Needing grade 5 for a neg - a puzzle

[Svend]

Mike, I don't have much experience with gr. 5 papers or gr. 5 filters on MG paper, but I do remember it being difficult to work with mid-tone range. It was tricky to get anything but soot and chalk -- your experience may be different, however.

For your case, I was thinking more in the way of using your existing developer and tweaking that to boost contrast a bit. Lower dilution; adding a bit of sodium carbonate....that sort of thing. When done together with a neg intensification, you might get down to a gr. 3 and have more latitude to play with the middle tones. Then you don't have to buy an extra packet of chemicals just for one print. Just my thoughts.... I'm sure others here are much more experienced with this sort of thing and can better advise.

Cheers,
Svend

[Mike O'Pray]

Thanks Sven. I now understand and yes, if neg intensification works but by not enough then lower dilution and sodium carbonate may be worth a try.

Mike

[alexmuir]

Sorry for the delay in coming back to this thread. I have attached pics of the negative before and after one treatment with the chromium intensifier. It was redeveloped for two minutes in Tetenal Eukobrom 1+9 at 20c. The comparison prints aren't great, the second one being very messy. The conclusion I have reached is that the process works, but may need several treatments to achieve a significant change in contrast.
Alex

[Mike O'Pray]

Thanks, Alex. I take it that the first negative is the original and the first print is that of the original neg. The second neg is the intensified neg and the second print is that of the intensified neg?

While the first print may not be a great representation of the original neg( I fear we are back to scanning issues anyway) and the second intensified neg may not look much contrastier I'd say that the second print compared to the first demonstrates that a one-pass intensification does make a difference and a second-pass may be the one that will really make the print "pop" as much as grey negatives can ever be made to "pop" with what is a rescue operation. In reality if I had no knowledge of what you had done but was simply asked to comment on the second print, I don't think I'd have said it lacks contrast.

Thanks for your trouble, Alex

Mike

[alexmuir]

That is the correct order, Mike. I don't know how I managed to get so much debris on the second print. It was probably the contact frame which needs new glass. I should have said that these prints are contacts of a 4x5 negative, both on MGIV without filtration. That should mean Grade 2.5. All four images were made with an iPhone camera. The negatives were on an LED Lightbox, and the prints were simply photographed in available light. The first print has a colour cast likely due to the lighting when I photographed it.
I hope this has been of some help. It was an interesting exercise. Anyone contemplating using the chromium solution should bear in mind that it is highly toxic. It looks like Irn Bru, but without the restorative qualities!
Alex.

[Svend]

Originally Posted by alexmuir

The conclusion I have reached is that the process works, but may need several treatments to achieve a significant change in contrast.

Well guys, to my eyes (with or without my specs on ), the difference is not subtle! While there may not be the major contrast change that you were after, the intensified neg creates a print that has a glow and a luminous quality that the untreated neg does not. The latter is flat and dull (no offense Alex), but the former seems to have that quality of light that we all seek. That this is apparent from an iPhone snap of the print is impressive. In the hand, the second print must be very nice indeed.

This has been most helpful, as I don't recall seeing a real-world example of what an intensifier can do (not counting my instructional photography books). As I said, I'm impressed. I wonder...will treating a neg in selenium give a similar effect? Or is that much more subtle than chromium? Any experience comparing the two?

Thanks for posting all this -- interesting stuff.

Svend

[Mike O'Pray]

I can only speak from theory, Svend i.e. what I have read so take it with a pinch of salt but I have seen half a grade claimed for selenium and a whole grade claimed for chromium.

If you are a selenium user and have the stuff then it sounds worth using. On the other hand, if you only have one or two negs to rescue then chromium intensifier is cheaper in the U.K. than the smallest commercial selenium pack I can find and allegedly might produce more contrast.

Mike

[Svend]

Thanks Mike -- good to know. And yes, I do use (or intend to, in any case, once the DR is up and running) Selenium quite commonly to tone prints. An easy matter then to tone a film strip or two if need be, as it will always be at hand. I think that together with development controls, it will prove to be a useful tool.

Svend

[billcowan]

I am thinking, though, that selenium can only be effective once (if done to completion)

[Mike O'Pray]

Originally Posted by billcowan

I am thinking, though, that selenium can only be effective once (if done to completion)

I think that is right, Bill. Chromium allows at least two passes and maybe in theory as many as you like but presumably after two passes rapid diminishing returns set in and I think that there is a limit to how many passes the neg can take.

Mind you if a print with a grade 5 filter from a two pass intensified neg still looked as if it were grade 1 then consignment to the bin may be called for

Mike