Black & White Printing with contrast control

Describing negatives with terms like thick, dense, thin, etc. can be rather ambiguous. I prefer to describe negatives with terms like high contrast, low contrast, and normally use ISO 400 materials at a lower ISO when using a TTL meter so that I get adequate shadow density (hey it works for me).

I try to expose my negatives so that my contact prints from my medium and large format negatives look good when printed with #2 contrast and that my 35mm negative contact sheets look good when printed with #3 contrast (35mm negatives are processed to a little lower contrast). Contact sheets for most negative materials require exposures between 15 and 30 seconds when exposed at f/11.

I print with a diffusion head on an Omega D5 (currently a Multigrade 600 head). I sometimes burn in skies with a higher contrast setting and will sometimes go into the shadows with a little extra low contrast exposure. I have even dodged shadows with a dodger made from a bit of CC30Y on a wire. But it's got to be a damn good shot of a unique event before I'll go further than that (think Elvis leaving on a UFO unique).

The lightest part of my daughter's sweatshirt is about 0.15 reflection density. I was trying to support your assertion that the highlights are where you see grain the most.

But her face is where I see the grain most prominently, and that is about 0.60 to 0.70 reflection density.

So now I think the general statement might be you see grain the most "anywhere from dark gray to light gray". It's hard to see grain in very light white and very dark black, but easy to see throughout the grays.

Doc W said:

Michael, thanks. The main problem I have with the older Ilford fibre papers (specifically MGIV and MGIV WT) is that increasing the contrast only works up to a point. There seems to be some debate about this and it has come up a few times in the forum. I use dichroic filtration (a Devere) and I cannot get past what amounts to a contrast grade of about 3. I had a problem negative just last week - very low contrast - and I just didn't have enough contrast on the paper to make it look decent. Some have said it might be the dichroic head which yields only so much contrast. In any case, I always try to develop so that they print around grade 2 somewhere and I am slowly working my way to using only graded paper as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Just buy an Ilford under the lens filter set, and use the high number filters when you need them.

It may be that your light source/diffusers have yellowed.

Doc W said:

Michael, thanks. The main problem I have with the older Ilford fibre papers (specifically MGIV and MGIV WT) is that increasing the contrast only works up to a point. There seems to be some debate about this and it has come up a few times in the forum. I use dichroic filtration (a Devere) and I cannot get past what amounts to a contrast grade of about 3. I had a problem negative just last week - very low contrast - and I just didn't have enough contrast on the paper to make it look decent. Some have said it might be the dichroic head which yields only so much contrast. In any case, I always try to develop so that they print around grade 2 somewhere and I am slowly working my way to using only graded paper as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Doc W,
FYI, not long ago I modified my Omega 5x7 diffusion enlarger to LEDs, then checked it out with MGIV using Ilford under-lens filters. First, I noticed its diffuser had yellowed significantly during many years of printing graded papers (many of which are now limited to Gr3, btw), so I decided to replace the diffuser and chose a common acrylic material. However, my checkout tests with MGIV also showed an inability to get past Gr3, an apparent color issue with the acrylic. Further research located a new product of diffusion material (that was designed especially to diffuse LED and eliminate hot spots) that didn't have the color issue, and I was able to get up to Gr5 and beyond with MGIV. I say "beyond" because I was able to show even a bit more contrast with a 47B filter, although the density of that filter rendered it impractical due to the need for very long exposures. I've also read that dichroics fade with time, and it's likely less expensive to use under-lens filters and replace them periodically.

silveror0 said:

Doc W,
FYI, not long ago I modified my Omega 5x7 diffusion enlarger to LEDs, then checked it out with MGIV using Ilford under-lens filters. First, I noticed its diffuser had yellowed significantly during many years of printing graded papers (many of which are now limited to Gr3, btw), so I decided to replace the diffuser and chose a common acrylic material. However, my checkout tests with MGIV also showed an inability to get past Gr3, an apparent color issue with the acrylic. Further research located a new product of diffusion material (that was designed especially to diffuse LED and eliminate hot spots) that didn't have the color issue, and I was able to get up to Gr5 and beyond with MGIV. I say "beyond" because I was able to show even a bit more contrast with a 47B filter, although the density of that filter rendered it impractical due to the need for very long exposures. I've also read that dichroics fade with time, and it's likely less expensive to use under-lens filters and replace them periodically.

Click to expand...

I have also read that dichroics fade with time but I have also read they don't. Yet another debate with the potential to spill out into the parking lot!

I have used Ilford MG almost exclusively but I want to do some tests with other papers and see if I can get more contrast (with the Devere dichroic head). For the most part, it will be academic because I am getting consistency in my negatives finally and I don't really need to up the contrast very much. Most of what I print is working fine on what is about grade 2 (equal amounts of magenta and yellow).

This is very interesting! I have been whining for years about my unusable Durst 138, unusable because of light source. I was encouraged by a thread on the LF forum that talked optimistically about different bulbs and I was all set to give it final try when an Apugger (hexavalent) dropped by with an LED light source he just built. Preliminary tests look really good and the problem of uneven light may be solved by this LED source. It is a test version and the final version will be 3x brighter. The Durst is a condenser enlarger and I have heard that the low contrast problem on Ilford paper is mainly with diffusion light sources. I hope to be able to test this very soon.

silveror0 said:

Doc W,
... I've also read that dichroics fade with time, and it's likely less expensive to use under-lens filters and replace them periodically.

Click to expand...

Production dichroics in long roll printers fade rather quickly, we used to change the dichroic "hot mirrors" in Kodak printers every six months to a year but these were for lamphouses that were on all the time (exposure controlled by shutter). For normal darkroom use I think we're all pretty safe trusting our dichroic filters. Below the lens filters get scratched and above the lens dyed filters fade much faster than dichroics. I would suggest that no matter what type of filters you use the time to buy a new set is now, while they are still available.

Bill Burk said:

The lightest part of my daughter's sweatshirt is about 0.15 reflection density. I was trying to support your assertion that the highlights are where you see grain the most.

But her face is where I see the grain most prominently, and that is about 0.60 to 0.70 reflection density.

So now I think the general statement might be you see grain the most "anywhere from dark gray to light gray". It's hard to see grain in very light white and very dark black, but easy to see throughout the grays.

Click to expand...

So back to my point, the highlights in this image are 'over-exposed' by at least 8 stops in comparison to the shadows. Are the higher vales more grainy????

Bests,

David.
ww.dsallen.de

David Allen said:

So back to my point, the highlights in this image are 'over-exposed' by at least 8 stops in comparison to the shadows. Are the higher vales more grainy????

Bests,

David.
ww.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

Ah, the question you ask is... if I print the negative down such that the highlight areas you currently see in the print (which are paper white), are brought down to a medium gray on the new print (So I print what's currently white down to somewhere between 0.15 and 0.70 reflection density)... will the apparent graininess of the gray seem more grainy than the gray areas of this normal print?

Seems an easy enough test to perform...

David Allen said:

So back to my point, the highlights in this image are 'over-exposed' by at least 8 stops in comparison to the shadows. Are the higher vales more grainy????

Bests,

David.
ww.dsallen.de

Click to expand...

Those highlights are completely blocked up. They haven't even had enough light shone through them to register as anything other than 'paper white'.

The attached file has some highlights that have been printed down to how I like them. The example is a lightly cropped 35mm Ilford HP5+ negative, processed in replenished Xtol, printed on Ilford MGIV matte and scanned. I used a straight Grade 3 filter to make the print.

You can see in the brighter spots in the background how the highlights have a grain pattern that is pretty crude compared to the surrounding tones, and if those were printed down further, you'd absolutely see what I'm talking about.



But all this is academic, and not really on point regarding the original post. In my book, the best thing to do is to try to accomplish tonality the way it suits us best. There are many ways to get there, for sure.