Contact Print Vs Enlarging Differences

Hey Everyone,

I have just got a question on the theory around colour and contrast differences between contact printing and making enlargements

I have been doing lots of printing recently RA-4 and B&W and I've had two particular negatives that have confused me

First negative was a 6 x 7 delta 3200 negative. I did a contact sheet of the roll and the frame I liked. And it came out with perfect contrast and exposure with the selected contact sheet time. I then enlarged this at grade two and it had extremely lifted shadows and was washed out. I then tested at grade 3.5 and made a final print and it looked good. Why would the contrast difference have been so massive between contact and print if they were both done at grade 2? Is it to do with the diffusion and spread of light when enlarging causes a loss of contrast?

Secondly I was printing a shot from some 6 x 7 Portra 400. I contact sheeted the roll and found a good colour balance and then exposure. I then did a test print and then full print of my selected picture at my desired exposure but the colours were SO wildly different from the contact sheet using the same filtration. Of course my exposure changes but how could the colours go so far away from going from contact to print? Also if anyone brings up chemistry, I am using a Durst printo and I am running daily RA4 control strips so my chemistry is perfect and fresh so not process related

Anyways I then adjusted the colour until I was happy, however even when I was at a good point it still was a little far away from the contact sheet colours and for some reason i couldn't seem to match it? This could be my skill (I am new to RA4)

If anyone has any personal experience of theory understanding why colour and contrast change so greatly between contact and enlargement it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Lorenzo

you do not mention your enlarging lens brand and model. If you have an inexpensive lens that came standard with an enlarger (name of lens often ends in -ar) the lens might be not maintain good contrast, as the light passes thru the optics some of the light reflects internally between one glass-air interface and another in the air spaces. And/or the lens might be older and have accumulated haze on the glass-air surfaces. A high quality enlarging lens maintains better contrast than a low quality lens.

wiltw said:

you do not mention your enlarging lens brand and model. If you have an inexpensive lens that came standard with an enlarger (name of lens often ends in -ar) the lens might be not maintain good contrast, as the light passes thru the optics some of the light reflects internally between one glass-air interface and another in the air spaces. And/or the lens might be older and have accumulated haze on the glass-air surfaces.

Click to expand...

Sorry good point. I am using a De Vere 203 which i bought as a refurb from Odyssey Enlargers (de vere dealer in the uk) a few months ago. Enlarging lens is 105mm Nikkor 5.6 which is clean and haze/fungus free. I am using ilford multigrade rc Pearl version IV for B&W and Fuji Crystal archive glossy for colour

Lorenzot said:

Sorry good point. I am using a De Vere 203 which i bought as a refurb from Odyssey Enlargers (de vere dealer in the uk) a few months ago. Enlarging lens is 105mm Nikkor 5.6 which is clean and haze/fungus free. I am using ilford multigrade rc Pearl version IV for B&W and Fuji Crystal archive glossy for colour

Click to expand...

I am not directly familar enough with Nikon to know if they ever offered a 'bargain lens'. Generally speaking the EL-Nikkors are good quality lenses!

wiltw said:

I am not directly familar enough with Nikon to know if they ever offered a 'bargain lens'. Generally speaking the EL-Nikkors are good quality lenses!

Click to expand...

Yes Im not too clued up on enlarging lenes, its definitely not a top end one. But I think its a mid level or higher one. Not a bargain one I think

Lorenzot said:

Yes Im not too clued up on enlarging lenes, its definitely not a top end one. But I think its a mid level or higher one. Not a bargain one I think

Click to expand...

the 50mm f/4 is a 4-element lens, while the 50mm f/2.8 is a 6-element lens and of higher general quality. Longer FL EL-Nikkor I have no information about.

[edit}I just found that the 105mm f/5.6 EL-Nikkor is 6 elements in 4 groups

Are you using the enlarger as your light source for your contact prints?
There is a significant difference between the qualities of light going directly from the enlarger's light source to the negative, and then through a lens to be focused on the paper, as compared to never focused light that goes from the light source, through an enlarging lens, through a contact print frame and then through a negative to the paper.

As you noticed, you may also have to change your grade of paper or use a different contrast filter for VC papers. Light scatter causes a lowering of contrast, as others have stated and optics, no matter how great, do introduce scatter and lower contrast somewhat...

As to the color change, as others mentioned, how many more glass surfaces were introduced when you went to enlargement?

It all adds up!

The best way to determine how much contrast you lose from projection printing is to projection print a step wedge and compare that to a contact of the same step wedge.

Fighting flare is is not something with a universal answer. Each darkroom and enlarger are different. But some basic things to check are light leaks from the enlarger head and to check the lens for fog or dirt.

It's hard to evaluate things using tiny contacts on proof sheets. That might help you select the best image to work on, but you'd still need to make a test strip to begin fine-tuning the process. But you're right in assuming that it takes more time and practice in order to do all this intuitively. I don't bother with contact proofs at all.

Regarding El Nikkor enlarging lenses for medium format work, the one you want to avoid is the relatively cheap 75 f/4. But the105 is ideal for 6X7 format.

Have you checked for haze or dirt on the enlarging lens?

FWIW, I have never noticed any noticeable shift in contrast between contact prints and enlarged prints of the same negative.

First thing I'd check is stray light emanating from the enlarger head/light bulb enclosure. This will decrease contrast and throw off color balance massively.

koraks said:

First thing I'd check is stray light emanating from the enlarger head/light bulb enclosure. This will decrease contrast and throw off color balance massively.

Click to expand...

+1!

The stray light that reflects from the paper swamps anything leaking out of the enlarger.

Try an experiment:

1. Put a white sheet of paper in the easel and turn on the enlarger;
2. Note the amount of light in the room;
   
3. With the enlarger still on, cover the lens to block the light;
4. Note the amount of light bouncing around the room from the enlarger's leaks.

The light bounces off the paper, bounces off the walls and ceiling and back on to the paper. How much effect this has depends on where the enlarger is in the room, the color of the walls and ceiling and even the color of your shirt.

To see if this has any effect:

1. Place a negative in the enlarger and set the lens at printing aperture;
2. Expose a scrap of photographic paper at about the right printing time;
3. Cut the scrap of paper in half, place one half were light won't get to it;
4. Place a sheet of white paper in the easel and place the 1/2 scrap about a foot from the projected image but with the same 'view' of the walls and ceiling;
5. Expose as before;
6. Develop both scraps and see if you can see a difference.

Nicholas Lindan said:

The stray light that reflects from the paper swamps anything leaking out of the enlarger.

Click to expand...

You've had the pleasure of working only with enlargers that were sufficiently light proof, I can tell.
Your statement is absolutely incorrect as an absolute. Stray light seeping from the enlarger itself can be entirely devastating and bad enough to make it impossible to make a halfway decent print. Trust me on this....

As suggested in part 2, above, if you want to see the effect of just the light leaks then place the scrap of exposed photographic paper on the easel, block the lens and turn the enlarger on for a normal exposure time. Again, see if there is any difference between the two images.

The effect of stray light, either enlarger leaks or paper reflection, goes up as the print size goes up. The amount of stray light stays the same as you change print size but the longer exposures needed with larger prints gives the paper a longer exposure to the stray light.

If an enlarger does leak so much light that it fogs the paper under normal conditions then the enlarger needs repair; if it's the enlarger design that is defective then replacement might be a good solution. Or, a large bit of black cloth.

I had an Omega D3 with a cold-light head that had been retired from use at the city paper and needed a lot of work. I could never get the head to come down squarely on the negative carrier and a band of light would shoot out and illuminate the far wall. I don't know if it ever had any effect but I made up a black cloth skirt that came down to block the light from that gap - at least then I felt better about it.

Hi Everyone, Thanks for your replies. I will run some tests like Nicholas says and see what happens. Attached is a photo of when I enlarger my 6 x 7 neg onto my 8 x 10 paper. I have noticed that there are these bars of light on the top and bottom and they are coming from the carrier. Do you guys think that could be causing it?

That attached photo(post 17) shows a lot of clear edge along two edges of the neg in the carrier...creating flare internal to the optical system, on top of any light that is escaping the enlarger that bounces off light colors adjacent surfaces in the darkroom area.