Print Dev. Dilution Limits/Time Adjustments?

[John Layton]

Thought I'd had this licked - 30 x 40 print had previously worked after going with a five minute pre-soak. So...just tried another using same procedure and...I see an "island of unevenness" on one side of the print.

Problem is visible in even-toned sky area...and my guess is that, although I did my best to pour developer quickly/evenly, I just was not quick/even enough.

My thought is that I should further dilute my print developer and then increase developer time.

I'm using Moersch 4812 Developer at its specified maximum dilution, which is 1/14. This developer has a great d-max...so my guess is that it can stand a bit more dilution without undue compromise.

I know others have had success in tackling evenness issues in large prints...by further diluting print developers...and I need to pick a few brains to see what has worked for others, in terms of how much more to dilute, and how much to then compensate...time wise. Thanks!

[bob carnie]

I go an exact opposite direction when I am making large prints... I use Developer at recommended dilution... Ilford Multigrade 1:4 .. But I make tons of chemicals and I am very fast in putting the paper into the chems and getting agitation over the whole print.... otherwise uneveness...


I never pre soak the paper , when printing murals I do a lot at a time and IMHO its all about getting the chems fast and even to the paper.

[tgtaylor]

I have never developer paper larger than 20x24 but I never presoak RA-4 or B&W. I follow the Jobo instructions for RA-4 and bring the tank containing the dry paper by rotating it for 5 minutes at the processing temperature before beginning the process steps. Jobo recommends a 30 second pre-soak for B&W but I always use trays and just plop the paper down in the developer without a presoak. For a very large print like the ones you are talking about, I would consider removing the paper beginning at the same end that you inserted it which should balance out the developing time but I don't think that would make any difference since there is a one or 2 second time differential from end to end.

Thomas

[John Layton]

Further thought...is the pre-soak interfering with development?

When I develop 20x30's I do not pre-soak. I'm still dealing with paper which is slightly pre-curled as I cut from a large roll, so I need to exercise some care in getting the dry sheet into the developer. Takes a bit of time...but things end up nice and even.

A 30x40 sheet, on the other hand, has already been flattened by pre-soaking - and I'm pouring developer over this, which goes very quickly...more quickly, in terms of wetted surface area per unit of time, than with a non pre-soaked 20x30. Furthermore, once the developer is poured I begin to rock the tray right away - getting things moving around nicely in short order.

I gave my very first 30x40 a two minute pre-soak...just enough to get things flat - and got both lines/areas and islands of variable density. I gave the second trial a five minute pre-soak - and things looked fine...but that photograph featured lots of textural details which can tend to mask problems. Today's 30x40 test involved a photo with with a large area of upper mid-tone sky - and while the "defect" is a bit less intrusive than that in the previous print - its still visible.

Given the above...perhaps it would be best to avoid a pre-soak altogether? Spending a bit extra for precut (flat) 30x40 sheets might be the ticket here. Or...perhaps a much longer presoak...on the order of ten minutes, might work - but I remain a bit leery of this, as I have a sense that water infiltration into fb paper might still be uneven over longer times.

[bob carnie]

the soaking of the paper is not needed..... I like the idea of cut sheet , your life would be easier... also I use upwards of 40 litres of dev to make sure I do not get these problems even with roll paper... over time it gets much easier..
If you can find pre cut 30 x40 I would absolutely go for it..

[LabRat]

John, I posted about this before, and I understand that you are trying to uncurl DWFB, but I think you are asking for trouble with pre-soaking DWFB, as paper will hold different levels of moisture even when wet, and can interfere with the diffusion of dev, esp with a very large print...

Bob's right, better to find cut sheets...

Steve K

[chaspics]

What are you processing your paper in, paper manufacturer, and is it FB or RC? I've processed up to 40x60 FB with good old Dektol in plastic gutters, one for each chemical with excellent and consistent results. I'll be glad to give you more feedback with more information. Been doing this for 30 years. Hope I can help.

[John Layton]

Years ago I did mural prints on troughs (both rc and fb) with students - so I know the drill for that.

What I'm doing here is designing/building/cobbling together a system which lets me to do large prints in a manner which allows for good logistics in my own darkroom. In short - I've built a single, 34 x 48 inch plywood/epoxy tray, which is slightly tapered at one end...which also features a gasketed dumping gate on the right, slightly tapered end. The tray is elevated in my sink - and chemicals are then poured in from the left side, freshly emptied chem container is placed under the dump gate on right, tray is then agitated by rocking, then tray is lifted on left end to dump out on right via opened dump gate, into open container. (I'll post some photos of this sometime to help explain). Works like a charm! At any rate...I'm using two gallons of each solution - which covers everything quite well and facilitates tray rocking giving good agitation.

Advantages, aside from space saving, is that I avoid having huge trays of open chemistry sitting for hours - chems are stored in covered two-gallon deep trays, which are compact although large enough to process my test strips prior to doing a large print. After large print is processed as described above, the same tray becomes a wash tray - allowing for water - clearing bath - water cycles (and KRST if desired). Plus, the epoxy finish is glass-smooth, which means that I use the very same tray as a squeegee board. All of this also translates to minimal paper handling, minimizing chances of creasing (very important!). Only real disadvantage is that I can only do one print at a time - although this might change by adding a holding tank at some point (knowing this would necessitate a complete flush of fixer prior to dev. of next print). As things are now...I could still envision processing/washing four or five different 30x40's on a given day.

Problem has been the strong paper curl of exposed sheets as they go into tray - necessitating a pre-soak to flatten prior to introducing developer. Problem here is that paper does not seem to like a pre-soak...giving uneven results. I suppose that I could invent some type of in-tray hold down system - to keep paper flat enough during initial pour...but I see problems with this. I've also thought about trying to reverse-curl each sheet of paper prior to use...and will likely try this with what remains on my current roll. Best answer would be purchasing paper in (30x40) sheets - but availability of this is limited...although it looks like B+H and/or Adorama has some stock with a wait time. More cost per surface area than rolls - but likely very worthwhile in terms of logistics, work-flow, and consistency of results.

[Willie]

You write you are dumping in the chemistry from the left. Any relation to where the mottling shows up?
After the pre-soak and dump why not pour the developer directly on the print in the center rather than from one side?

[John Layton]

To clarify...chem tanks are arranged in order to the left of the tray - actual dump is spread around paper a evenly as possible and takes about three seconds. Chem tanks are about 14 in. wide...and allow for a quick, broad pour.

[Drew Wiley]

I've given up any printing with Ilford Classic or Cooltone VC without thorough prewetting. These are the only papers I've ever had a problem with in this respect.

[John Layton]

Drew...the paper I'm using for 30x40's is Ilford Classic. Are you saying that you always pre-soak your classic...or you have discovered that you cannot pre-soak classic? And...if you are pre-soaking your classic - for how long?

[chaspics]

OK, have you tried pouring in the developer in first, then immerse the paper face down, pressing the paper down randomly with your fingers for about 30 seconds to get the paper wet and lay flat, then flip it over once the paper is saturated. The random pressing is to prevent/dislodge air bubbles. Gloves and random agitation with your hands would replicate the method I used with bamboo tongs 40-50 years ago. The darkroom was very arid, and paper was always curling excessively. Though rocking the tray by rotating side by side, this technique worked beautifully, and had very consistent results. Develop for the maximum recommended time, then drain and continue to the stop and fix in the same method you already use.

Always love to hear responses, good, bad,or indifferent.

Chas

[Cor]

John,

Are you printing a white border around your images ? You might consider using (strong) (strip) magnets and metal below your try to hold down the curled dry paper in your giant tray, and than pour the developer..just a thought..

Good luck,

Cor

[bob carnie]

OK, have you tried pouring in the developer in first, then immerse the paper face down, pressing the paper down randomly with your fingers for about 30 seconds to get the paper wet and lay flat, then flip it over once the paper is saturated. The random pressing is to prevent/dislodge air bubbles. Gloves and random agitation with your hands would replicate the method I used with bamboo tongs 40-50 years ago. The darkroom was very arid, and paper was always curling excessively. Though rocking the tray by rotating side by side, this technique worked beautifully, and had very consistent results. Develop for the maximum recommended time, then drain and continue to the stop and fix in the same method you already use.

Always love to hear responses, good, bad,or indifferent.

Chas

Pressing the paper down with ones fingers will create dimples in the dry print, much like the look of cottage cheeze... soo I am giving you a bad response - sorry.

[Drew Wiley]

Bob, now I put the paper on the squeegee board and gently hose it down to prewet it. (Well, actually right now I'm circumventing the whole problem by using MGWT instead). You must be handling big sheets very efficiently. My fingers are way too stiff with tendonitis to do that.

[bob carnie]

I cannot speak for others but I use enough chemicals in my trays (excessive many say) so that when I put my paper in the tray its a breeze... to many people scrimp on $$ for chemistry's but end up wasting paper..

penny wise pound foolish I say.

When making 30 x40 prints I am using up to 50 litres of developer in a 34 x48 inch tray that is at least three inches deep..This allows me to easily make at least 10 murals from about 3 neg's which translates to good income for a days work.

[kentrush]

I used to develop Agfa Fiber Mural paper, 50" wide x 50" long. I exposed it, rolled it up into a cylinder, put the cylinder on a rod over my chemical trough then rolled it off the rod and into the developer (wearing gloves) and re-rolled it into a cylinder (like a scroll) in the chemical. I lifted the cylinder out of the chemical, flipped it over and immersed it once more and rewound it into a cylinder again. I used Dektol 1:8 for 6 minutes and got very even results.

[John Layton]

Kent...what volume of chemistry? Also...did you use multiple troughs - or fill/dump/refill a single trough? As mentioned...I did mural processing in multiple troughs years ago with students - and had them stand on each side of a given trough, with one side of a print being lowered while the other side was raised - back and forth, for each step. I've never tried true scrolling as you and others have described...and perhaps I should give this a go. This would also allow me to take advantage of the rolled paper's curve - and rolled paper is more available and less expensive per area than sheets. I can envision a single trough...elevated like my large tray - featuring a flap on one end to facilitate filling and dumping of chems. Hmmm...

[John Layton]

Here are a couple of photos showing my DIY single-tray large print setup.
175592175593

First photo shows the “feed side,” with clear plastic two gallon tanks filled with chems. These are large enough to use for processing reasonably sized test strips…after which I process a 30x40 in the large plywood tank. Note the clamped flap on the far end of the large tray - which seals it for each step. Chems dump directly into the large tray. Coverage is very quick. Agitation by tray-rocking. I can see paper lifting so know that chems are wetting bottom of paper. Hands stay dry. Second photo shows “dump side,” with emptied plastic tank placed under opened flap, after which the feed end of the large tray is elevated to facilitate a quick pour. After chemical steps, print remains in the tray for a water/hypo-clear/water cycle, and the print is then squeegeed right in the tray - very effectively I might add, due to the tray’s glass-smooth epoxy finish.

Relative to my aforementioned uneven results…my gut tells me that there is simply not enough evacuation of liquids from underneath the print during a dump cycle…and that islands of thusly-trapped presoak water can interfere with the even and timely uptake of developer.

What I will try next (before I abandon this completely and build a trough) is to very gently squeegee the print surface during dump cycles…in the hopes that I can evacuate most of the liquid which might otherwise remain trapped underneath. My fear is that such repeated squeegee cycles could create visible marks on the print…but I figure that this is worth a bit of testing. If there are scratches, I’ll try re-purposing a plastic rolling pin to replace the squeegee. If this does not work…my next strategy will involve devising a way to hang the print (slightly canted) over the tray to allow for drainage during dump cycles.

Hope the above can work…as the logistics of this single tray system are a perfect fit for my darkroom. In the meantime…thanks to all for the continued feedback!

[John Layton]

PS…at this point, one might ask why I don’t simply go with multiple large trays - and greater volumes of chemistry?

My darkroom measures 8 x 17 feet. The interior of my sink measures 34.5 inches by 16 feet…large enough to comfortably accommodate five 24x34 inch trays (dev/stop/fix/fix/water) for 20x30 prints. Two gallons works perfectly, no presoak, perfect results. While this sink could fit trays large enough for 30x40’s, I’d need to limit their number to four, which means I’d need to eliminate a fixing bath and use a single tray of something like TF-5. Furthermore…the logistics of pouring out, cleaning, and storing four additional, (and really big) trays are a bit daunting. And while my backdraft ventilation system is very effective, I’d still like to avoid the prospect of having such large open trays exposed for hours at a time. On the other hand…my clear plastic chemical holding tanks have covers, helping to minimize off-gassing/oxidation. Overall, the logistics of this single tray system are a perfect fit with my darkroom…which is why I am so adamant about making it work. But if this ultimately does not work, I’ll build a single trough and try that. If that does not work…I’ll up my dose of bourbon and call it a day!

[Doremus Scudder]

PS…at this point, one might ask why I don’t simply go with multiple large trays - and greater volumes of chemistry?

My darkroom measures 8 x 17 feet. The interior of my sink measures 34.5 inches by 16 feet…large enough to comfortably accommodate five 24x34 inch trays (dev/stop/fix/fix/water) for 20x30 prints. Two gallons works perfectly, no presoak, perfect results. While this sink could fit trays large enough for 30x40’s, I’d need to limit their number to four, which means I’d need to eliminate a fixing bath and use a single tray of something like TF-5. Furthermore…the logistics of pouring out, cleaning, and storing four additional, (and really big) trays are a bit daunting. And while my backdraft ventilation system is very effective, I’d still like to avoid the prospect of having such large open trays exposed for hours at a time. On the other hand…my clear plastic chemical holding tanks have covers, helping to minimize off-gassing/oxidation. Overall, the logistics of this single tray system are a perfect fit with my darkroom…which is why I am so adamant about making it work. But if this ultimately does not work, I’ll build a single trough and try that. If that does not work…I’ll up my dose of bourbon and call it a day!

How about a hybrid workflow? Large tray for developer and then one other tray for stop and fixes, etc.? If that fixes your developing unevenness, it'd be worth it.

Doremus

[John Layton]

Doremus…I’ve thought about this, and indeed I may end up trying this (hybrid approach) if I cannot get my current system to work.

But a couple of points…to the extent that I’m trying to minimize print handling, a single tray makes sense. Also, the single tray goes through all processing cycles…from developer through the final wash - and so comes out perfectly clean and “chemically neutral” afterwards, allowing me to simply squeegee out any excess water prior to under-the-sink storage. But I would acknowledge...that while I'm obviously trying to maximize my convenience here (not giving up yet!) - it must be
the results which ultimately guide the evolution of this setup.