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
  #11  
Old 24th November 2021, 12:30 PM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
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?
You're right it's not a simple matter of just managing contrasts you've missed out getting the right exposure and EI. And yes that affects the shape of the curve when you compensate with development.

The critical factor is having the correct amount of information on the film, with a well balanced negative you can print it in quite different ways. But if the information isn't there then you struggle.

Discussion of contact prints versus enlargements makes more sense with Large formats but you lose to much information with 35mm contact sheets details are lost.

The fact that you are trying an additional diffuser in the enlarger, having to make 1.5 gd contact prints, having difficulty printing, similar issueswith negative scans, all indicate that you haven't got the right balance of EI and devlopment. Nail that and negatives are easy to print.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 24th November 2021, 12:31 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Perhaps it's just that a contact print and the human eye, naked or otherwise, are just incapable of resolving the detail captured in a negative?
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 24th November 2021, 03:16 PM
MartyNL's Avatar
MartyNL MartyNL is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: based in The Netherlands
Posts: 3,341
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snusmumriken View Post
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?
Surely, if you want more of a Callier effect you'd want the opposite of diffusion and go for point-source?
__________________
MartyNL

“Reaching a creative state of mind thru positive action
is considered preferable to waiting for inspiration.”
- Minor White, 1950
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 24th November 2021, 04:01 PM
Martin Aislabie's Avatar
Martin Aislabie Martin Aislabie is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Posts: 2,080
Default

If it is any consolation, Ansel Adams tried to match the look of one of his 10x8 contact prints, with an actual 10X8 print - and failed according to John Sexton.

I am not sure anyone knows exactly why it happens.

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 24th November 2021, 05:49 PM
Michael Michael is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Ballinderry Lower, Co. Antrim
Posts: 1,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
If it is any consolation, Ansel Adams tried to match the look of one of his 10x8 contact prints, with an actual 10X8 print - and failed according to John Sexton.

I am not sure anyone knows exactly why it happens.

Martin
How did he manage that? 10x8 can't be an enlargement of 10x8; and projecting to the same size sounds iffy at best.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 24th November 2021, 06:18 PM
Lostlabours Lostlabours is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: West Midlands/Aegean
Posts: 1,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
How did he manage that? 10x8 can't be an enlargement of 10x8; and projecting to the same size sounds iffy at best.
A 10x8 enlargement of a 10x8 negative is a 1:1 enlargement. The comparison with Ansel Adam's enlargement not matching up to a contact print isnot quite so simple. Ansel Adams prints were made on Azo paper or similar and these are slow very fine grained Silver Chloride papers and Ansel Adams enlarged on Neutral toned Bromide papers (he didn't like warm toned papers) which have a relatively coarser grain. Chloride papers behave differently to Bromide and are capable of a longer tonal range.

If you examine a B&W print very closely through a Loupeyou notice that image sharpness is not as high as the negative sharpness this is because of light diffusion and the lack of an anti-hahaltion layer, contact printing does limit thislight scaterring as can a point source enlarger.

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 24th November 2021, 08:38 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostlabours View Post
You're right it's not a simple matter of just managing contrasts you've missed out getting the right exposure and EI. And yes that affects the shape of the curve when you compensate with development.

The critical factor is having the correct amount of information on the film, with a well balanced negative you can print it in quite different ways. But if the information isn't there then you struggle.

Discussion of contact prints versus enlargements makes more sense with Large formats but you lose to much information with 35mm contact sheets details are lost.

The fact that you are trying an additional diffuser in the enlarger, having to make 1.5 gd contact prints, having difficulty printing, similar issueswith negative scans, all indicate that you haven't got the right balance of EI and devlopment. Nail that and negatives are easy to print.

Ian
Ian, the information is visibly there in highlights and shadows both in the negative and in the contact print. Most of my negatives are also easy to print. It's just that once printed they don't capture the light quite how the contact print does.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 24th November 2021, 08:41 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexmuir View Post
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
Alex, you understand perfectly. I don't think a diffuser over the printing paper appeals to me very much, but a reflector underneath might be worth a try. Thanks for that idea.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 24th November 2021, 09:07 PM
snusmumriken snusmumriken is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Aislabie View Post
If it is any consolation, Ansel Adams tried to match the look of one of his 10x8 contact prints, with an actual 10X8 print - and failed according to John Sexton.

I am not sure anyone knows exactly why it happens.

Martin
That is indeed a consolation, Martin!

My understanding has changed since I started this thread - the following is what I now understand. It seems that the Callier effect is much more significant in the enlargement than in the contact print. Light is scattered by collision with silver grains, with the result that some never reaches the baseboard. This happens more in the highlights (because there are more silver grains there in the negative) than in the shadows, and therefore highlights print lighter than they should. There is greater loss of light through scattering when using a collimated light beam than with diffuse light, hence the common observation that condenser enlargers give greater contrast (actually exaggerated contrast). [What still puzzles me is why tiny blemishes on the negative are so much more prominent in prints from a condenser enlarger, even within highlight areas?]

As far as I understand, all this should also mean that contact prints are less contrasty than enlargements, especially those from condenser enlargers. I have seen the opposite stated many times online, which doesn't make it true of course, but does make me wonder which is right. As already stated, I deliberately print my contacts with slightly softer contrast so that I can see all the information captured in all frames, so I'm in no position to judge.
__________________
Jonathan

http://www.allmyeye.co.uk
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 24th November 2021, 10:18 PM
John King John King is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: County Durham
Posts: 3,318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyNL View Post
Perhaps it's just that a contact print and the human eye, naked or otherwise, are just incapable of resolving the detail captured in a negative?
I don't think you are far off the mark. My eyes at one time had 20/20 vision, but no longer. However the range of tones in light and shade that can be detected by the human eye is apparently greater than any film or digital processor. (I am still blessed with perfect as can be colour vision.) Others may say different but I have yet to agree.

However when it comes to resolving detail, the lens will outperform the eye almost every time. Just this evening I was looking at a print where there appeared to be a smudge on the horizon. I looked at it with a magnifying glass and saw that it was a shrub with no leaves and with all the small branches discernible. Even with reading glasses this made little difference - it took a magnifying lens to do that.

Last edited by John King; 24th November 2021 at 10:24 PM.
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 11:34 AM.


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