Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Contrast trouble |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Contrast trouble
Hi.
I have been printing in my own darkroom for a few months but have been getting stuck with a problem that I can't seem to find my way out of. I have a roll of Ilford FP4 that I have shot at EI200, and I am very pleased with the negativs. I made a contact print on MG RCIV on a contract of 2 for 12 seconds, and the contact print is luminous, with good blacks and bright highlights, exactly what I want. When I come to make an enlargement however I can never achieve the same level of contrast. I have tried using contrast 5, no filter and same time, split grade printing, straight printing and Ansel Adam's method of starting at 00 and increasing the contrast grade, but it always comes out muddy and lifeless. My paper is fresh, my chemicals are fresh, safelight is good and using a colour englarger so I am dialling in my grades. Any advice on anything else I can try would be much apreciated. Thanks. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
It would would help to see a straight neg scan, if you could manage this ?
Neil.
__________________
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." Aristotle Neil Souch |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A photo of the negative in front of a white background would help.
Ian |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Contact print and enlargements on same paper and same (fresh) developer?
Is the projected image on the baseboard/easel clear and sharp looking? Has the enlarger setup produced good prints recently? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Welcome to FADU, TFTMB. When I read your post I had a vague feeling that I had seen something very similar on Photrio but it may just have been that there are many threads on differences in contrast between contact sheets and actual prints of the same negative.
However what is worrying is that none I have seen suggest anything like the change that occurs in your experience. Usually the query is in relation to a change which is noticeable from the C sheet to the print but not one that appears to be incapable of correction At the risk of insulting your intelligence I take it that the print is done within a short time of the contact sheet and that the comparison is with the same "good contact print" and very inferior muddy lifeless print? You haven't told us what your exact process is and this might be helpful to know to get to an answer as quickly as possible. Just one suggestion which may replicate what you have done already to eliminate variables. Use the same enlarger projection and exposure time you use for the contact sheet for the print projection using the same grade. This can either be without any filters in both cases so about grade 2 or a grade 2 filter in both cases. Process both contact sheet and print immediately. Let us see the difference in outcome. That way we eliminate exposure changes, grade changes, chemical changes, paper changes etc. In fact that should eliminate all the potential changes I can think of. I have to say that in theory there should only be a small change at worst and as I understand the process this should be a perception change that may stem from one print(contact) being tiny and surrounded by black and the other much bigger and standing on its own with white borders. The change in this case should still be small and I would have thought correctable to your satisfaction with maybe one grade more filtration Are you using Ilford filters or do you use colour head filtration? If your Ilford filters are "shot" it might explain why you cannot seemingly increase grades compared to grade 2 or if you use dichroic head filtration then it might just be ( long shot admittedly) that the filter dials are not working but I admit should not give good contact prints then useless full prints in either case. On the surface this is a real "puzzler" Mike |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
There will be a slight reduction in contrast between a contact print and an enlargement of the same negative. I wouldn’t expect it to be as dramatic as you have experienced, however, and I think the problem is more likely in the enlarger. I would check to see if you can achieve a range of contrast with any negative by doing a series of prints at different grades. If the results are all of low contrast, then either the enlarger bulb, or the filters could be the problem. Bulbs tend to burn more yellow with age. This makes it difficult to achieve proper contrast. Filters can fade, but this is not a very common problem with built-in colour filters. They can, however, become sticky or jammed which means that you are not actually putting the desired filtration into the light path. I would have a look at your filters first to confirm proper operation. If they’re ok, try a new bulb. If that doesn’t help, there is the possibility that the transformer/power supply isn’t giving the correct voltage. It would be unusual, but they don’t last forever. I hope you find a solution.
Alex Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
If you are happy that your enlarger, materials and technique are all as they should be I am beginning to think 'print-dry-down' is the problem here.
In my experience most papers require a slight reduction in exposure from that given to get them looking good when wet. It is surprising what a difference this can make to a fished print. Try reducing the exposure time (when viewed wet) in quarter stop units and see what happens. Neil.
__________________
"The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance." Aristotle Neil Souch |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Neil may have a point but key to this may be: Do you also print on RC paper as well as make the contact sheet on RC? If it is Rc throughout then certainly my experience is that on RC drydown makes little or no difference and certainly not enough to make the difference between an excellent contact print and a muddy lifeless full print
What I have noticed however is how much flatter and "greyer" is a print on say Ilford Satin which is close to matt compared to Ilford RC Gloss. Again we get back to needing to know exactly what your process is in more detail than may seem necessary otherwise we each throw in a suggestion and need you to tell us if this is not applicable. In the long run this is a slower method of solving the problem Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
all my photography life I have used condenser enlargers but one time I bought a diffuser colour enlarger ,strait away I had trouble with it, I just could not get the prints how I wanted them ,and I was very unhappy with the results I was getting ,so I went back to condenser enlargers .I am not saying one is better than the other ,all I am saying is its just personal preference .also I develop my film so I get more contrast in the neg ,so when printing on VC paper I very rarely use graded filters ,to get the negative I want I use a jobo for me the constant rotation give me a bit more contrast also I use a little bit more developer than recommended plus years of experience all adds up to making me happy with my negatives ...all above is my opinion other people have a different opinion nobody is right or wrong its what suits you ,just don't give up you will get there in the end ,most of it is experience and you cannot get that over night so keep at it..
www.essexcockney.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Tags |
printing techniques |
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 |
Fixer trouble! | alexmuir | Monochrome Film | 15 | 4th June 2018 09:02 PM |
film contrast | GoodOldNorm | Monochrome Film | 6 | 3rd November 2017 11:45 AM |
Lack of Contrast | John King | Colour film | 24 | 4th April 2015 12:38 PM |
contrast | Alan Clark | Monochrome printing techniques | 25 | 24th April 2014 06:58 PM |
Jessops In Trouble... | Bob | Photography in general | 30 | 5th September 2009 07:12 PM |