First Printed Image

Well, for many years anyway. It was an overcast, heat infused day, and was shot on my Nikon Ftn, 50mm f1.4 Nikkor lens at f11 @ 125th. The film was Kodak 400TX, developed using D-76. The print was developed in Dektol, and it was a first time using this old Saunders LPL 670 vcce enlarger with roll-on contrast filters and a 50mm Rodagon 1:2.8 lens.

 

I experimented a bit using the filters which are activated by a side mount dial, unfortunately the dial stops at 0.5 not 0, so I'm not yet able to judge their overall effect.

 

Now to the hard part. I'm hoping I can be advised on how the print looks, technically. For example my feeling is the dark brown of the steel members look 'muddy', with no clarity. And, the pipe railing in the lower half appears white, not grey galvanized as it in fact is. I struggled to get focused with the negative in the enlarger, and I'm not convinced I succeeded. I did find a used equipment store in Tucson that has a grain focuser and I'll pick it up this week.

 

Thanks -

For the original shot, go for a bit more shutter speed, say 1/250 @ f/8. That will help sharpness. You should look at the neg with a 10 or 20X magnifier to see what you've really got. The print looks fogged. How old is the paper? Not all grain focusers are created equal- you actually have to test that too! If the enlarger is old, it might need cleaning, though I doubt it's the cause of the mud.

Thanks Conrad, I'll try going to 250th next time I'm there. I'd wondered also about the paper fogging issue. I have a skylight in the 'darkroom' I tried to cover, but perhaps not well enough. The safelight is a B&H 11 watt which I put in a metal hood and directed toward the ceiling, it was clamped some 4' from the enlarger. But perhaps I'll find a better location for it.

The paper is new, Ilford Ilfospeed RC Deluxe. I'm leery of opening the enlarger head, though I'll have to looks like, at it's age anything could be going on in there. I'll have some negatives with me when I see the grain enlarger available, hoping it isn't a cheapie, buying it would be pointless of course.

Looks like an old antique image from the 1920's.

Yes it does - And it isn't that I don't like it, I rather do, but of course I want to be able to predict and control the results, and this print was not what I was expecting.

 

Thanks -

Do you know how to do a safelight test? The gist of it is you give a piece of paper an even exposure that just turns it a light shade of grey when developed. Then you do it again and put a coin on it and expose it to the safelight and darkroom environment for 2 minutes or so. Then you develop it. If you can see the outline of the coin, you have a fogging problem. The idea is that the initial exposure gets the paper up on the curve where it's more sensitive to fogging. Naturally you should also do a quality check by processing a strip in total darkness, just to be sure you're getting pure whites.

Thanks again Conrad - I'd read about this test once but had forgotten about it. And I do need a better design on the skylight cover, though it did seem rather dark during the process

The paper looks pretty clearly fogged to me. Of course, I can't tell if it's the safelight, the skylight or age. Remember it has to be REALLY dark . . . The paper is going to be exposed to any ambient light from the time you remove it from the package, while you arrange it in the easel, during the actual exposure and then even while it spends 90 to 120 seconds in the developer tray.

 

I also think that the image, as printed, isn't very sharp. But, I can't tell if the negative is sharp or not. A grain focuser is always good to have. You always have to be careful with a new set up. Some older enlarger lenses can shift focus when you stop them down. So, if you focus wide open and then stop down to f8 to get longer exposure time, the image may go soft.

Thanks Ed, I'm looking at a new design for the skylight cover, and will do a light test after that. I didn't expect to have to create a much darker enviornment, but I'll certainly improve it.

The negative does look sharp to me, though I hope soon to see it under a grain focuser, and I guess only experience and comparing results will tell me if the enlarger focus may be changing as I adjust f stops.

I note sadly though the prices of even used enlargers now mirror well preserved Roman coins.

...and it was a first time using this old Saunders LPL 670 vcce enlarger with roll-on contrast filters and a 50mm Rodagon 1:2.8 lens.

 

I experimented a bit using the filters which are activated by a side mount dial, unfortunately the dial stops at 0.5 not 0, so I'm not yet able to judge their overall effect.

Less of the 'old' LPL6700 please. I remember when that model was introduced! It's actually one of the latest designs of enlarger, since no company introduced anything more advanced afterwards.

 

The reason your VC head doesn't go below 0.5 is because that's the softest (least contrasty) printing grade you can get from varigrade paper. A 'normal' printing grade would be grade 2 or 3. So grade 0.5 should be about as soft as you ever need to go.

 

That Rodagon is probably the sharpest enlarging lens you can get. If you can't get grain-sharp prints with it, then there's something wrong. Just make sure it's clean and free of scratches or cement separation, which, unfortunately, Rodenstock lenses are notorious for.

 

It's difficult to tell whether your example print really is fogged and muddy, or if it's an artefact of scanning. The borders should be brilliant white. If not, then either your darkroom isn't dark, or something's wrong with your processing. Another cause might be the paper being extremely old and stale.

 

Those thumb prints and smudges definitely shouldn't be on the paper whatever! Keep your hands dry when handling paper, and clean any chemicals off your fingers promptly.

 

Incidentally, Saunders were just the importers and distributers of LPL enlargers and other darkroom gear. LPL is a Japanese firm, and FWIW, the initials LPL stand for 'Little Penguin Limited'. It's easy to see why they abbreviated it to its initial letters!

Edited July 30, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

Thanks rodeo_joe 1! This is a great help. I've read all I can find on the Little Penguin and it's an exceptional device. There's no doubt the print represents a crescendo of errors on my part, sloppiness, and being ever eager to see the results. That all makes me want to start over and get it right.

I described using the LPL thinking someone might point out something I'd missed, such as 'selection of lensboard side' where it's 'down for 75mm or longer and 'up for 50mm or shorter. Amazingly the book came with it showing parts and teardown procedure.

I've looked over the Rodagon lens carefully and can't see any dirt, scratches or separations in the barrel, and I'm going to open the head to look for dust or any issues there.

To submit the print on the forum I photographed it carefully with an iPhone, and uploaded it from a Mac so there's some effect there, but the original looks very close to the screenshot here. You've a good eye to see those fingerprints, I can pick them up now on the print.

 

Thanks again - I'll redo soon with these suggestions in mind.

P.S. A tip it took me years to latch onto: Try to work in the darkroom with one 'wet' and one dry hand. In other words, only dunk and agitate prints with one hand, and keep the other clean and dry for focussing, handling and placing paper, etc. The 'wet' hand can use a disposable surgical glove or similar, while the dry hand is kept bare for dexterity and comfort.

 

I prefer to keep my dominant right hand dry, but it's down to personal preference which you choose to have wet or dry.

 

Good luck with your future printing!

Great stuff - Thanks!

how many years ago this photo was clicked? looks like so many years ago captured.

how many years ago this photo was clicked? looks like so many years ago captured.

 

Yes it does look like an old fashioned photo, but accidentally of course.

"though it did seem rather dark"

 

It needs to be completely dark. Turn off the safelight and let your eyes get accustomed to the dark. Look for light leaks. Also, the fog test is a good idea.

"though it did seem rather dark"

 

It needs to be completely dark. Turn off the safelight and let your eyes get accustomed to the dark. Look for light leaks. Also, the fog test is a good idea.

 

Thanks alan, yes I badly underestimated how dark the room should be. I'm looking forward to this weekend to do the light test, and how well I get on with the room as dark as required.