Chromium intensifier vs Silver intensifier

[bill2424]

I have a negative that I used to print using a #5 filter but when I tried to print it recently it is to flat. I tried to use chromium intensifier to a similar negative as a test but it doesn't seem to increase the contrast enough even after doing it twice. Does anyone have experience with silver intensifier
compared to the chromium? I'm hoping maybe the silver would boost the contrast a bit more. Thanks

[Vaughn]

Common wisdom has Chromium intensification as being stronger than any silver/selenium based intensifier. Selenium intensification really needs a neg with some muscle to it...some silver to work with-- does not do much for thin negs.

You might try printing a little dark and then bleaching the print.

Beware of other contrast-killers...unsafe safe lights, worn out filters, weaken developer, dirty lenses, et al.

[Jim Noel]

Have you tried intensifying the negative by toning it?
Selenium will increase HL about1/2-1 stop.
Sepia will increase HL 1-2 stops or more. It is the best bet for those who don't keep a varied supply of toners available. Sepia toning is scary when it bleaches the negative, but stay with it, it works well.
You might want to practice on a negative which is not as valuable to you.

[Drew Wiley]

There is also such a thing as contrast-increase masking, for those suitably equipped. But if you can even see a full image on the neg, no matter how flat it is, you should be able to successfully print it on any number of premium VC papers using a hard 47 or 47B deep blue filter.
I presume that when you're referring to a no.5 it's magenta.

[Vaughn]

Selenium toning = selenium intensifing

Again, if the negative is very thin, both selenium and sepia toning/intensification will be limited as there is not a lot silver to work with.

I suppose one could first sepia tone, wash, then selenium tone, that might add a touch more contrast...at least on graded papers...I have no idea of how the color of toned negative will affect the use of the VC filters, LOL!

If you have extra density in the shadows you can afford to reduce or lose, yet you still have a flat negative, a light bleaching will pump up the contrast amazingly. One just has to pull the neg out of the bleach a good time before one sees the results one wants. Brings out the fortune-teller in oneself! Fix and wash. Then intensify the negative. This I have done quite successfully for alt processes.

Edited to add: I have used selenium toning for enlargement, but not in conjuction with bleaching -- 1:4 taken to completion, 4x5 printed to 16x20...nice tonality and grain structure.

[Greg]

The very best negative intensifier I have ever used was Victor's Chromium? Intensifier. Remember it turned the negative yellow, and the intensifier was discontinued because it was very poisonous. Is Chromium Intensifier still marketed under another brand or formulae? Does it have to be made from scratch?

[Mark Sampson]

Victor's Mercury Intensifier (VMI) is/was the most powerful negative intensifier I've ever heard of. George Krause wrote about using it in Ralph Gibson's book 'Darkroom'. But that was published 40 years ago, and even at age 25, VMI seemed way too dangerous to me. I'd be very surprised if it were still available (I've never seen it for sale). It would have to be an extremely important negative...

[Vaughn]

Victor's Mercury Intensifier (VMI) is/was the most powerful negative intensifier I've ever heard of. George Krause wrote about using it in Ralph Gibson's book 'Darkroom'. But that was published 40 years ago, and even at age 25, VMI seemed way too dangerous to me. I'd be very surprised if it were still available (I've never seen it for sale). It would have to be an extremely important negative...

At that point, better to scan the negative...one use to be able to get film burned from a digital file.

[Greg]

Victor's Mercury Intensifier (VMI) is/was the most powerful negative intensifier I've ever heard of. George Krause wrote about using it in Ralph Gibson's book 'Darkroom'. But that was published 40 years ago, and even at age 25, VMI seemed way too dangerous to me. I'd be very surprised if it were still available (I've never seen it for sale). It would have to be an extremely important negative...

I stand corrected, Victor's was Mercury and not Chromium. On the night of August 1, 1970 myself and some friends decided to go the Powder Ridge Rock Festival. We arrived around midnight. There were around 30,000 attendees there at the time and power had been turned off. Only lights were flashlights and a few food trucks running on generators. Still shot a roll or two of 2575. Had to guess on the exposures because my camera's exposure meter was essentially useless. After processing the film used VMI to make some of the images printable. Around 20+ years later, helped teach a photo class in Doolin, Ireland. Shot a lot of 120 B&W film of the rocky coastline. Upon getting back home, and being sleepless for more than a day, processed the film and as best as I can postulate processed all the 120 film for 3 minutes instead of 13 minutes. Needless to say the negatives were extremely thin... Went to buy some VMI and discovered that it was taken off the market years before. Negatives were essentially unprintable so I just files them away. But then a few years ago participated in a Platinum/Palladium printing class. Was able to scan the negatives and make digital negatives which printed beautifully (attached).

[esearing]

There is also the bleach and redevelop with Pyrocat method for increasing contrast. I would also check your head and its filters to make sure you still get grade 5. I once used a VC head in a shared darkroom that would never print more than grade 3 filters unless I used under the lens filters.

[Steve Goldstein]

Not long ago I found a filter that prints with even higher contrast than an Ilford #5 or a Rosco 68 - the Rosco 384. The #5 and R68 print with near-identical contrast with my Aristo V54-equipped cold light head, just a slight speed difference, but the R384 is significantly more contrasty; it also needs a much longer exposure. It's not quite like Agfa Brovira #6 (remember that?) but it got me the print I was after when nothing else would, without touching the one negative I have of the scene.

[Doremus Scudder]

There is also the bleach and redevelop with Pyrocat method for increasing contrast. I would also check your head and its filters to make sure you still get grade 5. I once used a VC head in a shared darkroom that would never print more than grade 3 filters unless I used under the lens filters.

+1

I've had good luck with bleach/redevelop, but you need a staining developer to get extra contrast (PMK, Pyrocat, etc.).

It's no use selenium intensifying a negative developed in a staining developer. The intensification removes the stain and you're back to square one. Use bleach/redevelop instead.

Do check for contrast-killers as suggested above. Make a print in total darkness to eliminate both safelight fog and the Herschel effect.

FWIW, a Wratten #47B gives me significantly more contrast than 170M on my Chromega heads. If you haven't tried that, do.

A combination of the above may be needed, e.g., bleach/redevelop and then a #47 filter when printing.

Best,

Doremus