Unexplicable exposure problem with paper negatives

[tonyowen]

Over the last few months I've been getting unexplained results for paper negatives [pure white after development] except for very long [2 minutes or greater] exposures
My two Weston V meters checked against Nikon digital camera [100ISO digital camera setting versus 6ISO paper negative]. Gave same ‘reflected’ result after correction for change in ISO rating.

Used four 4x5 paper negatives cut from single 8x10 multigrade paper. Prior paper from same box gave four obviously exposed images
Last tests done with incident readings with sun diagonally behind subject. Camera 3m in front of subject. Same subject and camera-subject distance for all four exposures. All images taken in about 30 minutes.

Four images using 4 different lenses
135mm xenar in copal #0 shutter
4 ¼ inch Wray no shutter, but hat used to control length of exposure
180/315mm Symmar convertible with Ilex shutter – used in both configurations

Both shutters checked for operation and speed accuracy by 'Romanian' tester, and also checked that shutter worked by eye.
Copal as per setting on ‘speed ring’.
Ilex - Actual speeds determined at speed selector dial position.
Way out of speeds on dial, but reasonably consistent

Weston Reading 12 - 12.5 giving exposures of:- 1/8s@f11; 2s@f25; 1/10S@f8 and 1/2s@f22.

The four exposed sheets developed at same time in Jobo 2500 tank with 2504 sheet film holder.
Developed with ‘’Ilford PQ universal” using both old [2 ½ years old} and fresh concentrate [delivered yesterday opened today]
Dark slide removed before exposure.
Camera:- Calumet CC400

Any and all help welcome

regards
Tony

[Pere Casals]

What paper did you use ?

[Mark Sampson]

Did you load all the sheets emulsion side out? A sheet loaded backwards will not be exposed. Not to be insulting... we've all done something similar.

[koraks]

What kind of light?

[Bob Salomon]

What kind of light?

“Last tests done with incident readings with sun diagonally behind subject. Camera 3m in front of subject. Same subject and camera-subject distance for all four exposures. All images taken in about 30 minutes.”

[tonyowen]

Did you load all the sheets emulsion side out? A sheet loaded backwards will not be exposed. Not to be insulting... we've all done something similar.
no insult taken - have done so on occasion but not this time


What paper did you use ?
multigrade MGIV RC de luxe Pearl

QUOTE=koraks;1503106]What kind of light?[/QUOTE]

“Last tests done with incident readings with sun diagonally behind subject. Camera 3m in front of subject. Same subject and camera-subject distance for all four exposures. All images taken in about 30 minutes.”

Daylight early afternoon bright for UK

regards
Tony
ps the paper has an unknown history. I'm another unknown history box [5x7] which I might try out to see if I've some 'bad paper' in the midst of the 8x10 box

[koraks]

I'd say exposure is a tad on the short side (at least to my taste) but not to the extent that no image would be visible. I'd advise on doing some further testing with tray development so that you can see what you're doing. That way you can at least check of something comes up if you extend development. But it's a mister for sure! Does the paper print OK under normal (enlarger/contact) conditions?

[Andy Eads]

Dead or contaminated developer?

[tonyowen]

! Does the paper print OK under normal (enlarger/contact) conditions?
Don't know, but paper from the 100 box 'worked' without [processing] problems up until [say] 6 sheets ago.



Dead or contaminated developer?
I tested today with an unopened developer concentrate [delivered yesterday from supplier]. All containers washed between times.

regards

Tony

[Jac@stafford.net]

No disrespect intended. As I told my students, and as I was taught, first remove all questionable variables. That means one batch lot of non-expired media (paper in this case), certifiably fresh chemistry, one light meter, one lens in same shutter, same time/temp processing.

Experiment with the above until you find your desired outcome. Record the details (above), and then REPEAT the whole regime exactly and if you do not get acceptable results, something in the chain of requisites wrong. Operator error, whacked shutter speed, aperture is where I would look first.

Best of luck and please stay in touch. I am sure a lot of us are looking forward to your success.

[jnantz]

Hi Tony

Have you taken a sheet of paper or scrap ( it doesn't matter the size ) and put it in the developer with the lights on.

John

[tonyowen]

No disrespect intended. First remove all questionable variables. That means one batch lot of non-expired media (paper in this case), certifiably fresh chemistry, one light meter, one lens in same shutter, same time/temp processing.

Long response sorry but!!!
Generally I’d agree with your comments, BUT this time I’m trying to understand why things have changed.
Initially I wondered if I’d not removed the dark slide – possibly on one image, but surely not on four.
Then there was the question of malfunctioning of lens/shutter. By using variations of lens and shutters if some worked and the other did not then I had a starting point.
Next I wondered about something happening when I inserted the DDS and/or removed a dark slide before taking the image. So I removed the lens from the camera, inserted a DDS and removed a dark slide. Nothing untoward occurred.
I also wondered about the age of my developer [Ilford PQ Universal] concentrate. I contacted Ilford/Harman and got the reply: - “. the reddish brown colour indicates the developer is becoming oxidised. Whether you wish to continue using it is of course up to you, if you're happy with the results, then there will be no other issues using. Our guidance of 6 months is just an approximation.”
To remove that element I ordered new developer that arrived a few days ago, but using it I got the same result of not ‘image’.
So, one element left is the paper. It is out of date, of unknown origin in terms of storage etc. One possibility is that I’m inverting the paper in the DDS but my understanding is the RC curls/curves to the non-emulsion side FB curls/curves to the emulsion side, or that some of the paper in the 100 box was/is faulty.
Two tests I intend to do.
1] mark the four corners of the non-emulsion side of the 8x10 sheet and ensure that the paper is inserted emulsion side outwards.
2] use paper from a 5x7 box of Multigrade paper.


[QUOTE=jnantz;1503148]taken a sheet of paper or scrap and put it in the developer with the lights on. /QUOTE]

I dropped a sheet of paper in daylight and later processed it through the developer and fixer. Result a black image so the chemicals worked and the paper is sensitive to light.
Or did you mean as a way of determining the emulsion side - emulsion side darkens in daylight

regards
Tony

[Rick A]

Are you loading your film holders in total darkness? Are you certain the emulsion side faces outward in the holder? If you are loading under a proper safelight, the emulsion side is shiny and will reflect light when held at an angle to the light. I think you possibly are loading the paper backwards into your film holders. I've used everything from fresh new paper to very old age fogged garbage, the only way you won't get an image is if loaded backwards or completely dead developer, or shutter doesn't fire and no exposure. Even underexposed should render a feint image. Try developing in a tray so you can watch the image appear. If you are using very dilute developer you may need more time for image to appear than you are giving in the processor.

[Pere Casals]

Generally I’d agree with your comments, BUT this time I’m trying to understand why things have changed.

Tony, try to keep your "investigation" under scientific method light.

Use the DSLR photometer and just expose x20 the reading for ISO 100, take a paper and expose, you can extract fractions of the holder's slide to have several exposure levels in a single paper sheet, develop it inmediately in a tray under safe light.

You have to find the problem with a few tests, this is straight, very easy find, just start from zero and be methodic...

[tonyowen]

Are you loading your film holders in total darkness? Are you certain the emulsion side faces outward in the holder? If you are loading under a proper safelight, the emulsion side is shiny and will reflect light when held at an angle to the light. I think you possibly are loading the paper backwards into your film holders.


just start from zero and be methodic...

Rick and Pere - thanks for input.
I think I know what the problem is and I've worked out a scientific way [ie repeatable] to overcome it.

Essentially some of the cut papers are being inserted with the emulsion to the INSIDE not OUTSIDE. This is from analysis of images since the time that resulting exposure paper negs became unpredictable. Also I've reason to suspect that some of the contents in the box of paper is mixed ie not what it says on the box.

Wrong way round images are from paper correctly placed in DDS. Right way round images are from paper wrongly placed in DDS. These latter show up with very long exposures whereas for shorter exposures a partial image can sometimes be discerned, but most times nothing

Initial solution
1] mark what I assume to be the non-emulsion side of the 8x10 sheet on each corner.
2] cut into two 100mmx254mm strips
3] mark a line mid way [127mm] across the width or the strip on the same side as the corner marks.
4] cut both strips to yield two 100mmx125mm pieces.
5] expose the 4mm wide remainder marked with the 'mid way line' to daylight.
6] whatever side of the strip darkens is the emulsion side.
7] If necessary reverse the 100mmx125mm sections the DDS.

Regards
Tony

[Rick A]

I gather from your response that you are not loading paper under a safelight, or you would be able to tell which side is which when loading, or you are using a safelight but not paying attention. There is also the possibility, if you are using old paper sourced from a private sale, that some of the paper is fixed out for alternate printing methods(or you are fixing first during processing).

[Doremus Scudder]

I gather from your response that you are not loading paper under a safelight, or you would be able to tell which side is which when loading, ...

Pearl surface RC paper looks very similar on both sides. It can be difficult to tell which side is the emulsion side. This would be complicated if someone mixed up the paper in the box, i.e., some emulsion-side-up, some emulsion-side-down. There is a way to tell, but the OP will have to look very carefully. Definitely, a safelight is in order when loading.

Best,

Doremus

[Bob Salomon]

Pearl surface RC paper looks very similar on both sides. It can be difficult to tell which side is the emulsion side. This would be complicated if someone mixed up the paper in the box, i.e., some emulsion-side-up, some emulsion-side-down. There is a way to tell, but the OP will have to look very carefully. Definitely, a safelight is in order when loading.

Best,

Doremus

Paper and film always curl towards the emulsion side.

Licking your finger and lightly touching a very small part of the material will also let you determine which side is which.

[koraks]

Yes, paper tends to curl with the emulsion inward. However, an exception is RA4 paper when it's cut recently from a roll, as the rolls are generally with the emulsion facing outward.
With rc papers, there is often no noticeable curl. What can help is slightly wet a fingertip and rub the surface of the paper at a corner. The emulsion side will feel a bit tacky.

[jnantz]

I dropped a sheet of paper in daylight and later processed it through the developer and fixer. Result a black image so the chemicals worked and the paper is sensitive to light.
Or did you mean as a way of determining the emulsion side - emulsion side darkens in daylight

regards
Tony

Nope it was a test to see if the paper and the developer were good and to determine if it was " user error " ...
I'm guessing your paper was installed in your film holders emulsion IN, back OUT .. not an uncommon thing some papers are impossible to tell which side is which
with some people resorting to licking the paper or a finger to see which side is sticky, curl tests &c.

My only suggestion, is to install your paper in the film holders the opposite way you are currently installing them and see what happens.. ( and then buy glossy paper :) )

Good Luck !
John

[tonyowen]

I gather from your response that you are not loading paper under a safelight, or you would be able to tell which side is which when loading, or you are using a safelight but not paying attention. There is also the possibility, if you are using old paper sourced from a private sale, that some of the paper is fixed out for alternate printing methods (or you are fixing first during processing).


Pearl surface RC paper looks very similar on both sides. It can be difficult to tell which side is the emulsion side. This would be complicated if someone mixed up the paper in the box, i.e., some emulsion-side-up, some emulsion-side-down. There is a way to tell, but the OP will have to look very carefully. Definitely, a safelight is in order when loading. Doremus

QUOTE=Bob Salomon;1503281]Paper and film always curl towards the emulsion side. Licking your finger and lightly touching a very small part of the material will also let you determine which side is which.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jnantz;1503353]Nope it was a test to see if the paper and the developer were good and to determine if it was " user error " ...
I'm guessing your paper was installed in your film holders emulsion IN, back OUT .. not an uncommon thing some papers are impossible to tell which side is which
with some people resorting to licking the paper or a finger to see which side is sticky, curl tests &c.
My only suggestion, is to install your paper in the film holders the opposite way you are currently installing them and see what happens.. ( and then buy glossy paper :) )/QUOTE]

Thank to all
YES I am using a safe light. I've checked my previous paper negatives and the majority are wrong way round images ie correctly inserted.
YES it is difficult to be certain which is the emulsion side of Pearl and I'm not going to engage with licking paper/chemicals

Last night I did as post 15. This morning the 'assumed' non-emulsion side (identified by marker pen lines) of the two strips was still white whilst the unmarked side was discoloured - so I know that I have identified and inserted the cut paper emulsion side out.

Next is to repeat my exposure with the four lenses, and see what develops [pun intended].

Rick's comment (or you are fixing first during processing) is unlikely as I'm very careful about the chemicals and the sequence of usage.

Two things have me bothered,
one is though the box is marked 'Pearl' it could contain another type of RC paper [The 100 box of Pearl was/is one of several boxes of paper I was given. These , include a box of Cool Tone albeit 5x7], and some FB paper.

Secondly the recommended development time for FB and Cool Tone is different from RC Pearl. In any case is the difference between RC and FB and between Pearl and Cool Tone obvious BEFORE processing????

I do not have light tight facilities in which I can tray process the paper negatives.

So in the next couple of days I'll know the results of my exposures.

Regards

Tony

[tonyowen]

Eureka (ish)
Marking the [assumed] non-emulsion side and checking the cut-offs in daylight works.

After exposure the corner markings indicate whether the cut paper has been put in the DDS properly or emulsion side inwards.

My results are identifiable by the rotatable position of a hookah in the setup. So I know which lens and what exposure was used. Hence I can determine if there is any need for exposure correction.

My concern is what exactly was/is the multigrade paper I developed - RC Pearl, RC Cooltone OR FB???

The exposure times for Ilford PQ Universal @ 1:9 are 2:00 min:sec, 3:00 min:sec, and 1:30 – 3:00 min:sec for Pearl, Cooltone and FB respectively.

I developed the four papers cut from one 8x10 sheet for 2:15 min:sec

Does anyone know how to distinguish between Pearl, Cooltone and PB paper before exposure and under a safelight??

Regards

Tony

[alexmuir]

'Pearl' refers to a type of paper surface Ilford use on their RC papers. The Cooltone RC paper could be in a variety of surfaces, including 'Pearl'. There would be no way that I can think of to differentiate between standard RC paper, and Cooltone RC, if they both had a 'Pearl' finish. These RC papers, however, should look quite different from Ilford FB paper. RC tends to be thinner, and comes out of the pack quite flat. FB is usually thicker, with a more natural paper feel to the back surface. The emulsion side of 'Glossy' FB is very obvious, but Matt surfaces can be more difficult to identify. As already mentioned, paper tends to curl towards the emulsion side. That is more obvious with FB materials.
Alex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[tonyowen]

No way that I can think of to differentiate between standard RC paper, and Cooltone RC, if they both had a 'Pearl' finish. RC tends to be thinner, and comes out of the pack quite flat. FB is usually thicker, with a more natural paper feel to the back surface, but Matt surfaces can be more difficult to identify. As already mentioned, paper tends to curl towards the emulsion side. That is more obvious with FB materials.

The 8x10 sheets I'm using have a noticeable albeit slight curve when laid on a flat surface.. Also thin and thicker are very subjective.

It is my understanding that RC and FB paper curl in different directions. One with the emulsion on the convex side of the curl the other on the concave side of the curl.

I've found a method of determining the emulsion side of the paper through daylight exposure of waste strips. So cannot the difference be detected by the direction of the curl related to the emulsion side of the paper?

Please comment on the correctness of my assertion.

regards
Tony

[Jac@stafford.net]

Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper.

[alexmuir]

Hi Tony. Unless you have a truly matt paper surface, the emulsion side always has a slight sheen. Glossy paper more so than the non-gloss finishes (pearl, satin etc). The back of Ilford RC papers are all the same, no matter what the emulsion surface is called. I find that in most sizes I have used, 3.5x5.5”-16x20”, the sheets lie flat on the easel when taken from the pack. Ilford FB paper tends to have a definite concave curl on the emulsion side. It also feels more card-like than the RC types. You used to get thin, single-weight FB papers, but these are pretty rare nowadays.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[malexand]

Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper.

+1

[tonyowen]

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper


+1

Why, A 100 box of 8x10 is around UK£50.00 plus postage (say US$64.00). In the UK, £50 is a lot of money to squander unnecessarily. I'm not certain that $64 has the same 'value' in the US.

In addition, I've lots of boxes of paper so why not use them and what is wrong with trying to find answers that will enable me to use them efficiently.

regards
Tony

[Jac@stafford.net]

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper



Why, A 100 box of 8x10 is around UK£50.00 plus postage (say US$64.00). In the UK, £50 is a lot of money to squander unnecessarily. I'm not certain that $64 has the same 'value' in the US.

In addition, I've lots of boxes of paper so why not use them and what is wrong with trying to find answers that will enable me to use them efficiently.

regards
Tony

My friend, you are burning time from those who once cared about your project. It is so scattered. Ignore file for now. Best of luck, Sir.

[reddesert]

Just do the thing Bob Salomon suggested upthread: lick your finger and touch both sides of the paper. The emulsion side will be tacky, the back won't. It's not going to hurt you, you're just touching gelatin. The simplest answer is usually the right one: images aren't coming out because some of the paper was loaded backward, so until you have a foolproof method for loading the paper right side out, you will waste paper and your time.

[Larry Gebhardt]

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper



Why, A 100 box of 8x10 is around UK£50.00 plus postage (say US$64.00). In the UK, £50 is a lot of money to squander unnecessarily. I'm not certain that $64 has the same 'value' in the US.

In addition, I've lots of boxes of paper so why not use them and what is wrong with trying to find answers that will enable me to use them efficiently.

regards
Tony

It’s not squandered if you still use the old paper. Get new known paper for your originals and save the other for use in the darkroom where you are not losing original shots. One of your other boxes you already own is where I would start. For paper negatives I’d choose rc glossy if you have some.

[tonyowen]

information for those interested from Ilford/Harman UK

Technical <technical@harmantechnology.com>

Hi Tony,

It's much easier to tell the emulsion side than by looking at the curl.

I would just look at the surface finish under glancing safelight.

The RC sheets are likely to be Glossy or Pearl, both easy to spot.

FB will likely be Glossy (If it's matt it's a little trickier)

Curl does depend somewhat on humidity and also how the product was manufactured, so can be variable, RC mostly lies pretty flat, sometimes the emulsion is on the convex side due to roll set, but this might not be reliable. The emulsion is normally on the concave side for FB.

regards

Tony

[jnantz]

Hi Tony

I hate to suggest you waste another sheet of paper but ...

Take a chunk of papers out of your box to see if they were all put in the same way ( you should be able to tell if they lie flat on eachother if some are upside down on the stack ) put all but 1 sheet back in the box and mark it with a pen the UP side. Close and put away the box and turn the room lights on or go outside and look at the paper to see which side is the emulsion. It won't turn black or grey right away but you will see it slightly turning and you will be able to see the sheen. Go back into the dark with the red light and look at the side that was the emulsion so you will have a better idea. Also, tape a piece of that paper oriented the same way the rest of the box is oriented. If you have a hacksaw, emery board or something to abrade an edge, rough a tiny bit of the whole stackand make your own "notch code" so you can tell just like with film.

Good luck making those paper negatives !
John

[tonyowen]

Good luck making those paper negatives !John

Hi John Thanks for response.

I’m slightly ahead of you.

I view the 8x10 sheet under a safe light in a darkened bedroom.
When I’ve identified ‘what seems to be the emulsion side’ I turn it over and mark the four corners. In addition, [because 4x5 film/paper is less than those dimensions - actually 99mmx124mm] I mark the central gap between the two 99mm wide strips. [I use a template to set the rotary cutter to the appropriate wide and length of the desired “4x5” pieces that will fit into a DDS].

After cutting and inserting the cut pieces into the DDS. The ‘off cuts’ are left in daylight. The emulsion side, as you say, discolours; so I know if the emulsion is on the unmarked or marked side of the 8x10 sheet. If it is on the marked side then I need to unload and reload the DDSs.
Since RC Pearl/Cooltone [according the Ilford/Harman] is not consistent in exhibiting a curl, then I do not know EXACTLY what I have. So I got back to Ilford/Harman regarding post processing attributes.

The answer was
“Pearl is a surface finish, Cooltone is a product type,. Different tones e.g. Cooltone / warmtone are very difficult to distinguish unless developed and under white light.
RC is very smooth and very flat also more flexible than FB
Normally FB will curl upwards and unevenly post processing,. So emulsion is on the concave side. RC doesn't tent to curl very much at all and should dry quite flat.”

My prints curl to the convex side, so I’m paper I’ve chosen is RC paper [Pearl or Cooltone].

Regards
Tony