# Mottled (Grainy?) B&W Prints



## Ideal_format (Aug 16, 2020)

I am very new to film photography, but decided to begin this as a hobby during COVID. I built a darkroom in my garage and have constantly had the same issues of black's appearing very mottled/grainy and rough - not smooth and clean like I've seen other B&W prints from prints on this site. The negatives appear to be developed properly, but when developing prints everything seems off from what I see in the looper. 

I have a Beseler 23C II Enlarger with a Nikon EL Nikkor 50mm f/2.8 lens 

Both test prints were used with this print setup:
Paper: Ilford Multigrade 5x7
Developer: Ilfosol Multigrade  1+9 @ 60 seconds
Stop Bath: Ilfostop 1+19 @ 15 seconds
Fixer: Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+4 @ 30 seconds

Image MelPark settings: f/16 w/Multigrade filter 2
Image PamTree settings: f/11 w/Multigrade filter 2

Aside from them being over/underexposed with the enlarger, after finishing the print process with chemicals, the colors come out very grainy and not smooth at all. Is this because of the exposure time with enlarger? Wrong filter? Too little time in developer? Even when photos are developed with proper exposure, they come out looking really rough. 

Sorry if this is noob stuff, but I would really like to continue to improve on this process as I am finding it a great way to relieve stress. Thanks for any help!!


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 16, 2020)

Also I should note that these are both the same film - Kodak Tri-X 400 shot on a Nikon F3/T


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2020)

Safelight fogging of your enlarging paper would be my first guess. My second guess would be that you are not developing your Prints for the full length of time. Either of these two situations can cause muddy blacks.

Related to Safelite fogging would be a slight dark room light leak... It does not take much white light contamination to make your blacks muddy.

Another possibility is that you have somehow accidentally exposed your enlarging paper supply to a very brief amount of white light.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2020)

Another safelight issue might be the filter isn't designed for the paper you're handling.


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 16, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Safelight fogging of your enlarging paper would be my first guess. My second guess would be that you are not developing your Prints for the full length of time. Either of these two situations can cause muddy blacks.
> 
> Related to Safelite fogging would be a slight dark room light leak... It does not take much white light contamination to make your blacks muddy.
> 
> Another possibility is that you have somehow accidentally exposed your enlarging paper supply to a very brief amount of white light.


Thanks for the response! I think you may be right with the exposure of the paper to light at some point, especially since I have seen this with all the prints. Regarding light leak - I only use the darkroom when its dark and all my windows are blacked out with vinyl. Could other sources like a small LED from the light switch cause issues like this or is that not bright enough? I just bought some Multigrade RC paper to use something that is a little less expensive while trouble shooting.


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 16, 2020)

480sparky said:


> Another safelight issue might be the filter isn't designed for the paper you're handling.


Thanks for the suggestion. I am using the Multigrade FB Matte paper with Ilford #2 filter in the upper housing (I do have a filter on the lower housing between the negative and the lens, but I do not use that). Contrast aside, would the filter cause muddy blacks? If so, what would you suggest to help resolve this?


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2020)

Yes even the light from a small LED could cause some fogging on your paper.

You can test for fogging by placing some coins on top of a piece of photographic paper and letting the paper sit in the dark room for about 90 seconds, then develop/stop/fix the paper using your normal working method. If you see white outlines of the coins,then you know that the paper is being fogged,either by light pollution or by the darkroom safelight.


----------



## compur (Aug 16, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> Could other sources like a small LED from the light switch cause issues like this or is that not bright enough?



Yes, it could definitely cause issues. Darkrooms should have NO LIGHT of any kind. Zip. Nada. Turn out the lights and wait 10 minutes. If you see ANY light, fix it.

I think you have multiple issues here and I strongly recommend using RC paper before moving to FB paper.

How was the fim exposed and processed?


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 16, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Another safelight issue might be the filter isn't designed for the paper you're handling.
> ...



To test the safelight, just pull out a sheet of paper under the light of it, lay it on the counter, place a common item (car keys, scissors, cell phone) on the paper and just let it sit there for a couple minutes.  Develop it like normal.  If you can see an outline of the object outlined on the developed paper, then the safelight is an issue.


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 16, 2020)

compur said:


> Ideal_format said:
> 
> 
> > Could other sources like a small LED from the light switch cause issues like this or is that not bright enough?
> ...


Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for any issues tonight before I move on to develop more prints. 

Negatives are developed in the same room with safelight off. I have not yet seen issues with negatives, aside from my own mistakes. I have the Paterson 2 Reel tank and use 600ml liquid (all with distilled water) using the following process:
Ilfosol-3 Developer 1+9 - 4 inversions each minute for 6 minutes
Ilfosol Stop Bath 1+19 - 8 inversions around 20 seconds
Ilfosol Rapid Fixer 1+4 - 4 inversions each minute for 4 minutes
Rinse - 5 seconds, dump, 10 seconds, dump, 20 seconds, dump, final rinse is 580ml water + 20ml wetting agent for 5 seconds, dump.

I read around the site for other methods and it really seems like most people find what works for them. My method is based off the Ilford video on Youtube and the recommendations on the film box / chemicals. Any guidance much appreciated!


----------



## compur (Aug 16, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> Negatives are developed in the same room with safelight off.



If your darkroom has light leaks (such as the LED you mentioned) then you may have some base fog on the negs which looks possible (though you haven't posted your negs). Film is even more sensitive to light than paper. Newbies often underestimate how light-sensitive modern materials are.

I suggest diligently fixing any darkroom light leaks and running another test.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 17, 2020)

In looking at the images you've shown here, to me it appears to be issues with your negatives and not your printing, although there are issues there as well. So, lets talk about this for a moment.

Grain comes from the negative and not the paper. You are using a processor to run your film, and part of the issue with this is that the more agitation you have, the more pronounced the grain will be. I never, ever processed black and white in any kind of processor, only stainless steel tanks and reels. My agitation was one inversion per second and I would rotate the canister at the same time. Gentle.

Next, you never mentioned what temperature you are developing the film at. 68 degrees is the standard, and it seems to me that if you're developing the film in 60 seconds, you're either too hot, chemical-wise or your "pushing the ISO of the film as well. Tri-X shouldn't be nearly so grainy. My typical development time with D-76 was about 6-8 minutes. It is HIGHLY important to keep all of your chemistry at a consistent temperature, as well as your prewash, stopbath (I used water) and post processing wash and photo-flo. ALL need to be at the same temperature. If I could see your negatives, we could tell a lot more about what's specifically going on. If the temperature is fluctuating, you can get a thing called "Reticulation", which looks very similar to grain, but is caused by changes in temperature. When I shot high school football, I pushed Tri-X to 3200 ISO and developed in Acufine (1.5 minutes @95 degrees) and all other chemistry was the same temperature and I STILL didn't have the grain you have. So, I would bet money it is your film and the processing. Try hand-processing.

The other thing that I suspect is that the exposure is off on the negatives themself. If you can post a photo of the negative as a negative, showing the sprockets as well, we can really get into trouble shooting, but outside of being able to see that, much of this is speculation from the experience of developing film for 35 years. If you post an image of a negative, we will be able to give you a more precise answer. It is the film though, not the enlargement.

The other thing you may want to check is defusing the light within the enlarged. It is a condenser enlarger and is meant to show very exact detail. Defusing the light before it gets to the negative may help a bit, but will not eliminate the issue completely. I would also recommend you go up at least a grade in your contrast (also a hint that you're under exposing or under developing your film...) you have some pretty muddy prints and you should have more contrast. Looking at these, I am guessing a grade 4 paper. The negatives, once again, will tell the story here. Post them and I will take another look.

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## Rickbb (Aug 17, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> Also I should note that these are both the same film - Kodak Tri-X 400 shot on a Nikon F3/T



Aside from any light leak issues in the dark room, you are using one of the grainiest films you can get. If you want smooth, fine details then try a less grainy film. I shot a ton of Tri-x back in the day and knew they would be grainy. I embraced it and used the grain as part of the effect I was looking for in low light, high contrast shots. If you think it's grainy now, shoot it push processed it 2 or 3 or even 4 full stops. lol

If I wanted smooth tones and details I'd use Plus-x Pan instead. But with an ASA of 25 it was slow and needed lots of light.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 17, 2020)

Rickbb said:


> Ideal_format said:
> 
> 
> > Also I should note that these are both the same film - Kodak Tri-X 400 shot on a Nikon F3/T
> ...



I have an image in the current challenge for "Triangles" that was shot on Tri-X at 1600 ISO, and I invite you to take a look at it,  it is not nearly as grainy. Good processing will minimize the grain.


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 17, 2020)

HowdyMark said:


> In looking at the images you've shown here, to me it appears to be issues with your negatives and not your printing, although there are issues there as well. So, lets talk about this for a moment.
> 
> Grain comes from the negative and not the paper. You are using a processor to run your film, and part of the issue with this is that the more agitation you have, the more pronounced the grain will be. I never, ever processed black and white in any kind of processor, only stainless steel tanks and reels. My agitation was one inversion per second and I would rotate the canister at the same time. Gentle.
> 
> ...


Wow! Thanks for all the information Mark. I really appreciate it.

I am hand processing using a Paterson 2 reel tank. I used water at 68ºF but do not have a temperature controlled environment, however, where I live it rarely gets above 70º at night. The print developer is 60 seconds, film developer at 6 minutes. 

I have a B&W enlarger, no color, and this is multigrade paper with a #2 filter. I could try and use a #3 to bring up contrast (i think a lot of the prints are too dark so that will be my next attempt). I will post negatives and a couple other prints from this same batch in a separate post.


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 17, 2020)

*A couple corrections:*
The film I used was actually two different types after looking back at the negatives
1) Fuji 100 Across II - PalmTree
2) Ilford Delta Pro 400 - MelPark

Attached is another print that shows the "foggy" along with a few negatives. The close up negatives used a computer as a backlight which is why they have pixels showing up behind them. Sorry for my low-tech work around! I am just now getting started! Thanks again for everyones help!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2020)

Your negatives look underexposed....


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 17, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Your negatives look underexposed....


Thanks. I am still learning what to look for on negatives since this is all very new to me. I use the DE-3 HP view finder that has the digital meter in it. Since I am still learning I am not doing anything to complicated like pushing or pulling film and almost always try to get meter at -+ for correct exposure. If I cannot get that by adjusting shutter speed, I'll try and fine tune with aperture. If that doesn't work, I will usually go - if very bright, and + if dark. 

The Palm Tree and the Moon were both shot in bright daylight around 3-4pm. Should those be almost completely white in the negative?


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 17, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> *A couple corrections:*
> The film I used was actually two different types after looking back at the negatives
> 1) Fuji 100 Across II - PalmTree
> 2) Ilford Delta Pro 400 - MelPark
> ...



The negatives are under developed and under exposed. The reason you want to see the sprocket holes is because of the imprint that the manufacturer makes when they make the film. It is a consistent exposure, no matter what YOU do on the film, so it's the best place to look if you have these kinds of issues. These are clearly under developed and should be a pretty dense black for those letters along the sprocket holes. Take a quick roll and give it 9 minutes of development and see if there's a difference in the text along the sprocket holes. Am sure there will be. The negatives are clearly underexposed as well, so if you're making manual readings with a light meter, you should get the meter checked or ask a local pro to ensure you are metering the scene correctly. If in camera manual readings, check to ensure that you don't have exposure compensation on, it needs to be at "O". If that's not the case, you may want to have the camera meter checked. If you have it on automatic, it may be that your meter is getting "fooled". I noted that you have a clear sky in the background of the palm tree and that the tree itself is under exposed. I am thinking that you set the meter on Auto and the sky back-lit the tree. There are a few situation that the meter will be fooled, and you should be aware of these. First is if there is more light behind the subject than in front of the subject. The meter will see all that brightness and under expose the foreground subject. Next, if there is a strong black or very dark background, the exposure will be fooled, thinking the scene is darker than it really is, and over expose. Next, if you have a white background, similarly to the backlit scene, it will see the brightness and under expose. These can be problematic in development and printing, so good exposure in black and white is vital. Make sure your exposures are correct!

Next MAKE SURE your chemicals don't have cross contamination. This can also impact your developing and if I were you, I would throw away the chemicals you're using, clean the containers (including the processing tank and reels) thoroughly and start with fresh chemicals to ensure that you haven't inadvertently gotten some fixer into your developer. I am suspecting this may have happened as well, but without being actually there watching you, difficult to tell. The reason I say this is that plastic reels are really horrible for developing and can often keep residual chemistry in them, which will effect your processing. I would HIGHLY recommend you learn to use stainless steel tanks, which don't have these same kind of issues. Burn a roll of film (i.e., a BLANK roll of film and in daylight, learn how to load a stainless steel reel before you try it in the darkroom. Learn to do it with your eyes closed after you get the hang of it so that film doesn't buckle and you have undeveloped portions of your negatives. Steel reels can be tricky but SO much better for processing because the chemicals flow more freely and they clean much better during your final wash.

Long, but hope it helps. Any questions or if you want me to check your new film, hollar'. Be well.

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## Derrel (Aug 17, 2020)

You have pretty much zero shadow detail....you need to lower your camera's ISO value by at least one EV, and as Mark said, you are also under-developing.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Derrel said:


> You have pretty much zero shadow detail....you need to lower your camera's ISO value by at least one EV, and as Mark said, you are also under-developing.



Very true there is no detail in the shadow area and that needs to change, giving the scene more exposure and better development will fix this issue nicely with no need to change the ISO. If you're exposing incorrectly, you will simply be exposing incorrectly at a different ISO  The thing that you must do is be consistent. Use the same film, at the same developing/processing temperature and with consistent exposure as well. When I lived in America and was doing commercial work, I would take my film to a lab for processing and some quick prints. They would laugh at me because they said I consistently overexposed my shots by a full stop. I jokingly told them that my exposures were correct, and everyone else was underexposing.  . They admitted that my shots were very easy to process and print because of the consistency. In fact, in their color printer, they had a specific setup just for me because I used the exact same thing each time. Labs love this because they generally don't have to fool around with color correction or print density. Be consistent, even if you are consistently "wrong", be consistent.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

The old adage ,"expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," pays respect to the idea that the ASA-ISO for a film will determine the shadow density based upon the scene being given a fairly generous shadow exposure....unless the OP lowers the Exposure Index ( the ISO set on the camera's meter), no mount of development increase will correct for the under-exposure we see in the shadows.

The OP NEEDS TO LOWER the ISO setting used. The idea that fixer is somehow being retained in the plastic reels is, I think, not a real factor here.


----------



## 480sparky (Aug 18, 2020)

Ideal_format said:


> ............The Palm Tree and the Moon were both shot in bright daylight around 3-4pm. Should those be almost completely white in the negative?



A negative that is 'completely white' is *UN*exposed.  The brighter an object is in the scene, the darker it will be rendered on the negative.  This 'inversion' will be reversed again when printed.

Before I would get concerned about developing and ratios and temperature and times in the darkroom, I'd test the _gear_ first.  Are you shutter speeds accurate?  Meaning, when you dial in, say, 1/250th, is the shutter open 'within specs' of that speed.  Are the aperture blades actually  closing to the chosen setting?  While film cameras tend to actually over-expose due to inaccuracies (ie, shutter speed is much slower than indicated and staying open too long, or aperture blades sticking and not closing enough), it's not outside the realm of possibilities your camera may simply need a Cleaning/Lubrication/Adjustment.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 18, 2020)

I was thinking too, how do the negatives look? and was the exposure off when taking the photos? Looks like it was.

The negatives look rather thin; there seems to be a lot of white and light grays. There should be a range of tones of light to dark grays, and a 'black' black and a 'white' white somewhere in the image.

It's actually the opposite of what you described for the Palm Tree and The Moon. Since they were shot in bright sun the tree and sky would have been brightly lit/lighter in tone, so they would be darker on the negative. When you have the negative in an enlarger the darker areas will block more light from hitting the paper which would keep those areas of the paper lighter (because the paper will be less exposed).

I've found if a negative is too light/too thin there just may not be enough there to work with to get a good print. If a negative is too dense, it can be possible to keep zapping light on it in the enlarger and get a decent image (if it's worth the time and paper to get something out of it).

I'd agree about checking the camera for light leaks, proper shutter speeds, and if the meter's accurate. I've sometimes metered with a different camera if an old camera seems/sounds sluggish (like it's on its last leg! lol) particularly at slower shutter speeds.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

The F3-T uses an electronically-timed shutter and has Nikon's 80% - 20% center-weighted metering which is somewhat different from the old 60/40 spread that Nikon used before and after the F3 model. It is somewhat unlikely that the shutter runs slow or fast: we are dealing with what was a professional camera with a highly reliable and accurate quartz timing mechanism. in mechanically timed shutters we typically see moderate and fast speeds that are slow, and slow speeds which are overly long due to the shutter mechanism being gummed up.

The fact remains that if you are centering the meter diode system and see underexposing, the easiest way to rectify that is to lower your exposure index. This will immediately counteract the underexposure.

if you are using a black and white negative film that has a manufacturer recommended exposure index setting of 100 ,then you would do well to set your light meter to ISO 50 or even lower.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 18, 2020)

That's what I have Derrel, old cameras that don't have faster shutter speeds anyway and probably are gunky since on a slow speed they sound like the shutter's barely going to make to closing completely! But I'm talking about 50+ to 100 year old ones.

I looked back at the beginning of the thread, and I'd use lower ISO film in bright sunlight. You don't need more light sensitive film like 400 ISO in bright sun; that would be better for cloudy days or low light/late day, etc. Try 100 or 125 ISO film, that 400 speed film isn't helping you any. Not that you couldn't get some decent images, but maybe save that for when you're a more experienced film photographer. If anything I've usually gotten dense images trying to use higher speed film on a sunny day (because it was the end of the roll, that's all I had with me, etc. and I'm livin' on the edge! lol)


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Derrel said:


> The old adage ,"expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," pays respect to the idea that the ASA-ISO for a film will determine the shadow density based upon the scene being given a fairly generous shadow exposure....unless the OP lowers the Exposure Index ( the ISO set on the camera's meter), no mount of development increase will correct for the under-exposure we see in the shadows.
> 
> The OP NEEDS TO LOWER the ISO setting used. The idea that fixer is somehow being retained in the plastic reels is, I think, not a real factor here.



Have seen it happen, particularly if you use the same chemistry again and again in the same set of reels. Fixer dries to a fine white powder and can sometimes not be obvious on the reel itself, which if I recall on the Patterson's, are white. And it was raised in my comment as a possibility, and looking at the negatives, could very well be the cause, but it wasn't limited to that one thing either. Changing the ISO really does much of nothing in film if you are metering incorrectly, it will still be an incorrect exposure, simply at a different ISO.


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 18, 2020)

As Darryl pointed out ... your negs are "thin" ... you should have much more very dark areas.
This should help on "reading" a B&W neg.

Photomicrography - Black & White Film Processing Errors | Olympus Life Science


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

Lowering one's exposure index is the very first step to getting a more generous exposure. The OP has already told us basically how he meters...lowering the exposure index by one exposure value will lead to a more generous exposure even though he makes no change in his light metering technique.

Having seen some of his extremely thin negatives my recommendation would be to immediately go to grade four paper or a number four multi-grade filter.using a grade two filter or paper with negatives that look like his is a recipe for disaster


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 18, 2020)

Grade four? ... maybe turn the knob all the way to eleven


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

Does he not wash his film on the Patterson reels? I would think that any fixer would be adequately removed after having washed any film for an adequate length of time.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

dxqcanada said:


> Grade four? ... maybe turn the knob all the way to eleven [/QUOTE
> 
> Yes, grade 4 in the early 1980s I printed hundreds of negatives on grade four paper.
> 
> His example Prints look horrible on grade 2


----------



## dxqcanada (Aug 18, 2020)

Yeah, I remember using grade 4 for those slightly thin negs ... don't think I ever really used grade 5, maybe as an experiment that didn't turn out that great ... I would just have discarded negs that were that under-exposed.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Lowering one's exposure index is the very first step to getting a more generous exposure. The OP has already told us basically how he meters...lowering the exposure index by one exposure value will lead to a more generous exposure even though he makes no change in his light metering technique.



Generally, Exposure Index is more of a reference for digital cameras as opposed to film. In digital, if you have an exposure index (a TRUE exposure index) of say "800", that is the native value of sensitivity to light that the chip has to record a specific value correctly on the chip itself. Using this value, if assigned by the manufacturer, will yield the best results for noise, contrast and exposure.  So, if you go higher or lower than this value, it will involve post processing in both photography and cinematography, which in the case of the OP, is not a helpful thing. It can also introduce a significant level of noise as well, which again is not good. In ISO's, which have been around since 1974 and are a combination of the old ASA and DIN (German) standards. Pushing and pulling the ISO also causes issues within the film. Pull the processing, shooting at say 100 or 200 with 400 ISO film can introduce contrast issues simply because the over exposure can not allow full development of the highlights, and you'll often get muddy looking prints without proper contrast changes. Generally, pulling film is done to control the contrast of a VERY contrasty scene and not for exposure only compensation. If not exposed and compensate in the processing accordingly, you risk blown out highlights on the film itself and gross over exposure. Oppositely, if you push the film, you need to process it differently as well. When you push film, you are grossly under exposing the film (again, according the the manufacturer's recommendations) and compensating for this by significantly over developing. This also has significant issues with both contrast, which is very high (and opposite of pulling the film) and extensive grain. Using specific developers for this, such as Acufine can limit these bad traits, but there are still compensations that need to be made in printing as well. It can get quite complicated. A good densitometer will prove this for the film side quite easily.

Because of this complication, and the OP own admission that they are fairly new to all of this, it is best to stick to the manufacturer's recommendations. Shoot at 400 ISO, metering correctly, then developing correctly with fresh chemistry and good working habits consistently and their results will improve. Changing ISO's and EI's, and using the terms interchangeably is confusing to anyone starting out in this process, so let's keep it simple for them and make it correct. After they become more proficient, then start the experimentation, but first, get it right to begin with. Just my take on this.

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

No in fact exposure index is a very well-known legacy of the film era, and not the digital era.

The original poster revealed that he was not shooting Tri-x but Fuji Acros 100.

The original poster told us that he was trying to use a plus minus which I assume he meant centered LCD display reading in his f3 titanium.if he is using the cameras built-in reflected light meter as most people do a simple lowering of his exposure index would lead to more generous exposure.

Whenever a person uses a film above or below the manufacturer's ISO rating, that numerical value has long been for over 50 years, called the EI, which as you probably know stands for exposure index.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

As far as keeping it correct, you sir are making a huge mistake telling people that exposure index is a byproduct of the digital photography era, when in fact it is well-known that the term was used by the late 1960s.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Here is a fairly good article that explains this. Generally, as I said, a beginner should stick to the basics. The article deals in some Cinema work, but it is all the same for film and digital. A good read.

Sense And Sensitivity: ISO, EI, and Gain Explained | AbelCine


----------



## Derrel (Aug 18, 2020)

Telling the OP to set his camera to 400 ISO when he is using Fuji acros 100 would be a massive step in the wrong direction. It is very important to read a poster's query very carefully. No matter what this guy does setting the camera to 400 ISO would cause massive under exposure.
I would  tend to agree withyou that developing for nine minutes would most likely make an improved negative.

 the idea of using grade 2 enlarging paper or grade 2 polycontrast or multi contrast filter is based upon a much higher gamma negative, which was common in the 1940s and 1950s.

 if you want to print really thin delicate negatives like his then you need a higher contrast paper and it would also be useful to use a much more higher contrast enlarger than a beseler 23c II....say a Leitz Focomat IIc.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 18, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Telling the OP to set his camera to 400 ISO when he is using Fuji acros 100 would be a massive step in the wrong direction. It is very important to read a poster's query very carefully. No matter what this guy does setting the camera to 400 ISO would cause massive under exposure.
> I would  tend to agree withyou that developing for nine minutes would most likely make an improved negative.



I seemed to remember he mentioned Tri-X, which is what I was referring to. You know, it's perfectly OK for you to disagree with me. Does not bother me in the least. I can only tell you though that after working as a photojournalist for 35 years, writing for the largest photo magazine in the world  and teaching for 10 years that the very best way to teach someone something technical is to keep it simple. When I teach this, I tell the students 400 ISO for Tri-X, develop it at this temperature with this developer and here is how you should do this, this and this. Step them through. Once they have the basics down, camera, exposure and development, then ask "OK, what would happen if you did all of this at 100 or 1600 ISO with Tri-X film?" and then have them go do it. Now, they will fail with this because they will have over and under exposed film, but they learn that exposure and film processing are connected. Then, show them that if they shorten the 100 ISO development and lengthen the 1600 ISO development, what happens? well, the 100 ISO has less contrast, so even though it is exposed correctly, the development is shorter and the highlights don't fully develop, so instead of a grade 2 paper, I have to use a grade 3 or maybe even 4, depending on the scene. And instead of a grade 2 or 3 for the 1600, I might have to use a 1 or even a zero, again depending on the scene. and WOW... look at that grain! Then, you say "well, what could you change on the 1600 ISO to make the grain less?" Then you introduce them to different developers and it shows them that different developers have different characteristics and some have a finer grain than others, and depending on what you're doing and the goals of the image, changing developers is an option to get a higher quality. You have to step people through the process, otherwise you lose them. They become frustrated and something that they loved, they now hate because they don't understand it. So, saying all of that Derrel, I stand by what I have said here. Be well and stay healthy.

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## Ideal_format (Aug 30, 2020)

Thanks for everyone’s input. I’m taking baby steps to make small one variable at a time corrections rather than tackling to many things at once, especially more advanced methods like pushing, pulling, ETC.

Here is a quick update:

Safelight DID have a light leak around the red tinted glass. I fixed that.
There was a small amount of ambient light coming in under the garage door. I fixed that.
I incorrectly referenced the wrong developing time for the film, the last two rolls came out much denser with more even light in the shadows (see below)
Kept temp stable at 68°F during development led to consistent development roll to roll.
Moved from a #2 filter on enlarger to #1 to bring down contrast - seems to have made prints more balanced
Used RC multigrade paper and colors appear much more smooth, almost no grain, and very even.
As suggested I did a test roll using Kodak Tri-X 400, the film below was processed using this method:
Developer: ilfosol 3, 1+9, time 7:30 - agitate every minute for ten seconds “rolling” the tank
Stop Bath: ilfostop 1+19, 20 seconds - rolling tank for first 10 then resting for 10
Fixer: ilford rapid fixer 1+4, time 4:00 -  agitate every minute for ten seconds “rolling” the tank
Rinse: fresh water for 5 / 10 / 20 seconds with final fourth rinse for 10 seconds with 5ml of wetting agent

The prints where developed using the following method on a Beseler 23c II B&W enlarger:

50mm Nikkor lens at f11
Ilford #1 filter in upper housing of enlarger
8 second exposure
Developer: ilford multigrade, 1+9, time 1:30

Stop bath: ilford stop, 1+19, time 0:30
Fixer: ilford rapid fixer, 1+4, time 1:00
Rinse: Paterson rinser for 3 minutes
Squeegee and dry for 12 hours
I know I still have a long way to go, but these came out much improved thanks to all your advice. If there are any major issues you see, I’m happy to take more pointers!


----------



## webestang64 (Aug 30, 2020)

Those do look better. Keep at it. The more you print the more you learn. You might want to look for old darkroom books. These days they are cheap and full of great info.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Aug 30, 2020)

Looks SOOOOO much better! Thanks for the update and congratulations on your success!


----------



## Derrel (Aug 30, 2020)

Glad to hear you fixed two sources of light leaks and made some adjustments on other parameters. Your results look much better.


----------

