Can't get my prints to look like my contact sheets...

It's been almost a year since I first went into a darkroom and learned how to make my first prints. To this day I've always had the problem of never being able to make my 35mm enlargements (all I've ever worked with) look like they do on the contact sheet. Take tonight for example...

I have a portrait of my brother on Plus-X developed in Rodinal 1:100, semi-stand development. The contact sheet looks for the most part, brilliant. There's an amazing glow to this particular portrait; there's a lot of shadow detail and the highlights are very beautiful on his cheek bones.

So what happens when I try to enlarge this negative? I stop the lens down to f/5.6, put the timer on 5 seconds, pull out a small test strip and expose the entire strip once. After that I cover up a portion of the test strip with a piece of cardboard, expose yet again, reveal more of the strip, expose, so on and so fourth. In the end, there are a total of 4 "clicks". One end of the test strip has been exposed for 5 seconds and the opposite end has been exposed for 20 seconds. After proper development I turn on the lights and I find that in order to get those highlights that I see on the contact sheet I need to underexpose the paper quite a bit--to the point where it looks muddy, underdeveloped and not completely "there" for lack of a better term.

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong here. My contact sheets are made using that sprocket method where you expose a test strip under the negative sleeves for however long and you determine how long you need to expose the entire sheet by looking at the 35mm sprocket holes. Where they turn completely black on the test strip is what you want to use for the contact sheet.

Any advice?

That's the reason why some photographers carry very big and heavy cameras, just to make contact prints…

Altough I am a very experienced printer, I don't know the "sprocket method". I think in general you are making a mistake in expecting your contact sheet and enlargements to correlate in terms of exposure and contrast grade. An enlargement is more subject to flare than a contact print, how much depends on your enlarging lens and the conditions in your darkroom.

One thing is certain - if you are exposing paper to get the highlight density you want and the shadows are not a full black (despite full paper development and definitely no fogging of paper by safelights, etc.), you need to go to a higher paper contrast (higher filter setting if you are using variable-contrast (VC) paper) and at the same time increase overall exposure. Just remember that in b+w printing there is no such thing as a theoretically correct print (or at least no guarantee that you will like it if it does exist) - the thing to aim at is a print that pleases you, and in your case it sounds as if you need to go for higher paper contrast. When you have got your printing exposure nearly right, then of course you may need to dodge the skin tone areas - don't forget too that the dry-down effect is particularly noticeable with skin tone. Skin tone that looks right on a wet print may well look muddy when the print dries, and you of course need to make a dry-down allowance (cut the printing exposure by, say, 10%) to counteract this.

Hope this helps!

Regards,

David

First of all, a contact sheet isn't much of a guide to exposure: that's what test strips are for. I have to confess that in 40+ years of B+W photography I've never come across this sprocket-hole theory.

Second, a contact sheet has no enlarger/lens flare to contend with, and will therefore invariably be contrastier than an enlargement.

Third, the half-tone effect will come into play at something between 3x and 8x enlargement. To demonstrate the half-tone effect, enlarge an area of (carefully grain-focused) even grey tone onto a piece of stationary paper, and a piece of rotating paper. The two greys will be different, because one is an 'average' grey with grain and white spaces and the other is a 'smeared' grey with the whole piece of paper the same tone. This can happen even before you notice the grain.

I suspect that the half-tone also explains how tonality can 'fall apart' beyond a certain enlargement size, when some areas are showing the half-tone effect and others aren't (grain size depends on exposure) and then magically reappear at a still bigger enlargement size when grain is visible everywhere. By no means everyone agrees with me about the cause, though many agree that there can be a 'dead zone' where tonality is inferior to either larger or smaller enlargements.

Fourth, in a contact sheet, light and dark are much closer together, and the gradients between light and dark are much more abrupt, than in an enlargement. This can give a contact print a jewel-like quality that disappears when it is enlarged. I use 'jewel-like' with some thought: examine a piece of filigree work with a strong magnifying glass and much of its aesthetic appeal disappears with the magnification, no matter how much you may admire the craftsmanship.

Fifth, thanks: you have given me an idea for the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com.

Sixth, I see that Big Dave beat me to it by 3 minutes (and had not heard of the sprocket-hole method either) and I would second his advice.

Contact prints are small and can often appear higher in contrast than they actually are. This is an illusion; maybe someone else can explain why it happens. Anyway, I suggest you use a harder grade of paper for your enlargement. Choose your exposure based on the highlights and then, if the shadows are too light use a harder paper grade or if the shadows are blocked up, use a softer grade. When you change grade, you might also need to change the exposure to keep the highlights correct.

And I see David and Roger have said more or less the same thing while I've been typing

Your sprocket hole method is a variation on the theme that Fred Picker advocated named minimum time for maximum black...however in your case you are eliminated the density of the film base entirely. So that will throw you off completely at the start.

The next factor that is leading you astray is that five exposures of five seconds each is not equal to twenty five seconds of continual exposure. You have lamp power up lag and power off lag that leads to errors at this point.

The next thing is that when you contact print the tonal scale is compressed due to the smaller print...you will find that as each degree of enlargement is incorporated you will need to increase contrast since the tonal information is spread over a larger area.

I would suggest that you try printing for the degree of highlight tone that you want and adjust your contrast to the degree of low values you want...additionally try reading up on Fstop printing in lieu of the fixed times that you are now using.

I appreciate the quick responses guys. No wonder 8x10 contact sheets looked so amazing when I last saw them.

Random thought. You know what would be nice? An APUG Wiki that everyone could access and edit.

I had suspected that I just needed to add more contrast to the print. I'm using Foma VC FB paper that's always given me good results. I suppose I'm stubborn with the contrast filters because I don't like how they add grain. What about "Split grade" or using two filters when printing? Do you think any of those methods could help me out additionally?

Donald, maximum black vs. eliminating the film base entirely... That makes sense. If I look closely, I can still see the edges of the sprocket holes very faintly. Also, whenever I print, I don't take the sum of the seconds to get the results I see on the test strips. If I've exposed the test strip 5 times for 5 seconds each and I want this result on the final print, I just expose it 5 times. Wouldn't that give me the same results as the test strip if I take bulb warm-up and power lag into account? But that's assuming warm-up, and power lags are consistent with every exposure....

Also, Roger, what idea could I possibly have given you?

OPTheory said:

I appreciate the quick responses guys.
Random thought. You know what would be nice? An APUG Wiki that everyone could access and edit.

Click to expand...

Don't think so. There are too many people who confuse fact and opinion, and who believe that their own opinion is the only fact.

Split-grade printing won't make a blind bit of difference to grain as compared with a single filter (barring separate dodging and burning, of course). A finer grain dev might be a better route -- and of course keeping exposure to the minimum possible.

In addition to the reason given by Richard, I think there is another reason your contacts look different from your prints.

When light passes through a silver-based neg, it is scattered - and, importantly, the scattering effect increases with the density. (If I remember correctly, dye-based negs don't produce this effect.)

In the case of a contact, scattering doesn't have any effect.
However, in the case of an enlargement the effective contrast increases as the density increases - that is, highlights will be more contrasty than expected.

Roger Hicks said:

Split-grade printing won't make a blind bit of difference to grain as compared with a single filter (barring separate dodging and burning, of course). ...

Click to expand...

Unless you're TOTALLY desperate!!!!!!!!! If you have a portrait with bad grain, you CAN try split-grading with the hard-grade exposure in focus (this exposure will not produce any highlight detail) and then print in the highlights at a softer grade with the enlarger slightly defocused (or diffused), but ... using fine-grain film in the first place is a LOT easier!

Regards,

David

David H. Bebbington said:

Unless you're TOTALLY desperate!!!!!!!!! If you have a portrait with bad grain, you CAN try split-grading with the hard-grade exposure in focus (this exposure will not produce any highlight detail) and then print in the highlights at a softer grade with the enlarger slightly defocused (or diffused), but ... using fine-grain film in the first place is a LOT easier!

Regards,

David

Click to expand...

Well, yes. Can't say it would have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

Roger Hicks said:

Well, yes. Can't say it would have occurred to me, but you're probably right.

Click to expand...

Another desperate dodge is of course to print the highlights partly with the negative in place and partly as a flashing exposure (for new readers, a flashing exposure is given without a negative in place and is JUST short enough NOT to produce visible density on its own, only in combination with another exposure). This will suppress grain to a certain extent, more or less on the same principle as applying thick paint to a rough wall. Paul Hill drew my attention to this dodge, he used/uses it to reduce visible grain on 16x20" prints from 35 mm Tri-X. I've only tried it a few times, since I find it very cumbersome to find a flashing exposure for every enlarger height, but it does work!

Regards,

David

So here's how to fix the sprocket hole problem: As Donald has related what you are trying to do is find the minimum time for maximum black through the film-base fog density. Instead of running your contact test over the negative strip and trying to gauge where the fbf density prints through by looking at/near the sprocket holes, simply do the test across a strip of 5 blank frames on a roll developed normally. Look for the first black stripe and that's your contact print time. Be sure to record the enlarger height, lens aperture, paper and grade, and you can simply return to those settings with the next roll of film of the same type developed the same way.

Another problem is basing your contact print time on shadows while enlargements are based on highlight tones, but the books usually let that one slide by...

Joe

I was just talking about this with another photographer. It's one of the reasons we both make LF contact prints. There are good answers here, but have you considered gettitng a cheap 4x5 and experimenting with contact printing? You just might like it...

All the best. Shawn

The sprocket method I believe is setting your proof exposure time based on the minimum time required to achieved deep black. The rebate is used because it has received no exposure and therefore will produce a deep black first. I think this method is far too technical and allows for little interpretation on the part of the artist. I used this method for a very short time and quickly realized that proofs made this way were of little value in determining how well a negative will print.

I also did split grade printing which I found beneficial only when the negative was horridly under exposed. Even then the print quality was marginal at best. Keep it simple. Only two or three grades of paper, in two or three sizes (enlarged to the same degree) and one developer.

As far as trying to create an enlargement that will equal the quality of the contact print you are wasting your time. A negative will ALWAYS contact print better then it enlarges.

Chris Breitenstein said:

...

I also did split grade printing which I found beneficial only when the negative was horridly under exposed. Even then the print quality was marginal at best. Keep it simple. Only two or three grades of paper, in two or three sizes (enlarged to the same degree) and one developer.

...

Click to expand...

I used to do a wet-printing demonstration for camera clubs and would present split-grading with a 6x6 cm negative which was a wide-angle shot of a river with the horizon in the center and a large expanse of sky, with overcast light, shot with an orange filter. It was correctly exposed and normally developed. I used first of all to make a straight print on grade 2, in which the mid-distance looked excellent, the foreground tended to a mushy gray and the sky was boring-looking.

I then burned in the foregound at grade 3 (grade 2 would have done at a pinch, but I wanted a bit more snap in addition to more density) and the sky at grade 4 1/2. I did 2 prints like this, one with moderate burning-in, which made the sky look appreciably bolder, and then one with heavy burning-in, probably more than I woud have done for myself, but which made the clouds really dramatic. Split-grading, like everything else, can be over-done, but it definitely has its uses!

Regards,

David

Well, hasn't this thread been educational and informative! Thanks to the OP for the question, and the well-written responses. Glad to see the "sprocket method" replies. When I first read that I thought, "not another damn thing I'm supposed to know about and don't".

Well, hasn't this thread been educational and informative! Thanks to the OP for the question, and the well-written responses from our in-house consultants. When I first read "sprocket method", I thought, "not another damn thing I'm supposed to know about and don't".