Rolf-Werner
Last night I finally got round to doing some darkroom work again. I ran into a few problems with the soft version of Foma. As I’ve mentioned before, I used to prefer rather harsh contrasts and couldn’t quite remember why, as I actually do like the look of rich grey tones.
Brief description: First, I made contact prints from my negatives using the standard gradient. Test strips and so on – everything reacted exactly as I’d expected. The contact prints turned out well.
The first subject I then wanted to print is well defined. It was taken in the evening light. The sun was shining on a house by the river, with trees behind it. There is no detail left between the leaves – deep black – whilst the house wall is so bright that the highlights show hardly any detail – hardly, but still some.
OK, it looks quite right on the contact print. I made a test strip with the soft Foma first, in 3-second increments. To my surprise, the paper reacted much more slowly than expected. The first detail only became visible at over 12 seconds. But the print at 12 seconds was far too pale. So I simply increased it to 20. It was better, but the black was still anthracite. It wasn’t until 30 seconds that the dark parts of the image were as I’d imagined them. But by then the house wall had dropped too far in density; at a rough guess, I’d say below Zone 5. (A test strip with 5–10-second increments would probably have been more advisable here, but the evening was already well advanced, and I really wanted to see something at last...)
So, more like dark grey blacks and light grey highlights. How would you react in this case? How soft is ‘Soft’? Sure, it says so on the package insert, but that doesn’t mean anything to me. Roughly speaking and from memory, I’d say Ilford 2 was harder than this.
I then simply started again with the standard gradient, and lo and behold: test strips in 5-second increments, 10 seconds worked. I just developed it like that, and now the subject is exactly as I’d imagined it: everything from bright white to deep black.
I ended up struggling with that one image until 2 am :) and in the end, the rising moon drove me away... But that’s another story.
Best regards,
Rolf
Tandemfahren
Hi Rolf,
?
So you’re using fixed-grade paper. No one’s really been able to explain to me why that sort of thing still exists, but that’s for you to know.
What does the instruction leaflet say?
?
I can give you a tip for your test strips, though: instead of always adding seconds, try multiplying by the same factor each time, like a series of aperture settings.
So, for example, 10-14-20-28s.
That way, you’ll always increase all the densities in even steps and reach your goal much faster.
?
Working on a subject until two in the morning – I think many of us know that feeling... The main thing is you’ve learnt something!
?
Frankgröße
TR
From what you describe, the paper for your negative was simply too soft. If the negative had been harder (e.g. developed for longer), the paper would have been just right. Apparently, the overall contrast of your negative was lower than expected, and so a ‘normal’ gradient was better suited to it. The gradient of the paper always depends on the overall contrast of the negative. Here, you need to fine-tune the settings to achieve maximum black + detail AND brilliant highlights + detail. With a different negative exposed to the shadows in bright sunlight – which is therefore harder – the softer paper would certainly be more appropriate. I now only use multi-contrast paper and fine-tune the gradient according to the contrast of my particular negative.
piu58
If the shadows are correct (deep black) but the highlights are too dark, the contrast needs to be increased. With fixed-grade paper, this is only possible to a limited extent: develop for longer, until just before the fog sets in, or use a more concentrated paper developer.
Rolf-Werner
But now I need to quickly respond to your tips. You were all right; the contrast in that one image wasn’t as strong as in the others on the same roll of film. It worked perfectly with harder paper.
I then tested the really hard subjects with soft paper. At first I was surprised that the soft paper is much less sensitive; an exposure time of 30 seconds instead of 6 is quite a difference.
But then: all four subjects I printed this way have a grey haze over them. That could be down to the lighting, which wasn’t quite right yet (as I’d mentioned in the other thread). Or did I overdevelop them? Although – from past experience, I know that overdevelopment looks different... The only thing in favour of this is that the grey haze is pretty much the same across all four images; if it had been the lighting, I’d expect it to vary from print to print.
The grey is noticeable in all the white areas; for example, window frames, which should really just be white, like the unexposed paper, have a minimal grey tint. Naturally, the eye picks this up across the entire image; it looks as if it’s been printed on newspaper or photocopier paper.
Unfortunately, my scanner is broken; otherwise I would have uploaded it here. Based on my description, what do you think it is?
TR
How old is the paper? Paper that is several years old and hasn’t been stored in a cool place almost always has a greyish tinge.
Rolf-Werner
Hi Rolf,
?
So you’re using fixed-grade paper. No one’s really been able to explain to me why that sort of thing still exists, but that’s for you to know.
What does the instruction leaflet say?
Actually, I plan to work with baryta in the long run. But as I don’t have my equipment for that here yet and am a bit out of practice after such a long time, I thought I’d start with PE. How long has multigrade paper been around? Wasn’t it in the 80s when it first came out? Back then I mainly did that sort of thing, and I had my problems with it at the time.
I’m also looking for a look like in the 50s or 60s. That’s why I haven’t just taken pictures with my go-to film, FP4, but have also experimented with ADO and the like. I performed the exposure on these films with the old Zeiss-Ikon to enhance the effect. And back then, surely there was only fixed-grade paper, wasn’t there? In principle, that’s heading in the right direction. Apart from the grey haze, the pictures with strong contrasts that I printed on the soft Foma really do have that proper 1950s feel to them. I just need to fine-tune my technique...
?
But I can give you a tip for your test strips: instead of always adding seconds, try multiplying by the same factor, like a series of aperture settings.
So, for example, 10-14-20-28s.
That way, you increase all the densities in even steps and reach your goal much faster.
Blimey, now you’re really putting my maths to the test... so add 4, 6, 8 seconds? But then I’d have to keep turning the timer every time, which gets a bit fiddly in the dark, and I’d have to hold the test strip as well... how do you do it?
?
Working on a subject until two in the morning – I reckon a lot of people know that feeling... The main thing is I’ve learnt something!
?
Cheers
Of course, that was also because I had to spend so long gathering everything together first. After all, it had all been stored in the cellar for 20 years. On Sunday I was then able to start earlier. But I still need to get some proper blackout curtains. The moon came up at 1 am, and it shone in so brightly that I had to stop...
Rolf
Rolf-Werner
How old is the paper? Paper that’s a few years old and hasn’t been stored in a cool place almost always has a greyish tinge.
I’ve just ordered this from FOTOIMPEX; I’ve no idea, is there a date on it?
Rolf-Werner
Another thought on the grey haze: as I took 6 x 6 shots, I (coincidentally) printed these 4 images as squares, so there’s a border around the edges. The border is pure white, so it’s really nice and bright. But you can use this border to check the bright areas in the other images and see just how grey they are in comparison. On the standard paper, the white areas are truly white – you can see that clearly – and they look better too.
However, the standard paper only has a short exposure time, whereas the soft paper has a much longer one. Hence my suspicion that it might be related to the lighting, i.e. the increase in the grey curve, much like in the test. But now this has turned into a mixed thread...
Tandemfahren
?
Blimey, you’re really putting my maths to the test... so add 4, 6, 8 seconds? But then I’d have to keep turning the timer every time, which is a bit fiddly in the dark, and I’d have to hold the test strip as well... how do you do it?
?
?
Hi Rolf-Werner,
?
I admit, I’ve got this fancy timer with a foot switch that does it all by itself unless you explicitly stop it... but it works with a normal clock too.
I make test streaks using a piece of black cardboard with a slit and perform exposure on each streak separately (moving the slit one width further each time)
?
You can adapt the timer by sticking a hand-drawn scale over it, which has marks at, for example, 8-10-13-16-20-25-32-40-51-64 seconds (these are now third-stop increments; in half-stop increments, they are correspondingly 8-11-16-22 etc., or indeed 10-14-20, like the f-stops). Plutimication, as the clever Pippilotta Rollgardina already knew :-)
?
Today’s variable-contrast papers are really good, but I don’t want to preach to anyone. The view that zoom lenses are unsuitable for photography is still alive and well.
?
Best regards
Rolf-Werner
That's a handy idea with the timer; I'll give it a go.
Rolf
TiMo
Hi Rolf,
You’d better not listen to the tandem rider – he takes photos with a zoom lens too ;)
I don’t make the test strips all that complicated. I have my times set to 6s – 8s – 10s – 13s – 16s – 20s – 25s – 32s – 40s and a loud ticking clock. Grab a piece of cardboard and switch on the enlarger. Count to 6 seconds and cover part of the test strip, count on to 8 seconds and cover another section, and so on and so forth.
Most of the time, though, the range between 13s and 25s is enough for me, unless I’m working with split grades.
Cheers
Tandemfahren
He takes photos with a zoom lens too ;)
?
Blimey, caught out...
I don’t usually do test strips anymore, just for the gradient (Schplättgrüßd, or whatever it’s called)
?
Rolf-Werner
@TiMo: Oh, backwards? Yes, that’s an idea!
TR
If the paper is fresh (and the edges are white!), then the fog must be caused by something else.
€
By the way: Unfortunately, the bad habit of using ‘test strips’ has even found its way into good books. However, with each partial exposure, one would need to ‘capture’ the shadows and highlights of the negative. With this step-exposure method, this will naturally not be possible for most subjects. Therefore, to achieve a “fine” result, you should always take “test strips” on the same areas (shadows and highlights) one after the other.
My rough exposure times to start with are: 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32. Well? Do those numbers look familiar?
Rolf-Werner
Hihi – yes, I recognise that :)
?
I always make sure I pick a distinctive spot that really stands out, e.g. the edge of a roof where there are deep shadows and bright highlights. You can usually find something like that. And besides, over time you get a feel for what sort of exposure you’ll end up with, so you can adjust the gradation around that.
?
What else do you think could be causing the grey haze? Overdevelopment? It certainly isn’t overexposure; the darkest areas are actually black.
?
Rolf
Tandemfahren
That’s right, listen to Thomas; that’s obviously the best way to deal with the streaks.
The grey haze, as I now understand it (hopefully correctly), should simply be due to the gradient being too soft. If the edges of the paper are nice and white, and the blacks are just right, that seems quite logical to me, doesn’t it?
A haze test is still a must!
€
Frankgröße
HenningH
On a completely different note: back in 2006, I had a pack of Fomaspeed Soft that was somehow faulty. It felt to me as though the gradient ran from 00 to 0, and if you exposed it long enough for the black to turn black, nothing else would come out right. So maybe the paper is just faulty...
TiMo
However, with each partial exposure, you would need to ‘capture’ the shadows and highlights of the negative. With this step-by-step exposure method, this won’t, of course, be possible for most subjects. Therefore, to achieve a ‘precise’ result, you should always take ‘test shots’ of the same areas (shadows and highlights) one after the other.
?
It isn’t strictly necessary. You can also interpolate very effectively here. I always place the test strips under areas that are important and bright. If there are dark areas as well, that’s even better. When it comes to exposure time, I initially focus solely on the highlights. I then select the time that makes the highlights slightly brighter than desired.
If the black isn’t dark enough then, I just do another test with a higher gradient in a suitable area.
Once I have an approximate time and gradient, I make a test print at full size so I can check all areas of the image with it.
?
<SARCASM>
Of course, I’ve got it easy with the gradient on my paper, because I can only go up to 2.5. You don’t have to mess about much with that
</SARCASM>
?
Henning, get yourself some new paper. It’s no fun like this.
Rolf-Werner
On a completely different note: back in 2006, I had a pack of Fomaspeed Soft that was somehow faulty. It felt as though the gradient ran from 00 to 0, and if you exposed it long enough for the black to turn black, nothing else would come out right.
So maybe the paper’s just faulty...
?
That would be a bit of a nightmare ;) especially as I’ve got no reference to test it against.
?
Actually, I do! I’ve got another pack in a different size, come to think of it; I could do a comparison with that.
?
Rolf
