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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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? 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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 05:25 PM |
Print presentation of contact prints. | Keith Tapscott. | Monochrome printing techniques | 3 | 26th April 2011 12:43 AM |