Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome printing techniques

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 23rd November 2021, 05:04 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default Recapturing the look of the contact print in an enlargement

My contact prints from 35mm typically show natural light effects (especially contra jour) as I wanted them to be. When I enlarge the same negs, that effect is almost always spoiled; or at best is really, really difficult to recapture by juggling paper grade and exposure time. [Actually it is also difficult to achieve using curves on a scan of the negative.]

The textbook explanation is that the contact print exhibits the Callier effect, in which light is scattered as it passes through the negative; whereas (if I understand things correctly) the same effect occurring in the negative at some height above the printing paper merely creates a trivial loss of contrast. I also believe that once tones are spaced out on the enlargement the whole image inevitably takes on a different look from the little contact print. I'm not convinced these are the only things going on. There may be other physics/eye biology/aesthetics going that I am ignorant of.

I use a Philips enlarger with a pearlescent bulb, mirror and condenser - effectively a semi-diffuser enlarger. I have tried adding a further diffuser above the negative carrier, but that didn't have any noticeable effect except to make exposure times four times as long!

I'm obviously not the first to bang my head against this puzzle. Does anyone have any advice on how to recapture the look of the contact print? I'm hoping for something along the lines of 'go up a contrast grade and be sparing with the exposure' or whatever. But maybe there are also hardware tweaks I might try?
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23rd November 2021, 06:15 PM
Terry S Terry S is online now
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,795
Default

I find in general that contact prints and then the actual print itself, rarely look totally the same. I've never overly questioned this before, surprisingly, so it will be interesting if anyone can explain it in easy terminology.

If you are able at all, a scan of both at the same proportions might help... I don't know, maybe or maybe not...?

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23rd November 2021, 06:25 PM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Sounds like a negative exposure and contrast issue. Contact prints can have slightly more contrast than an enlargement. Ideally you need to run some quick tests to determine the efective EI of your films in your chosen developer, and optimal development time for your enlarger and paper. That can make quite a significant difference and it does make printing very much easier.

Ian

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23rd November 2021, 07:21 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostlabours View Post
Sounds like a negative exposure and contrast issue. Contact prints can have slightly more contrast than an enlargement. Ideally you need to run some quick tests to determine the efective EI of your films in your chosen developer, and optimal development time for your enlarger and paper. That can make quite a significant difference and it does make printing very much easier.
Ian, I use the same 4 film types (all Ilford) and did my tests long ago. It's not a simple matter of managing contrast, because of course I can adjust that in development and later in paper contrast grade. I print contacts at G1½ deliberately, to cater for frames of different density due to metering errors. Those without such errors generally need G2 for enlargement.

The issue I'm talking about is more subtle than overall contrast, so in essence I guess it's to do with the shape of the curve - unless it's something to do with the way the eye sees the image at that size and with a largely black surround?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry S View Post
If you are able at all, a scan of both at the same proportions might help... I don't know, maybe or maybe not...?
Terry S
I'm afraid I can do this, as I don't have a scanner currently. In any case, as with enlargements, I have found it difficult or impossible to get a scanned image to match the magical light in the contact print, so it probably wouldn't help.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23rd November 2021, 09:24 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

I'd like to throw something out there as a possible explanation...

Let's say we look at our 35mm contact print from a comfortable viewing distance of 30cm.
The equivalent viewing distance of an 8x10" enlargement, would need to be around 2.25 meters.

This would perhaps give a similar effect of increased contrast due to compressed tonality and suppressed detail.

However, I really don't know!
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23rd November 2021, 09:34 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

I would also like to add, that the effect is probably less between medium and large format contacts and their respective prints.
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 24th November 2021, 07:54 AM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
I'd like to throw something out there as a possible explanation...

Let's say we look at our 35mm contact print from a comfortable viewing distance of 30cm.
The equivalent viewing distance of an 8x10" enlargement, would need to be around 2.25 meters.

This would perhaps give a similar effect of increased contrast due to compressed tonality and suppressed detail.

However, I really don't know!
Actually Marty, I study my contact prints through a loupe! But I agree with your point that viewing conditions are important, and impressions of contrast and light are fickle things. I've tried cutting individual frames from the contact sheet, and it does change their appearance. But they still look better than my prints.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 24th November 2021, 07:56 AM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
I would also like to add, that the effect is probably less between medium and large format contacts and their respective prints.
I don't think so. See the post by silveror0 on this thread over on Photrio
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 24th November 2021, 08:52 AM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,318
Default

Your quest sounds like a touch of misty eyes. My recall of contact prints is a mixture of faded, lack of contrast or too much contrast with shadows so dark there was no detail or burnt out highlights.

They were OK at the time and are treasured family memories but we have moved on a little from then.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24th November 2021, 11:04 AM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

Assuming the difference in appearance is due to the Callier Effect, you won’t manage to reproduce the look of the contact print by the normal enlargement technique. You will have to look at experimenting with alternative steps in the enlargement procedure. If I understand correctly the ‘look’ you are after, it is the softer highlights, and ‘halo’ you sometimes see?
I tried to achieve this some time ago by using different diffusion methods. I wasn’t specifically trying to mimic contact prints, but to alter the normal appearance of the enlarged negative. One technique is to place an irregular diffusing material on top of the printing paper. The other is to place a highly reflective material under the paper. Both will alter the final image, but whether it’s what you’re after, or not, is up to you.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
Reply
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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.