Contact prints why?

Contact sheets

The humble contact print is a very powerful tool when creating an enlarged photograph. It passes on a wealth of information in its imperfect way. It is not just a positive record (proof) of all the images on the film but a starting point for the perfect print.

Not everyone agrees that a contact print of your processed film is needed. Instead, they like to work straight from the negative. I do not have a problem with this approach except on a practical level you need a light source to view them. I use the contact print not only as a reference for all my negatives but as an indicator as to which images are going to be more of a challenge to print. It is not always possible to see this when looking at the negative.

Making a contact print using a sheet of
glass to keep the negatives flat and in
contact with the paper. 

It is not a case of one, (the negative) or the other, (the contact print) but both together. By using them in conjunction you have all the information you need about the image you are going to print leading to a more judicious use of your time in the darkroom and a greater likely hood of the first proof print being closer to what you had in mind as the final print. A couple of tweaks to the next print may fulfil your vision. 

35mm contact printer

Contact printing does not require an enlarger or any special equipment. A darkened room, a frosted light bulb suspended from the ceiling and a sheet of glass to keep the negative[s] in contact with the paper and flat. Edward Weston used this simple method for his prints. During the timed exposure he would dodge the image where necessary. Once this time had elapsed, he would burn in where he thought it was needed. This method can be a bit uncertain, as you cannot always see where you need to make the adjustments unlike that of the image projected by the enlarger. A number of large format photographers still use contact printing as a way of making their final print from their negatives.

120 format contact sheet.
 This indicates that the negatives on
 left sides are overexposed. 
 

When contact printing I use my enlarger set to white light, with the lens fully open. The projected light is greater in size than the 8 x 10 paper I'm contact printing with. For 35mm film I use a contact frame and for 120 format and above a pane of glass with a ground edge, so I do not cut my fingers.

There are varying opinions on whether you should set white light, use grade one or your preferred printing grade. I have always used white light with multigrade and varitone papers and yes it works very well. You get a full range of tones.

The enlarged image shows that this negative
would enlarge without adjustment.

Remember a contact print in its simplest form is a work in progress not the finish article. I have found that some of my negatives print better with white light than they do graded. At one time I used to produce all my enlargements with white light and was very happy with the out come. With experience came sophistication and now I use graded and split graded printing methods to get the best out of the negative.

You should do what you feel is best creatively for your negatives and not let others dissuade you from that path.

Contaminated by wetting agent?

Developed in RO9 but it is not the developer.

When something unexpected happens while you are processing your negatives, it takes a bit of time to get your head round it. This happened while I was processing a number of rolls of film in R09 and using it's special brother.

 The problem has shown it's self by producing very blotchy negatives affecting two rolls of the six film developed. When this happens in a run of developing it is difficult to work out what circumstances are different enough to point a finger at.

Please bear in mind that the elimination process was written after I discovered the culprit.

Fomapan 100 negatives developed in RO9

Process of elimination:

1. So where to start? It is fortunate that the negatives involved were not the ones processed in the RO9 special. The RO9 developed one's were. This made the investigation more straight forward in that I have a better understanding of how RO9 works.
2. Was it the developer? It was made up seconds before it was used in the usual way.
3. What about Stop and Fix? Both were freshly made up minuets before use. So it cannot be one of the three main players? As they are all fresh.
4. OK what about the method? No difference there either I used my usual inversion sequence.
5. Processing tanks? Well I did press a tank into use that I have not used in a long time because of the quantity of film that needed to be developed.
6. Could that be the answer?
7. Did it affect one make of film in particular? No it did not, again this could have been a fortunate coincidence in that a roll of FP4+ and Fomapan 100 show the same affect. If it had only happened to one make it could have been construed as a manufacturing fault.
8. Water? It was fresh and clean and there had not been any notices to say there was a problem with the drinking water.
9. That leaves wetting agent? Hold on now that points to something I noticed when I was using PMK Pyro some years ago, I had a roll of film with the same sort of pattern. I put it down to the developer which I have

   

   Film FP4+ developed in PMK Pyro

   not used since. Thinking back to that time I had noticed that every time I opened the dev tank to pour out the developer there were a lot of bubbles in the top. That looked soapy and diminished with each step of the process which would suggest developer. I did speak to a number of other photographers at the time who suggested it was a developer fault. Although I stopped using the developer substituting it for ID11 and the problem disappeared was not convinced at the time. I changed how the kit was washed after each processing session. After a while I also stopped adding wetting agent to the tank. Using a different tank with it already added. Dunking the reel in by it's self and then soaking the reel in a bucket of water with a good resin afterwards.

Looking back I think when I pressed the other developing tank into use I mistakenly picked up the one I had been using for wetting agent. The resulting blotchy pattern is the result of its contamination.

This print was made from the same contaminated
Negatives. note no blotchy marks.

Conclusion:

Having eliminated all the other possibilities and no matter how silly it may sound the wetting agent is the culprit in this case. It has this time affected nearly all the frames on each film, when it happened some years ago (after checking the negatives) only certain frames showed signs of being blotchy. Which would indicate a weak contamination of the film process. This is only the second time I have had this problem in all the years I have been developing film. It just goes to show that something as innocuous as soap can cause so much trouble if it is not washed away conclusively after every processing session when added to the developing tank. My suggestion is to put wetting agent in a separate container and add the reel and film to it and not the other way round.

This picture shows that the blotches are prominent
In the sky but not the foreground.

When printing the affected negatives you cannot see the blotches when looking down the focus finder. Even though the contact prints show it quite clearly.

All the photographs that appear with this article were printed from the dodgy neg's. As I mentioned not all suffered the soapy demise. 

Beaten badly? The filter is stuck.

OH NO!!!

If you are of a delicate disposition you should not be reading this post. It shows pictures of unbelievable brutality towards a camera lens. It had to be done so the lens could be cleaned we make no apologies for the blunt force trauma needed to remove the filter.

Away from the sensational introduction the facts are more prosaic. When I have not used a camera for an extended period I generally give my cameras a good clean; in the case of my Bronica SQAi this means taking all the main components apart for checking. When I looked at the lens I noticed that the UV filter on the front was slightly out of round and there was a chip at the edge of the filter glass. I can not remember how this damage happened but it must have been something quite dramatic.

Most of my film camera lenses have a protective filter on the front, an expensive exercise now-a-days, as I have discovered. But not having the filter there in the first place would have cost a new lens. So you could say that it has been a good investment over the years. You only have to drop it once to get a good return or in this case twice, from what I remember?

O ugh that hurts!!!

It is quite surprising how brutal you need to be to remove a lens filter that has become distorted. I tried to remove it by hand but was unable to get a good enough grip to release it. So in came the meanies - my name for the over-sized water pump pliers used. The pliers are about 400 mm long, they needed to be this size so the jaw would extend to the 67 mm filter size with ease and not squeeze the filter out of shape any more than what it was. With a gentle grip on the filter and a small amount of pressure it unscrewed in a trice. Allowing for a gentle grip leaving no marks on the lens or damaged filter. Once the filter was free I checked for damage to the thread on the lens and found none. 

Ahhhh! that's better.

With the front element of the lens clean I attached the new filter. This was a gentle soothing exercise for the lens after all that brute force of earlier. All's well for the new season of picture making.

The writer of this article would like to assure the readers that the camera lens was not hurt in anyway and a stunt double was used for the photos that accompany this post.

RO 9 Special developer.

Recently, I had an unexpected back log of film to process It can be difficult to find the time to do them especially when it is more than a couple of rolls. Anyway a gap opened up so I dived into the darkroom to load two of the rolls ready for development. As I reached for the RO9 my attention was attracted to a couple of bottles of developer standing behind it. RO9 Special and Studional which as it turns out are one and the same along with Rodinal Special. While I was boxing up the first couple of film I had a rush of blood to the head and decided to give the RO9 Special a try. There was method in my madness.

At the time of my decision I had no background knowledge of this developer apart from how it was marketed and the information on the side of the bottle which is sparse to say the least. The blurb stated that RO9s was the finer bread brother of RO9 which was what attracted me to it in the first place. Part of my madness had been influenced by a cassette of HP5+ I had been given to process.

120  FP4+ Negs Developed in RO9s

In stead of jumping in at the deep end with both feet, I thought it prudent to check the very short developing times printed on the side of the bottle by processing a roll of 120 FP4+. Because I have a tendency to slightly under expose my negatives the suggested time of three and a half minutes at a dilution of 1 to 15 was increased to four. I used my standard agitation method of twelve inversions for the first thirty seconds and then four every minute. As there was no indication to the contrary. As soon as the fix was poured out of the tank I checked to see if they had developed properly. From what I could see they looked perfect. I had not intended to do a grain comparison for this film, it was purely to see if the times on the bottle worked in my favour.

The info on the side of the bottle for HP5+ suggested four minutes at 1+15 - I processed the film for five; as it turns out it was a good move. I think the negatives would have been a bit thin otherwise.

I have now researched process times and developer information for RO9s Something I should have done first with a visit Digital truths Dev chart for more times. They tell you to look at Studional.

HP5+ Negs developed in RO9s

 

Something else I had not been aware of was once the developer had been made up you could use it again. I had a suspicion it could be used again because the concentrate had a syrupy look when I poured it out. In fact you can process up to twelve rolls of mixed formats per litre. The most interesting thing about this developer is that there is no time compensation if you do more than one roll of film on the same day. You only add a compensation factor the longer the working developer in stored. Up to three months.

Developer Data:

RO9 Special/Rodinal Special and Studional.

Characteristics: Fine grain sharp negatives with good contrast. Once diluted can be stored for multiple use. Short process times.

Mixing instructions: Dilute concentrate with water 1+15

Number of Film per Dilution: 10-12 35mm or 120 format per Litre.

Temperature: Is best kept between 18 C and 24C with + or – adjustments as needed to the length of the development time.

Agitation: Tilt the tank for the first minute continuously and then once every minute. You should avoid developing times under three minutes.

Shelf Life: Concentrate should last 2 years in original bottle with no air gap. Once Diluted it should last 3 months without air gap in it's own container.

Time increases for multiple use: To keep speed yield and contrast consistent the diluted developer should be kept in brim full tightly capped bottles if this is achieved the following will apply:

Idle time between two batches	Development lengthened by
few hours (but development none *on same day)	None *
1 – 3 days	5.00%
4 – 8 days	10.00%
1 – 2 weeks	15.00%
over 2 weeks	20.00%

* with Atomal FF: + 10 %.

The extra times given above do not change if several films are simultaneously processed in one batch.

Suggested development times for use with RO9 special, Rodinal Special and Studional:

Film type	Time *	Speed
Agfapan APX 100	4 min	ISO 100/21°
Agfapan APX 400	6 min	ISO 400/27°
Fuji Neopan 400 Prof.	3 min	ISO 320/26°
Fuji Neopan 1600 Prof.	3 min	ISO 800/30°
Ilford PAN-F Plus	3 min	ISO 50/18°
llford FP 4 Plus	3.5 min	ISO 100/21°
Ilford HP 5 Plus	4 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 100	3.5 min	ISO 160/23°
Ilford Delta 400	4.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Ilford Delta 3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Ilford SFX 200	4 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Plus-X	5 min	ISO 125/22°
Kodak Tri-X	3.5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX 100	5 min	ISO 80/20°
Kodak T-MAX 400	5 min	ISO 400/27°
Kodak T-MAX p3200	6 min	ISO 1250/32°
Kodak Recording 2475	6 min	ISO 640/29°

• Small tank or tray processing at 20 °C.
• Information above supplied by Agfa.

Almost forgot the reason for the rush of blood to the head if you had not already guessed it was to do with the 35 mm HP5+ I find that this films emulsion tends to produce rather grainy negatives with standard RO9. As I intend to enlarge these negatives to 9 x12 the finer developer should make the prints less grainy. I am pleased to say the strategy worked, the negatives have a much finer grain than the standard RO9. The proof of the pudding will be in the printing of the FP4+ and HP5+ negatives. I will share more prints in another post.

9 x 12  photograph from 35mm HP5+ negatives developed in RO9 special

Scanning Photographs

Before adjustments in  Photoshop

Using a scanner for photographs is slowly becoming a thing of the past. I say a thing of the past but what I really mean is that you no longer need to use a flat bed scanner to reproduce your photographs to share with people digitally. You can if you wish use your smart phone or digital camera to reproduce the pictures you make.

As some of you know, most of the black and white images I share with you on this blog are scanned from photographs. Over the years I have developed a simple method for getting the best from my scanned prints and negatives. I like to keep things straightforward when it comes to digitizing prints. There is no point in doing a lot of work in Photoshop when I have already done it in the darkroom.

Levels adjustment.

Hus and saturation adjustment.

I use a very old flat bed Epsom scanner. I open the software on the computer and a window comes up with a number of pre-sets on it. In most cases I scan at original size, that's because my photographs are A4 and larger. This is done at three hundred DPI. I usually end up with a file size of about twenty four megabytes and under four thousand pixels on the longest side which is more than enough for screen display. The unsharp mask is set to medium. I always scan in colour even for monochrome and save the files as tiffs. Dust removal is set to zero, I have found it better to use a very slightly damp cloth wiped over the scanning window a few minutes before use to remove any bits. Far better than letting the software do it.

After all the adjustments have been added

Once on the computer I open the file in Photoshop. I check the picture at one to one for blind pixels, specks, process faults and dust etc, that have transferred from the darkroom process. The scanner tends to flatten the contrast of my images so I adjust the contrast to replicate that of the photograph in a levels mask. Once done I open hue and saturation mask to adjust the tone of the picture. If you use toned papers and developers the scanner under represent these as well hence the adjustment. Once done I flatten the layers and re-size it for web use.

I know what you are thinking that's a lot of work just to share a picture. If you think it is a good picture it's worth the work. It is a lot less work than some digital photographers do, who can use some forty or fifty layers to get the picture right.

Taken with a camera

I have included a picture from my phone and digital camera for comparison. Both pictures have been checked in Photoshop. Adjustments? Levels a slight tweak but no where near as much as the scanned photograph. The thing to watch for are reflections especially with gloss paper. If you look carefully you will notice some but not enough to detract from the picture.

A phone or a digital camera is a good way round not having a scanner for sharing images of photographs. These methods will not completely replace the consistent quality of a good scanner but will allow you to share you analogue work if you are on a tight budget.

taken with a smart phone.

 

Images for sale.

Green Developer?

 ID11 used with Fomapan

In the normal run of things the colour of your developer as you pour it out at the end of the developing period is nothing out of the ordinary. You just get on with the next stage of the process. That is until it comes out emerald green!. What was just another film processing session has just thrown up a number of questions of doubt, or has it? This is possibly the first time for quite a while that you have taken any notice of what colour the used developer was supposed to be. So what changed? Your film make?

Basically what you are seeing, if you have not used a pre-soak, is the anti-curl and/or the antihalation coatings, washing off in the developer. It has no affect on the developing process which is the first thought most of us have when presented with something out of the ordinary. Different developers can present varying colours depending on which film manufacturer you use.

RO9 used with Fomapan

Why add these dyes?

The halation dye is added to the back of the film base to stop reflections coming off the backing (Acetate or Polyester) into the emulsion, causing exposure affects, usually visible to the eye as halos around areas of brightness. Sometimes the halation coating is sandwiched between the film base and the emulsion or added to the film base itself giving it a slight tone. This in no way alters the way the film acts with the printing process.

So which film developer combination gives you this wonderful Green?

Fomapan is responsible for the green tinting of the used developer. The developers I have used - ID11 and RO9 have produced this colour, so suspect that this film may affect other developers. Although Foma produces the most striking colour, other makes also add a tint to varying degrees to the developer during the process.

New header picture.

As you can see we have refreshed the header picture and title with some fancy Text. I have been wanting to change this picture for some time but could not make up my mind as to which picture to choose. Until recently. Funnily enough It's been on display in the lounge for months. Even as a test strip I find it engaging. I have had a number of test prints over the years that I feel have worked better as an incremental image than the final result, so I thought why not! it is in keeping with the ethos of the blog.

The picture is of our 'trolley' sticking his head out of the rear window of the car. He is exceptionally pleased with himself as he has spent the afternoon up to his ears in water and soft gluttonous mud. So much so that instead of being tricolour his fur is slicked down with brown mud so badly he looks like he has used styling gel. Fortunately for us the back seat is covered with several blankets for times like this.

For a dog that loves to play in the water all day I find it strange that as soon as a bath is mentioned he go's and locks himself in his cage and then plays up no end when he is in the bath.

The picture was made using a Bronica SQAi producing a 6x6 negative on FP4+ developed in ID11. It is printed on Kentmere Paper 9.5 x 12 developed in Ilford multigrade. It happens to be one of the first batch of photographs I produced with this new paper. 

 

 

Recently this wonderful individual passed away.

 

He was a kind, cheeky, mischievous and above all of this very happy. He has been a painful lose.

 

 

update 2014 

120 Film paper backing symbols.

When I started to use a zero multi format pinhole camera for the first time, I had a brief moment of panic because I could not remember what the symbols on the backing paper indicated before the frame number. I had also forgotten that the whole family of 120 formats were represented. I had not used the little red window on the back of a camera since my childhood. Fortunately for me it did not take long for it to come back.

Makes of film shown FP4+, Fomapan, Adox.
Beginning of film. (start)

Remember that the frame number also indicates the center of the film you are about to expose so it is important to get this in the middle of the red window. If you repeatedly over run this by the time you get to the end of the film you will only have part of a frame left.

End of film (Finish)

With this in mind the following pictures show you what to expect with different makes of 120 film - not just for winding on but for winding off before you remove the film from the camera. Not sure why you would need to know this when your coming to the end of the film? logic dictates that you just keep winding until you feel the backing freeing it's self from the spool.




The top line of symbols are for cameras that use 6 x 4.5 negatives. The middle is for 6x6 negatives. The bottom for 6 x 7  and 6 x 9 negatives.

Light metering?

For years I wanted to obtain a Bronica and when I did it was a very happy day. The SQAi has done a lot of travelling over the years; in all sorts of weather and across many different terrains. It has let me down on a couple of occasions but I do not blame the camera, overall it has been a great bit of kit. It can be a pain literally on long treks as it is no light weight, even in its lightest configuration.

I have not always been happy with the camera. When I first had it I could not get used to the back to front image which was really frustrating at times. I was not happy with having to use a hand held light meter either. I know! why did I

purchase it in the first place? Boyhood dream of some day of owning one? It has taken sometime for its use to become second nature, but now that it has, my picture making has become more fluent.

Along the way, my light meter use has changed; with some experimenting, I have found that two readings is better than one over all, making white bland skies with monochrome film a thing of the past. I, like you, have tried to solve it by using black and white filters from yellow to red and graduated neutral density filters to name a few. All of which are now gathering dust some where. Really and truly all you need to do is take a second light reading. Of what? The brightest part of the scene which in most cases is the sky and the amount of time it takes to do this makes it a no brainer. In fact you could have taken several in the time it takes to read this.

An understanding of Ansel Adams zone system helps to produce better negatives.

The picture right give a rough idea on how it works.

I have metered skies that have been as much as six stops brighter. In these cases, would it mean shutting the lens down by three stops to allow for it? With a little bit of help from the zone system you may only need to allow one stop to improve the detail in the sky, this would lead to better detailed negatives. The extra information would lead to more easily produced photographs.

Yes you can bracket your exposures which is a good way of learning what works best for you but as a long term method it is a waste of film. The idea is to know what works so you can get it right first time.

On average I have found that the skies in my pictures are about two to three F numbers brighter, meaning a slight adjustment to the exposure before pressing the shutter will produce more detail in the sky on the processed negative, without making the main part of the image too dark. When it comes to printing, whether burning in or holding back, depends on which method you prefer to use in the darkroom. My working method leads me to add light (burn in) more often than take it away (hold back). The sky is not always the brightest part of the picture, I'm using it in this case because it is the most common complaint with developed negatives and to keep my explanation simple.

The following pictures show what happen when the sky is taken into account:

120 format Film FP4+, 6x6 negative,
 Developed in ID11 ,
Printed on Ilford multigrade RC gloss,
 Developed in Ilford multigrade.

This picture was metered for the piper. I did not take a second reading for the sky. I have been unable to burn the sky in hence the white out so to speak.

120 format film FP4+, 125 ISO, 6x6 negative
Developed in Ilford multigrade developer
printed on multigrade RC gloss.

With this picture I closed the aperture down by one F number to allow for the sky. For example from F.8 to F.11. As you can see the clouds have been picked out. With a bit of burning in (adding light) The sky would have more contrast therefore stand out.

120 format Fomapan 100 ISO, 6x6 negative,
Developed in RO9, Printed on Ilford multigrade RC
gloss, Developed in Moersch 6 Blue.

This is a badly scanned photograph but it does illustrate how well the clouds stand out.

It was a difficult scene to meter. The lighting was changing quickly. The light reading for the sky was indicating a difference of three F numbers in brightness more than the overall reading.  In the end I only shut the lens down by one F number. It is a straight print without any burning in.

Thinking in Black and white?

I don't know about you, but I find it difficult to get back into the swing of things after a break. I find it hard to get my brain out of park. It would seem that the longer I get in the tooth the more likely I am to make the silliest of mistakes. Take earlier in the year for instance.

One Sunday afternoon we thought we would take a trip out to the Humber bridge. The day had turned very warm with a light breeze and rolling clouds. Ideal for making pictures. Earlier that day I had cleaned my SQAi and loaded up all my film backs with fresh film. Not unusual in it's self, except one of the backs was loaded with an out of date colour film. I placed this back on the camera and thought no more about it.

It was a great day to walk across the bridge and along the way I made pictures of whatever took my eyes fancy, happy in the knowledge that they would make good mono-prints. After making twelve pictures I changed the film backs with one loaded with FP4+ and continued on my merry way.

When unloading the film backs at home I discovered that the unmarked back had colour film in it and not the Foma 100 I thought I was using. Ah! How would these pictures work in colour? The reason I ask this is because I think and see differently when using black and white film. Or do I?

An unexpected chance to test what I have been saying and doing. When the pictures came back from the lab, the first thing I noticed was the way they had been composed. In fact the colour does not add anything to some of the pictures. I would not have made any of these pictures in this way had I known it was colour film. It would have been a different set of pictures altogether. 

FADU 2014

The year book is out.

Hopefully this is the start of a new era of year books from the film anddarkroom users forum (FADU). Earlier in the year Ian a member of FADU expressed his desire to have the year book started again and enquired if any of the other members would be interested in taking part. To his surprise there was a ground swell of enthusiasm for it to be reinstated. A boost to its reincarnation was Les Mclean's offer to curate and edit the book on behalf of the members.

This is the first book since Dave Miller the forums owner bowed out of producing the book back in 2012. There have been a number of calls by different members to get it going again but were not able to find anyone who had the time to get it off the ground. One of the main differences is that a number of members have gotten together to form a group to over see the submission process for the year book.

What makes this year book different from others, and the forum for that matter, is it's strict adherence to all pictures being scanned from photographs. Likewise for a picture to be included in the book, each associate was allowed to submit up to four photographs no larger than 8 x 10 in size. To be mailed to the submissions member no later than the end of October. They were then sent on altogether to Les Mclean for editing.

Another good thing about the submission process for the book was any member no matter what his or her level of experience, was invited to take part. I have to add that FADU is a very friendly welcoming forum who's members are always very willing to share their knowledge no matter who or where you are in your analogue journey.

So to the 2014 edition of the year book, i have to say there is a wonderful selection of photographs reproduced in the book. In the end, nineteen FADU supporters provided work for inclusion in the book. Not as diverse as previous years editions but a good number to start things going again. Of the seventy six photograph’s entered forty have been chosen. Representing all genre of photography.

Thanks goes to all the members who helped to make it a reality and a special thanks to Les McLean for taking on the editorial role. I think his involvement gave the project the impetus it needed to make it a reality.