Confusion

M

MrYoDa

Messages
21
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all, i need some advice i think
I have only shot 2 rolls of film so far and am a real noob
I am using a Nikon F65 and have used a Ilford HP5 400 and a
Kentmere 100 film and i developed them to negatives and got
really big differences when it came to the printing in the Darkroom.


Marble using ISO 400 Nikon F65

This was with the 400 Ilford hp5 and came out as expected for my first go at printing on the Paper
I did a whole roll like this from the 400 film and all came out
ok (ish) for a noobie like me.
Then :-


flower1
This is with the 100 kentmere film,
all 36 images came out like this, they look great on the negative, but printed
they are all ruined
Can you think of any reasons why ?
The Enlarger is a Gamer something lol and was used for both prints.
The Lens for the Enlarger is a Nikon EL-Nikkor F2.8 50mm
It was set to 5.6 for both the above prints.
Can anyone offer advice as to why the 100 is really bad and the 400 passable ?

Thanks...
 
Last edited:
Could be that the HP5 is a more dense negative (needs more light to expose properly) whereas the kentmere is less dense, using the same exposure settings as the HP5 would overexpose all of your prints?
 
Did you do a test strip print to get the exposure right? Maybe you need some variable contrast filters to up the contrast more?

I haven't started dark room printing yet but i hope to this week and those are the two things i'm going to be keeping in mind when i do.
 
Thanks for replying,
I didn't do a test strip and should have, i thought because i got the HP5 about right all would be the same,
Seems i was wrong, The camera is a Nikon F65 and although you can use it manualy
you cant manualy change the film speed rating, if DX coded it sets the speed to whatever the film is, if non DX coded it sets to 100 ISO auto.
Now i am not bothered about the mess up, infact its good because it helps the leaning
process,
As for filters, they are on my list for extra's to buy, but as i am so new to this, its one thing at a time :)
Thanks again.
 
I wonder if over developing the film in the tank would cause the above effect?
I did the HP5 400 at 8 mins
We never thought of it till now, but i also did the Kentmere 100 at 8 mins, when it should be 5?
 
obviously you can gain some back in processing

just a very quick 'auto fix'

7355111838_f2258054cc.jpg


7355112256_72c1264dca.jpg
 
Wow that's a major difference lol
I suppose it shows there is hope even for a totally had it picture.
Thanks :)
 
was the developer fresh ? because thats the look ive had in the past with exhausted dev
 
Yes, I bought a new bottle of Rollei R09 and made
it up for that session @ 1/25 ratio.
 
MrYoDa said:
Yes, I bought a new bottle of Rollei R09 and made
it up for that session @ 1/25 ratio.
Click to expand...

Did you use that for the prints? If so thats the reason why, R09 is designed for developing negatives so its low contrast, you need a high contrast paper developer like Ilford Multigrade or Kodak Dektol.
 
MrYoDa said:
Hi all, i need some advice i think
I have only shot 2 rolls of film so far and am a real noob
I am using a Nikon F65 and have used a Ilford HP5 400 and a
Kentmere 100 film and i developed them to negatives and got
really big differences when it came to the printing in the Darkroom.


Marble using ISO 400 Nikon F65

This was with the 400 Ilford hp5 and came out as expected for my first go at printing on the Paper
I did a whole roll like this from the 400 film and all came out
ok (ish) for a noobie like me.
Then :-


flower1

This is with the 100 kentmere film,
all 36 images came out like this, they look great on the negative, but printed
they are all ruined
Can you think of any reasons why ?
The Enlarger is a Gamer something lol and was used for both prints.
The Lens for the Enlarger is a Nikon EL-Nikkor F2.8 50mm
It was set to 5.6 for both the above prints.
Can anyone offer advice as to why the 100 is really bad and the 400 passable ?

Thanks...
Click to expand...

If you are accurate in what you say"they look great on the negative" Then there is nothing wrong with the negative or the manner in which it was developed FACT.So it is the manner in which you have processed the print.I would say it is over exposure of the printing paper.Or fogged paper.Develop an unexposed section of paper to find out.If the paper is OK then do a test print.As regards the negative if you have over developed it it will be high in contrast NOT thin and light.The print that is dark (not the dog) comes from having a negative that is thin that means it was under exposed or under developed.Was the ISO on your camera still set at 400 ISO with ISO 100 film in it? if so that is the answer.But you said the negative looks great.
 
MrYoDa said:
Yes, I bought a new bottle of Rollei R09 and made
it up for that session @ 1/25 ratio.
Click to expand...

s162216 said:
Did you use that for the prints? If so thats the reason why, R09 is designed for developing negatives so its low contrast, you need a high contrast paper developer like Ilford Multigrade or Kodak Dektol.
Click to expand...

as Sam says ,,,,i meant the paper developer ,as you said the negs looked good
 
From the dog pic to the flower pic, i had changed the Paper and the Film
The dog was Ilford MG paper and HP5 plus film.
The flower Was Kentmere Paper and Film.
Here are a couple scans of the negs, after scanning i am not 100% sure now they are good ?
The paper was developed using Ilford MG developer


img019


img018
 
Last edited:
it seems i was overdeveloping an overexposed (with enlarger) print.
or something like that lol, anyway i have it now (i hope)


Katie


img030

Both these are using the same Kentmere 100 negatives
with a 2 sec exposure and f11 on the lens, i think 4-5 secs on f16 would have also worked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top