Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Recapturing the look of the contact print in an enlargement |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan, to go back to your original problem - how to make an enlargement that has the same "look" as a contact print, I wonder if you are familiar with the work of James Ravilious? He documented rural life in North Devon in the last quarter of the 20th. C. with a Leica M3. He had strong ideas about how he wanted his prints to look. He didn't like overly strong contrast and went to a lot of trouble to make prints with low contrast silvery greys rather than harsh blacks. The look he was after sounds rather like what you want to achieve with your own prints.
I can supply details of how he did this. Just say if you are interested, or if you already know about his working methods. Alan |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Alan, thanks for the suggestion but yes I am very familiar with Ravilious' work and have thought long and hard about his methods. I do think he was right about lens hoods, and the value of a light yellow filter (although I can't believe he always used one as I have seen suggested). However, I'm not going down the route of using uncoated lenses - I honestly think Ravilious was mistaken on that issue.
It's interesting that HCB (a huge influence on Ravilious of course) preferred prints of his photos that to many printers seem a bit lacking in contrast. I like them myself. I think the geometry and human interest in both HCB's and Ravilious' photos hold attention without the need for eye-stopping contrasts. But anyway my puzzle is not how to get the look I want into the negative (which is what Ravilious apparently obsessed about - we hear almost nothing about his darkroom technique), because my contact prints show that it is there. Rather I want to figure out how to translate that look into an enlargement, accepting that there are lots of factors at play. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Jonathan, there don't seem to be any simple answers here. My understanding of Ravilious is that he was really concerned about the final print, not the negative. He wanted his prints to have the tonal qualities that he saw in the subject. Initially, he found the negatives he was producing made it difficult to achieve that, so, after taking a lot of advice, set about changing the nature of his negatives so he could make the kind of prints he had in mind. At least that's my interpretation of what I've read about him.
As you seem to be seeing what you want in your contact prints, but not in your enlargements, I was wondering if a slight change in the nature of your negatives might allow you to make the kind of print you are after. Just a thought. Alan |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
I think, it would be nice/helpful if we could see an example of a contact print vs an enlargement.
Any chances of visualising this for us, Jonathan?
__________________
MartyNL “Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.” - Minor White, 1950 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
I'm a bit at a loss how I would do that, Marty. It means scanning both contact (36x24mm) and print (16"x12") in such a way that they can be fairly compared. I'll try it tomorrow, and maybe I'll be surprised - but I suspect the difference is subtle enough that after scanning and size-matching it won't be evident.
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It's interesting ... if you have a copy of "An English Eye - the photographs of James Ravilious", there's a sheet of contacts reproduced on p.47. The enlargement of frame 9 on p. 46 is of course gorgeous, but to my eye it has already lost some of the beautiful light that the contact shows. It's a reasonably good example of what I am struggling with. Is it just a trick of scale and the human eye? Certainly not entirely, because it seems the tonal density curve is measurably different between a contact print and a print of the same size made through an enlarger (see the link to another forum in one of my earlier posts on this thread). Maybe there is no answer, and this is just a road to madness. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
James Ravilious may well have used a Leica M3 but he used older screw thread uncoated lenses, I seem to remember he liked a 50mm f2 Summar.
The Summar is unfortunate in the glass used for the front element, it's very prone to atmospheric degradation, it's a very soft glass and can be etched by atmospheric pollution.b The glass was used for a very short time for Tessar lenses, main use was Summars, Novars and then Meyer Domiplan lenses, also some Russian enlarger lenses So the issue is you can find apparently mint versions of these lenses that are at worst absolutely useless, I can show you versions that can't even focus. I have 4 or 5 lenses like this a Domiplan and Russian enlarger lens are so bad they make no image, the Novar on a Zeiss Ikon is so low contrast and lacks any sharpness, and degredation with a 1930 Tessar. This doesn't affect every lens using the glass but you need to be careful and aware. At one time Balham Optical would repolish Summar lenses, but sadly they went bust. Ian |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As I noted in my previous post, Ravilious too seems to have suffered some loss of atmosphere between contact print and enlargement. Both of us therefore, irrespective of coatings on the taking lens, had something in the negative that we couldn't translate into the final print. It's maybe just an inescapable fact without a remedy. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
A few years ago I tested a handful of early uncoated LF lenses all in excellent optical condition, I mounted them on bellows on a DSLR. Theresults were as expected, a1912/13 120mm f6.8 Dagor had excellent contrast, a 165mm f5.3 CZJ Tessar had a noticeable drop in contrast and a135mm f6.8 Goerz-Ihagee a Dialyte severe drop in contrast. Dagor Tessar The contrast drop is due to the number of internal air/glass surfaces, the Dagor has 2, the Tessar 4, and finally the Dialyte 6. However when these lense were made people worked quite differently exposures were greater and negatives developed to much higher contrasts, and the papers in use matched those negatives. With the advent of the Leica and other 35mm cameras techniques changed to achieve higher quality results. This is best described in Hans Windisch's book Die Neu Foto Schule also published in English as The New Photo School, this is effectively our modern approach. Ian |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Ian, my initial query was not about the taking lens, and so far I am not convinced that the taking lens has much to do with the solution.
With black and white film and paper, contrast and tonality can be manipulated, but the resolution of detail can't. On that reasoning, I prefer to use modern coated lenses (type 5 Summicron 50 and Asph. 35mm), and I don't have the means or inclination to buy others. Sometimes I carry only a 1970s Rollei35 with single-coated Tessar lens. The Tessar is famously sharp but low in contrast. However, because of the flexibility one has in development and printing it isn't that easy to tell from a good print whether a particular photo was taken with the Leica or with the Rollei. I sometimes have to check whether the negative is upside down! The chief give-aways in the print are a clear fall-off in corner sharpness with the Rollei35 Tessar, and indistinct shadow detail. It's those failings - but particularly the poor shadow detail - that make me favour the newer Leica kit whenever possible. It seems to me that the enlarger lens, paper and paper developer are more likely relevant to my original question than the camera lens, so for the record I use a Rodenstock Rodagon f/2.8, Ilford FB Multigrade classic and Ilford paper developer. I'm aware that changing the developer (or even developer temperature) can produce a subtle change in tonality with the same paper, but I haven't experimented yet. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I.S.E 35mm Contact Printer and Print-File Sheets | Emerson | Darkroom | 10 | 10th April 2017 03:59 AM |
Contact Sheet Contrast vs Enlargement | Adrian | Photography in general | 14 | 25th May 2016 04:31 AM |
300 Inch Contact Print--Help! | joenail | Monochrome printing techniques | 28 | 16th May 2013 09:30 PM |
Does enlargement alter contrast? | MartyNL | Monochrome printing techniques | 12 | 21st November 2012 06:25 PM |
Print presentation of contact prints. | Keith Tapscott. | Monochrome printing techniques | 3 | 26th April 2011 12:43 AM |