HerbertWalter
Hello, I’m new to the forum and would like to introduce myself briefly.
?
My name is Herbert and I’m from Austria. I’ve been back to shooting analogue black-and-white film for a while now – both 35mm and medium format.
I’ve always developed my own negatives, and now I’ve also started enlarging positives. I’ve bought an Opemus 6a. For medium format, I use the insert glasses (the top one is specially treated), and for 35mm I use the insert masks. Now to my first question –
In the filter tray there is a glass that looks like an anti-Newton glass. One side is smooth and the other is rough. Do I need this glass for enlarging? I don’t use filters as I still use fixed-grade paper. If the glass is required – which side should face upwards? I assume it has the same effect with glassless inserts as the treated insert glass does for medium format.
Now to question two:
I use Work photographic paper (Tetenal) grade 3 and Amaloco 1001 as the developer. The recommended development time is given as 90 seconds at 20 degrees. However, it seems to me that the photos are not fully developed within this time. They are simply pale. If I expose them for longer, they become darker, but they remain pale and lack contrast. I have wasted various exposure times, test strips and, of course, precious paper, but have not achieved a satisfactory result. I have also prepared a fresh batch of developer. I then adjusted the exposure so that the image matched the drawing and extended the development time to approx. 120 seconds. Result – the image comes very close to the sample image developed in the photo lab. My question to you – do you have to stick to the reference values for development times specified by the paper and developer manufacturers, or can you ignore them and experiment for yourself? In my case it worked, but as I’m still a beginner, I don’t know if that’s the right approach.
I’ve also heard of a method where you count the seconds until the paper first starts to undergo toning in the developer and then multiply that by a factor of 6. That’s then the development time. That’s close to my 120 seconds.
I’ve also carried out the haze test on my photographic paper – everything’s fine.
So that’s quite a lot for a start, but you’d be helping me enormously to ensure that my enjoyment of this wonderful hobby doesn’t wane again.
?
Kind regards,
Herbert
?
?
?
?
?
?
TR
Hello,
The glass in the filter stage is only there to further diffuse the light from the condenser towards the negative. It may also serve to keep the heat from the filament lamp away from the negative. It probably doesn’t matter which way round it’s positioned. This has nothing to do with the special ‘anti-Newton glass’ in the image stage that you mention. That’s something else entirely.
Regarding the paper: It is indeed the best way to determine the total development time using the ‘factor method’ you mentioned. It is important that you ‘set’ the exposure time so that the maximum black in the shadows (the darkest areas of the image) is just reached without the detail in them disappearing (this naturally assumes a correctly exposed negative). For example, a black jumper should actually appear black without its creases disappearing – but should still just be visible.
And now we get to the crux of the matter: if the highlights (the brightest areas of your image) are already too grey at precisely this exposure time, your paper is simply too soft. If, however, the highlights are still ‘blown out’ at this exposure time, your paper is simply too hard for the negative.
With multi-contrast paper, this can be easily adjusted (although the exposure times for the shadows will always change as a result). With your fixed-grade paper, you are unfortunately reliant on time-consuming (and nowadays mostly unnecessary) techniques such as ‘sub-threshold pre-exposure’ of paper that is actually a little too hard, or its ‘two-bath development’. A sponge treatment using concentrated developer might also bring out some detail in the highlights on paper that is too hard.
However, if your paper is too soft, you could subsequently lighten the (too grey) highlights using Farmer’s toners on a sponge. But in that case, you would have been better off choosing a harder paper in the first place.
The important thing to start with is that you always set the exposure time based on the shadows (or the maximum black just visible there). Technically speaking, you shouldn’t judge an image ‘globally’, but always assess the shadows and highlights and adjust the exposure time and gradient accordingly.
It doesn’t matter whether your camera is a ‘Opemus 6’ from Meopta – to refer to the title of the thread – or a box from, say, Durst. The positive developer also plays hardly any role, nor does the paper, provided it hasn’t been overlaid – and so, naturally, has usually become slightly softer.
TR
Do you have to follow the references regarding development times provided by the paper and developer manufacturers
?
?
It is best to always use the factor method. After all, the chemical manufacturer does not know the exact composition of your paper or how depleted your developer solution is.
If you are unable to achieve acceptable results at all, you should consider whether your developer concentrate itself might already be ‘spoil’.
A used or ‘spoil’ developer is characterised by the fact that a maximum black can only be achieved with a great deal of light, and that the mid-tones and highlights come out too dark – in other words, it is working far too softly.
bernhardmangelsgmxde
If the prints turn out far too soft at grade 3, I’d say there was something wrong with the negative exposure and/or development. With multigrade/multicontrast/variocontrast paper, you can simply choose a harder gradient to compensate for this; the better approach is probably to ensure that your negatives are prepared in such a way that you can enlarge them well using Grade 2 or 3.
HerbertWalter
Hello, thank you for your advice!
I’ll take a closer look at the suggestions.
I’d already suspected the negatives might be the problem, but the images looked fine when they were developed in the lab.
€
Thanks again
€
Herbert
TR
If the paper is older, that could of course be the cause (even more so than the developer). Old paper becomes soft and takes on a slightly greyish tinge.
TobiasCallenius
Herbert, are you sure that Grade 3 paper was used for the lab print? If in doubt, multigrade paper was used and therefore adjusted to the negative. That is precisely the strength of multigrade paper. Very few people still use fixed-grade paper, for exactly that reason. Those who do have specific reasons for doing so.
Best regards,
Tobias
HerbertWalter
Hello, thank you for your comments.
€
I’m going to get some multigrade paper and the necessary filters for my enlarger and experiment with test strips.
I have a question about the test strips; the exposure times given are as follows: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 sec.
Why does each time double the previous value? I was thinking more of a continuous sequence with increments of 5 sec each.
€
Best regards, Herbert
Morte
The exposure times are given as follows: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 sec.
Why does each value double the previous one? I was thinking more of a continuous sequence of times, increasing by 5 sec. each time.
?
Doubling the time corresponds to doubling the amount of light and thus exactly one f-stop difference (as with film exposure). This is useful for narrowing down the correct exposure time. If you then feel that your ideal exposure lies somewhere between two times, you can work your way towards it in five-second, two-second or one-second increments. If you do it straight away, you’ll be wasting paper, time and patience unnecessarily.
TR
Why double the previous value each time? I was thinking more of a continuous time increment of 5 seconds at a time.
?
With longer exposure times, a fixed difference of, say, 5 seconds is barely noticeable. The time difference between two test strips should therefore become longer and longer with longer exposure times, in order to arrive at conclusive results as quickly as possible. I always work with the values marked on the lenses: 4 – 5.6 – 8 – 11 – 16 – 22 – 32. That way, I quickly arrive at a good initial result (and then it’s time for the fine-tuning).
HerbertWalter
Hello, thanks for the reference regarding exposure times.
€
I have one more question;
€
how long does a developer concentrate usually keep in an opened bottle?
And how long does a diluted developer last?
I use the Amaloco 1001 SW and 6006 SW developers.
€
Best regards
€
Herbert
piu58
The concentrate will definitely last a year. I once received 8 litres of concentrate from various brands for a test; I couldn’t use it all up. After three years, some of it had gone completely off, whilst other batches still worked, though they came out of the bottle looking brown.
