Darkroom Woes Can't even make a test strip

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?
 
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.
 
No filter in enlarger.

No filter in enlarger.
Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there. These are poly contrast papers.

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

upload_2015-10-23_11-48-2.png


upload_2015-10-23_11-46-36.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2015-10-23_11-46-48.png
    upload_2015-10-23_11-46-48.png
    44.1 KB · Views: 199
No filter in enlarger.
Well that's likely at least part of your problem right there. These are poly contrast papers.
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 ?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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 ?
 
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
 
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.
 
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!).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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...
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top