



## kabory (Sep 18, 2011)

Just realized, I am not using D76 for paper.  I am using Dektol. my bad.  I use the D76 for film.


----------



## ann (Sep 18, 2011)

good. 1:2 is the standard ratio

If the paper is old it could be fogged.

However, it will be helpful to learn how to test for min. time for maxium black. Then you will start to see what black looks like. I know this sounds silly, but you would be surprised how many think very dark gray is black.


----------



## kabory (Sep 19, 2011)

Update #1
Safe lite is in good location and not causing any fogging.  Looks like it was a mix of old paper and short develop time.  

Could use help now on testing for min. time for maxium black.  Little confused on this.  To start, how long should I expose a piece of paper and at what F stop?


----------



## ann (Sep 19, 2011)

fstop, f8, three second exposure across the paper, 

It is helpful if you have a blank piece of film to use as it is larger than the rebate.

Then cover the paper with a piece of cardboard leaving about 1/4 inch uncover, expose and then move the cardboard another 1/4 expose and continue until you run out of paper. Develop for 90 seconds. View results under normal light and count strips until you can no longer see a line dividing steps of grey, That is the min. time to get max black.

Check Ilord's site for some very good information regarding how too.


----------



## klbphotography (Sep 19, 2011)

Do a test strip. In school I would always go up 2-3 clicks from lowest light and set the timer for 25 sec. Then I would take a small piece of matte board (anything thick that won't allow light through would work) and move it across the strip every 5 seconds (move at 20, 15, 10, and 5 seconds) and when you develop you'll know how long you need to expose your print. If it comes out dark, turn your light down and do another test strip. This is the easiest way to figure out exposure time. Saves time and paper. Hope this helps.


----------



## Images (Sep 19, 2011)

I pretty much worked without a safe light most of the time, its not that difficult with a little experience and it eliminates one potential problem.


----------



## kabory (Sep 20, 2011)

well here are a couple of prints I just got finished.


----------



## ann (Sep 21, 2011)

Hard to tell as the toning is a bit harsh (for my two cents, ) but they look a bit underexposed on my monitor.

It would be easier to tell if we could see the negative. Check your negative and see if there is information in the shadows and if so, doge at bit. If not, I would make an adjustment in ISO to allow for better shadow detail.


----------



## lajoiephoto (Sep 29, 2011)

Using film base plus fog and minimum time, maximum black a la Ansel Adams and Fred Picker takes much of the guess work out of exposure. The up-front ASA testing has saved me a great deal of time and money.


----------

