Dektol dilution recommendation for overexposed negs? (16x20 prints)

[Chris Chow]

Hi all,

Today was the first time I printed on 16x20 paper using a Nikkor 135 f/5.6 lens, and dektol solution was 1:1.

Enlarger used was a Saunders LPL 4550XLG.

Problem was, it took me a long time to make an exposure on the enlarger at the widest open aperture (f/5.6) and my goal was to at least close up a stop or 2 from wide open for sharpness (unfortunately that didn't happen). 180 sec base exposure in the sky and 1 min base exposure for the structure via split grade printing at wide open with additional dodging/burning.

Wanted to get some feedback on if I should use a 2:1 dektol solution in hopes to close down on enlarger lens aperture with tolerable enlarger exposure times?

Just to give you an idea, in the negative process, I expose TMax 100 @ ISO 50, and develop at D-76 1:1 (68 deg F) for 9 mins. My personal preference is to veer on the side of overexposure with slight underdevelopment.

Definitely a learning experience today. Graciously appreciate your feedback.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Don't know about how to develop just yet. I just picked up my durst. Picture looks good. If anything a bit flat. Careful on clouds some of them look close to blowing out. Could also be how you took photo of print. Maybe more contrast?

[Duolab123]

Hi all,

Today was the first time I printed on 16x20 paper using a Nikkor 135 f/5.6 lens, and dektol solution was 1:1.

Enlarger used was a Saunders LPL 4550XLG.

Problem was, it took me a long time to make an exposure on the enlarger at the widest open aperture (f/5.6) and my goal was to at least close up a stop or 2 from wide open for sharpness (unfortunately that didn't happen). 180 sec base exposure in the sky and 1 min base exposure for the structure via split grade printing at wide open with additional dodging/burning.

Wanted to get some feedback on if I should use a 2:1 dektol solution in hopes to close down on enlarger lens aperture with tolerable enlarger exposure times?

Just to give you an idea, in the negative process, I expose TMax 100 @ ISO 50, and develop at D-76 1:1 (68 deg F) for 9 mins. My personal preference is to veer on the side of overexposure with slight underdevelopment.

Definitely a learning experience today. Graciously appreciate your feedback.

I would use recommended ISO and develop times, use a yellow sky filter. I love split printing, but you should try making a straight print. Properly exposed, brilliant negatives with contrast filter on the camera (medium yellow, orange, red if you want really dark sky) Should print fine at medium contrast.
Print looks flat on the computer here.

I tend to give my negatives a bit, not much, maybe 5% more development time.

Are you printing on warmtone paper?

You can improve Dmax with Selenium toner, I tone everything.

Warmtone papers are slower than "normal" bromide paper like Ilford MGIV RC OR Classic FB .

I'm assuming you are printing from a 4x5 negative? Nice photo!

[koraks]

Are you developing the print long enough? In general, you develop paper to completion. The main effect of using a stronger developer will be a shorter development time; the image doesn't change much, maybe a tiny boost of contrast. TMX at 50 doesn't sound very much overexposed and your development (of the negative) isn't extremely long either. Hence, the problem is most likely not a dense negative - unless you forgot to stop down when making the negative exposure, in which case you may have overexposed it by several stops.

Can you post a photograph of the negative, and what is the wattage of the bulb in your enlarger?

[Bernard_L]

Little can be done about paper development. Extended (4-6min) development might increase the sensitivity a bit, as documented in Controls in B/W Photography by Richard J. Henry, ISBN 0-912216-25-5. But nowhere close to the two stops as you seem to require

Problem was, it took me a long time to make an exposure on the enlarger at the widest open aperture (f/5.6) and my goal was to at least close up a stop or 2 from wide open for sharpness (unfortunately that didn't happen). 180 sec base exposure in the sky and 1 min base exposure for the structure via split grade printing at wide open with additional dodging/burning.

And, in my experience, using a stronger dilution of Dektol

Wanted to get some feedback on if I should use a 2:1 dektol solution in hopes to close down on enlarger lens aperture with tolerable enlarger exposure times?

only serves to obtain equivalent development in a slightly shorter time, like 1'30" versus 2'. Ditto with "energetic" developers. I tested Tetenal Dokumol, contact printing a step wedge and found it equivalent to Dektol in terms of density scale.
What were the actual exposure parameters for the image that you show? Did you check your actual shutter speeds? Do you have a problem with an exceptional negative or is this a constant problem? I see your enlarger has a diffusion head, probably that is intrinsically less luminous than a condenser enlarger (not meaning point source). I found Fomabrom Variant to be faster than Ilford MG, maybe this would gain you a factor of 2; but you have already invested into a box of 16x20!!

[Cor]

Is your negative very dense ? (can you read through the highlights when putting a newspaper under the negative)

How strong is the light of your enlarger ? (do you run int long printing times with other negatives)

good luck,

Cor

[Chris Chow]

All,

Thank you for the response and compliment.

To answer some of your questions,

Clouds were very dense so you could barely see through a newspaper under the negative but can see details through a light table.

During the film exposure process, B+W Orange 2 stop filter was used, exposed at f45 with reciprocity and 2 stop exp comp, accounted for. Metered middle gray roof. From what memory serves me, I exposed for 10 secs. Should have used a GND in the skies but at the time of exposure I didn't bother and figured I could obtain highlight details in the darkroom, hence a learning lesson when printing!

Picture was taken with my phone and the image won't record exactly how it appears when I made the print .

Ilford MG Neutral FB Glossy Paper was used - contrast 0 for the skies, and contrast 3 for the building, felt it was best to approach the print as 2 separate images. I used to print on Ilford warmtone, and indeed is a very slow paper, but prints great. The equipment was used at a photo school so I would not know what bulb wattage was used and such.

Bernard_L: Interesting point you bring up about paper development since I'm relatively novice in the printing process. I usually develop for 2 minutes but was wondering if prolonged development would further darken shadows?

This is my first time printing 4x5 negs with 16x20 paper, the enlarger head height was high to compensate the 135mm enlarger lens and paper, so I was anticipating longer printing times. I used to print MF 6x7 negs with a 105mm however printing time on the enlarger wasn't as long, but that was for 11x14.

[Michael Graves]

Are you using the 4x5 mixing box on the enlarger? Not doing so may result in lower light output.

[Pere Casals]

Wanted to get some feedback on if I should use a 2:1 dektol solution in hopes to close down on enlarger lens aperture with tolerable enlarger exposure times?

Usually paper is developed to completion, so usually developer strength is not a factor. There are some techniques concerning paper developer strength, but I see no application for too dense negatives.

You can use Farmer's Reducer to lower negative densities but:

"careful: You must not leave the negative in the reducer until it looks
right, because the reducer continues to work a while when the negative
is already in the water bath again. I would recommend not using too
strong a solution." https://www.photo.net/discuss/thread...or-film.21878/

See also Darkroom Cookbook and other.

You can also make an internegative of suitable density, this does not risk the original...

Finally what I would do is replacing the original tungsten bulb by a led source (a powerful led bulb, perhaps) sporting x10 times more effective light power. LED sources generate 1/10 of the heat than tugnsten for same visible light power, so you can overpower your enlarger by x10 without overheating your enlarger.

Probably the paper grades would vary a bit from the original settings, if using the color head for contrast control, but that's about finding the matching settings.

If you place a 250W led source (x10 more light) you cannot imagine how much light you will have, probably with a 100W LED you would have power enough, while heating the half. A LED source may not reheat the enlarger but anyway you have to ensure the LED refrigeration. You may need to use an electronic dimmer to not have to close too much the lens aperture !

Using a (uncalibrated) LED source may be complicated for color prints, but for BW it's straight.

[Bernard_L]

Using a (uncalibrated) LED source may be complicated for color prints, but for BW it's straight.

Except ordinary white LED bulbs have a poor CRI, meaning that even if they claim some color temperature, their spectrum is different from a tungsten bulb. In summary, will probably work, but expect some adjustments of multigrade filtering compared with a tungsten source.