Contrast control with Adox Lupex

[RustBeltEcologies]

I'm seeking some advice as to how I can better control the contrast of this great paper.

When I'm able to get a nice print using this paper--it's unbeatable compared to other papers I've used. However, it's so contrasty that sometimes I'm unable to get a decent print.

My current workflow: I've been sticking to films that are lower in contrast--HP5 being the main film I use. I try and control the contrast of the negative--often pulling the film 1-2 stops when necessary and always developing in a highly diluted developer.
The three print developers I've been using are, a highly diluted Ansco 130, Ansco 120 and Bromophen. Surprisingly, Bromophen has been my favorite, as I get the deep blacks that I love and also get a really nice subtle blue tone in the shadows when leaving the print in the developer for 3min. The contrast between the dilute 130 and bromophen is basically identical to me and the 120 barely brings the contrast down--though it does a little.

I've heard that pre exposing the paper will help control contrast, but I haven't been able to find any specifics on doing this and testing on my own hasn't given me any workable results. I'm using a 75w light bulb and it's closer to the printing frame than what is normally recommended--but I don't have any option to get the bulb higher than ~3' away. A properly exposed/dense negative usually prints around 20 seconds of exposure give or take.

With all of that said, being that this paper is pretty expensive, I'm hoping someone can give me a tip on pre exposing, to guide me when I experiment on my own again. The last time I tried this, I didn't even get any image to develop, just solid black. And that was after about 1 second of pre exposure with 5 sec tests under the negative after the pre exposure. Should I try an even weaker light bulb? Maybe use a weak light bulb for the pre exposure and then use my regularly used 75w to exposure under the negative?

Any and all advice is welcome and appreciated! Thanks!

[ic-racer]

it's so contrasty that sometimes I'm unable to get a decent print.

Try processing the negatives 20% less.

[Alan9940]

I love Lupex! I use Amidol and to control contrast I've used a water bath and David Kachel SLIMT. The former won't provide a large change, but sometimes it's just enough. SLIMT will provide the greatest decrease in contrast, but in my experience, I've found the bleaching to be somewhat difficult to control. But I work with it until I get just what I want. I've tried split development using something like Selectol Soft, but have never been happy with those results.

Don't give up...Lupex is a beautiful paper.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thank you both for the quick responses!

I should also add, that my reason for not using Amidol in the first place, is simply because my darkroom setup is in a very cramped, unventilated room. I remember looking at test results using SLIMT and couldn't believe the changes, but had assumed that I wanted to avoid SLIMT for the same reason I don't want to use Amidol. So maybe what I should be considering is how to safely use stronger chemicals in my situation--printing with an n95 mask possibly?

Alan, you say that you use SLIMT during the printing process and not developing the negative, correct? Am I correct that SLIMT will work on the shadows while printing and highlights while developing film? And if so, do you lose any richness in the blacks when using SLIMT?

[Alan9940]

Alan, you say that you use SLIMT during the printing process and not developing the negative, correct? Am I correct that SLIMT will work on the shadows while printing and highlights while developing film? And if so, do you lose any richness in the blacks when using SLIMT?

That's correct...on the paper. SLMIT will actually affect the entire tonal range--it is a bleach after all--but it works more in the shadows. I find that if I print down the high values a little more than I normally would, the reduced contrast print will look "right" to my eye when done. You can lose a bit of richness in the blacks, if you go too far. I have found that Lupex responds so easily and well to SLIMT that I typically use much higher dilutions than what Mr. Kachel describes in his writings. That said, an important point here is that I'm looking only for a touch less contrast. You wouldn't know the difference unless I showed you side-by-side prints. Because of this and the high dilutions I use, I have to mix a fresh bath with every print. It's a bit tedious but can be the only way to achieve the final print you're looking for.

[Doremus Scudder]

... I should also add, that my reason for not using Amidol in the first place,... I remember looking at test results using SLIMT and couldn't believe the changes, but had assumed that I wanted to avoid SLIMT for the same reason I don't want to use Amidol. So maybe what I should be considering is how to safely use stronger chemicals in my situation--printing with an n95 mask possibly? ...

SLIMT chemicals are just about as benign as you can get. Don't be frightened by the "cyanide" in the name. Potassium ferricyanide is not poisonous unless you add it to acid, chlorine or heat it. For normal darkroom bleaching, it's just as safe as your developers. It has been used safely in darkrooms for centuries. It is also the active component in Farmer's Reducer and the bleach for sepia toning.

I can't help you with Lupex, per se, but I do use SLIMT techniques for reducing negative contrast, something you may also want to look at. Using it for prints is basically the same thing, though. The idea is to use a very weak rehalogenating bleach (the ferricyanide is always used in conjunction with potassium bromide - also a benign chemical) to treat the negative / paper before developing. This bleaches the latent image contrast-wise and reduces contrast; more bleaching in the dense areas, less in the less-dense areas.

The trick is to figure out the dilutions and times. I'll not go into detail here, pointing you instead to David Kachel's articles (Google search). The basic method is to make stock solutions of ferricyanide and bromide and mix these to the desired dilution just before use. The problem with bleaching papers overall is the tendency toward uneven bleaching, but maybe Kachel or Alan have some tips.

All that said, the real issue here is matching negative contrast to the paper contrast. That's classic Zone System territory. If I were you, I'd revisit my spot-metering techniques and do some testing for development schemes and get your negatives dialed in for the paper. That should be immanently doable. If you aren't metering each scene and developing your negatives to the desired contrast gradient for the paper, you need to start.

Best,

Doremus

[Mark Sampson]

It might be worth trying a low-contrast paper developer. I've used TD-31 from Photographer's Formulary to print negatives that were just too contrasty to print otherwise.
IIRC they have several formulas available- they advertise TD-31 as a replacement for the long-gone Kodak Selector-Soft.
A simpler answer, perhaps, than SLIMT or reducing your negatives.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thanks for the advice everyone!

I will definitely check out David Kachel's article and will consider SLIMT.

As Doremus suggested, I'm trying to develop my negatives to the desired contrast--which when using Lupex, seems to be easier said than done. I believe I read somewhere that Michael Smith thought Lupex grade 3 was closer to Lodima grade 4--it is very contrasty! I wish they'd make a grade 2 lupex, that would be the ticket right there.

I hadn't seen the TD-31 formula until now--I wonder how it is compared to Ansco 120. I will definitely be giving that a try before moving on to SLIMT. But I'm glad to know I have multiple options to try (and to try in conjunction with another) to get to my desired contrast.

Thanks again!

[Michael R]

The easiest thing to try with existing negatives before resorting to more complicated tricks would be to use flashing. This will typically get you roughly 1/2 to 1 grade of contrast reduction, weighted toward highlight tones. This is simply pre (or post) exposure of the paper to non-image forming light. You want to give the paper the maximum amount of exposure that doesn't produce any density (tone) when the paper is processed. Basically you do a test strip the same way you would when printing a negative, but without a negative. Develop the print, dry it (rinse and then microwave it for a bit) and find the strip with the most exposure which produced no density vs paper white. That's the flash exposure that will get you the most contrast reduction. It might take a few tries to zone in on what that level of exposure is. Start with coarse exposure increments and then refine.

Here is an example for an enlarging paper but the principle is identical: 231887

[Alan9940]

I've never had uneven bleaching, but that could be due to the higher dilutions I use and/or my method for introducing the paper into the bleach. Basically, I do it just like I do with my pt/pd prints--lifting the tray to pool the chemistry at one end, quickly insert the paper, then lower opposite end such that the bleach washes quickly over the surface of the print.

@Mark Sampson - I've tried a few different low-contrast developers, either as the sole developer or as part of a split-development but have never been satisfied with the results. Others, though, may find a technique that works perfectly.

Regarding, the development of the negative to match the paper... I've run tests developing the negs to a 1.0 density value for the highlights (ala Steve Sherman) but found the resulting contrast in the print still too high for my taste.

Bottom line is that it will take some testing and experimenting to "bend" the materials to your needs.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thanks, Michael! This was exactly the answer I was looking for. I will follow these steps when I'm back in the darkroom. Can I ask why microwave it? Is that just to further dry it?

[Mark Sampson]

I believe TD-31(S-S) and Ansco 120 are quite similar. I've used both but decades apart; both gave 'about' a one-grade contrast drop. Which may or may not meet the OP's needs.

[Michael R]

Yeah it’s just a quick way to dry test prints. I always evaluate test prints, work prints etc this way - especially when I’m looking at small exposure adjustments to highlight tones. It helps avoid dry-down surprises. It doesn’t necessarily have to be perfectly dry.


Thanks, Michael! This was exactly the answer I was looking for. I will follow these steps when I'm back in the darkroom. Can I ask why microwave it? Is that just to further dry it?

[jnantz]

What does your film look like ?
I ask because usually negatives for silver chloride paper have to have a density that is regular paper. Thin negatives might give
really fast exposures and contrast that is difficult to manage. Im not sure if you have been to michaelandpaula.com
but they have a section devoted to development and exposure of silver chloride papers like Lupex, Lodima and Azo.
I found that giving a little extra exposure and extra development instead of the opposite gave me great negatives to
contact print on grade 3. I use and used ansco130 as my FILM and paper developer, and shuffle processed it for about 8 1/2 minutes at 70-72ºF
I use a 300W reflector bulb that is about IDK 2 1/2-3feet above my printing area, and my exposures are between IDK 15-20 seconds, I'm able to burn and dodge as well.
Good luck with your printing, silver chloride is great stuff!
John

[Chuck Pere]

You might need to put your light on a dimmer to get usable times when flashing the paper.

[RustBeltEcologies]

Thanks everyone for your replies! I had a chance to spend some time in the darkroom yesterday testing out some of what was discussed in this thread. And there was one variable that I hadn't considered and am embarrassed to even admit this.. but I live on Lake Erie in an old farm house built in the mid-1800's. It's already very very cold in my darkroom and I hadn't factored in how the temperature would affect the look of the prints. After being frustrated trying out a couple of suggestions from this thread without any progress, I decided to crank the heat in the darkroom and use the heating pads that I use for seed starting under my developer tray. I went from developing the paper in cold working solution at the minimum amount of time recommended, to developing at exactly 68 degrees and testing out different times in the developer between the minimum and maximum amount of time recommended and this has made a huge difference. Because I was developing to completion, I had never considered temp/time having such an impact. Simple lesson learned.
Thanks again for everyones input!