 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / December 2005Strange problem printing today; fogging
I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what looks to be some clouding in some of the shots, and it's driving me nuts. Two photos in particular have been giving me grief, I've posted them at http://www.reachone.com/nickandstacy/panoram_1.jpg and http://www.reachone.com/nickandstacy/panoram_2.jpg These photos were shot with an old Kodak Panoram #1 on Kodak Plus-X Pan 125, developed with HC-110 (b) and contact printed on Kodak matte RC paper, paper developed with Dektol. I've used these chemicals, film, and paper for years with no previous trouble. Here's what I've tried to pinpoint the cause of the fogging: 1. Safelight test in my darkroom-negative 2. Light-tight darkroom test-negative 3. Changed out all chemicals and confirmed good dates 4. Checked paper stock for some sort of batch-fogging: negative What I think could be happening: 1. Something "off" with the camera and/or lens: Doubtful, recently overhauled and not all pictures are printing like these two. 2. I rarely contact print, some sort of peculiarity with the process? 3. Prints are overexposed, causing fogging in the highlights (I've already dumped my chemicals for the night, can't test this until the morning) 4. Bad chemicals and/or paper...if so, why aren't the other prints like this? 5. Negatives themselves were fogged when exposing, changing, or developing...I don't notice negative fogging with a loup, unfortunately I don't have a film scanner to look really good. Then again, my wife says she doesn't really notice anything. The problem is I do and I won't be able to rest until I figure it out. Any ideas or suggestions? Is the mottling visible on the negative? Did you fix adequately? > I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never > experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > problem is I do and I won't be able to rest until I figure it out. > Any ideas or suggestions? >Is the mottling visible on the negative? > >Did you fix adequately? No, the mottling is not visible on the negative, at least not to my eye. Yes, I fixed just as I have for RC paper for years, 2 minutes in a tray in Kodak Fixer. > >Is the mottling visible on the negative? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eye. Yes, I fixed just as I have for RC paper for years, 2 minutes in > a tray in Kodak Fixer. How long did you develop the paper? Is the pattern the same on eevry print? >How long did you develop the paper? > >Is the pattern the same on eevry print? I developed the paper for 2 minutes, 30 seconds in stop, 2 minutes in fixer. This is the same process I've used for years. The pattern was not identical for the affected prints. I think I have, however, identifed a potential cause of this fogging. I noted that some of the prints that were okay came from a different box of paper. When I looked at the box that the affected paper came out of, I noted on the side, "Use by 2/2004." That means my paper is at least 2 years outdated, it was probably bought a couple years before that. I've never had paper expire before, but that seems to be a reasonable cause of this fogged paper. I'll give it a try again tomorrow morning with some newer paper and see if that aleviates the problem. > side, "Use by 2/2004." That means my paper is at least 2 years > outdated. What Brand of paper?  Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 www.gregblankphoto(dot)com > >How long did you develop the paper? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of this fogged paper. I'll give it a try again tomorrow morning with > some newer paper and see if that aleviates the problem. I suspect it could be your agitation procedures during paper processing. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". If I were to take AWAG it looks to me like a too short print developing time: 2 minutes minimum at 20C. > "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote: > >Is the pattern the same on every print? > The pattern was not identical for the affected prints. UC is right, the first order of business is to separate the variables in the process: o Negative o Enlarger o Paper o Paper processing 'Not identical' is a bit ambiguous. Maybe a bit more detail: 1) Two or more prints from the same negative: o Is the mottling identical - same mottles same location? o Is the mottling similar - looks the same in quality but not identical? 2) Prints from different negatives: o Identical? o Similar? 3) Prints from no negative, exposed to produce a uniform even grey: o Identical? o Similar? o None? 4) Paper exposed to uniform grey -without- an enlarger, flash the room lights, etc. o Similar? o None? 5) What happens with a completely different box of paper. 6) Ditto with new chemicals SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > >Is the mottling visible on the negative? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > eye. Yes, I fixed just as I have for RC paper for years, 2 minutes in > a tray in Kodak Fixer. How long did you develop the paper? Is the pattern the same on every print? > I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never > experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > problem is I do and I won't be able to rest until I figure it out. > Any ideas or suggestions? Dirty glass, contact framed not holding negative snug on the paper? I use a vacuum easel to suck the paper film and glass together. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 www.gregblankphoto(dot)com I just recently had a similar problem on 8 prints in a row but I wasn't able to reproduce it on the ninth. I chalked it up to 8 bad sheets of paper in a box....Hmmm, I figure that as good as QC is things can still go wrong. >I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never > experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > problem is I do and I won't be able to rest until I figure it out. > Any ideas or suggestions? > I just recently had a similar problem on 8 prints in a row but I wasn't able > to reproduce it on the ninth. I chalked it up to 8 bad sheets of paper in a > box....Hmmm, I figure that as good as QC is things can still go wrong. QC has nothing to do with bad sheets in a Box its would be an odd problem to find this to be the case unless the inner bag has a pin hole and that would more than like produce a much more pronounce fogging. There is no way that a few sheets can be checked in a single box for QC issues. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 www.gregblankphoto(dot)com > QC has nothing to do with bad sheets in a Box its would be an odd > problem to find this to be the case unless the inner bag has a pin hole > and that would more than like produce a much more pronounce fogging. > > There is no way that a few sheets can be checked in a single box for QC > issues. IMHO, QC is a part of the manufacturing process although, in non ISO 9000 companies, quality is still "Inspected" into a product rather than built into the process. I don't have any experience in light-sensitive material manufacturing nor can I even imagine the issues that manufacturers face. I would bet that almost all paper makers are ISO, it's cheaper in the long run. I doubt that my paper was ever light struck while in my possession but I won't bet on it. My procedures and home-made paper safe would seem to either ruin all the paper or one sheet but not sheets # 4 through #12 in a sitting. It just makes the most sense to me that it was in the paper already, not necessarily being a light strike but maybe a glitch in the coating process or in the coating chemestry. But, there is a non-zero probability that I screwed-up. >I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never > experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > problem is I do and I won't be able to rest until I figure it out. > Any ideas or suggestions? Hello Dom, A couple of years ago i had the same problem. It was mould between lenses in the enlarger lens, if possible try another lens with the same negative that went wrong. If you look through the enlarger lens to a light bulb( on ) , and you have bad luck, you can see the mould. I also tried everything as you discribed and had to buy a new enlarger lens. Greetings from the Netherlands, Hans http://surf.to/HansBrouns Hans spake thus: >> I had a strange problem printing some film today that I've never >> experienced before in my years in the darkroom. I'm getting what [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > luck, you can see the mould. I also tried everything as you discribed > and had to buy a new enlarger lens. Well, if this were the case, it would be easy enough to check: just make a blank, medium-gray exposure with no negative in the enlarger. If there's any unevenness in illumination, or "schmutz" on lenses, it will show up in the developed print. SignatureThe only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition. >Well, if this were the case, it would be easy enough to check: just make >a blank, medium-gray exposure with no negative in the enlarger. If >there's any unevenness in illumination, or "schmutz" on lenses, it will >show up in the developed print. Thanks for the replies everyone. I printed today with a new batch of paper, no problems this time. I guess it was just bad paper. After all these years, I never knew paper had an expiration date if kept in a cool, dry, and dark place. Apparently I'm an idiot. I'll make sure I double check my paper if this ever happens again. Dom spake thus: >> Well, if this were the case, it would be easy enough to check: just >> make a blank, medium-gray exposure with no negative in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > all these years, I never knew paper had an expiration date if kept in > a cool, dry, and dark place. Apparently I'm an idiot. Hmm; I've *never* experienced problems due to bad paper, so if it ever happened, I'd be scratching my head too. So I guess I might be an idiot as well! SignatureThe only reason corrupt Republicans rule the roost in Washington is because the corrupt Democrats can't muster any viable opposition. > I guess it was just bad paper. After > all these years, I never knew paper had an expiration date It does. When paper was good for 20+ years they printed a date on the package. Modern paper is only good for ~3 years and because there is now a danger of using bad paper the manufacturers have stopped printing an expiration date ... In my experience outdated paper first loses contrast: graded paper is all grade 1.5 and polycontrast paper isn't. After that I get a very uniform grey fog, if the fogging is light then a bit of benztriazole can salvage the paper for contact sheets and such. I have yet to encounter mottling, famous last words I know. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >"Dom" <dom@comast.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Idiots unite! We must have paper that does not get old. Also that does not fog when I open the paper safe with the room light on. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.