Contact printing issue, text not white.

[Lucky Luke]

Hi guys & girls,

Maybe one of you will be able to help me. After having finished my home darkroom and moving all my negatives to PrintFile sleeves, I started contact printing them. But so far I'm not getting the results that I'd like.

As far as I know and have read, a good contact print is made at reasonably low contrast and made with the shortest exposure that won't show the film perforations anymore. Now the problem is that when I get to that point, the film codes, numbering and PrintFile information at the top is not a nice bright white but more of a grey color. What could be causing this? I'd like to get my contacts perfect before printing all of them.

So far I have printed 2 sleeves of well exposed and developed negatives. I made test strips to determine the correct time where the perforations aren't visible anymore.

1 x Kodak Tri-X (@400, HC-110B), grade 2, f5.6, 9 seconds, Fomaspeed Variant 313 RC
1 x Kodak Double-X (@400, HC-110B), grade 2, f5.6, 9 seconds, Fomaspeed Variant 313 RC

Any help would be appreciated!

 

[glbeas]

How do the images on the film look? I would worry less about the sprocket holes and type and concentrate on whether the images give a good representation of what the enlarged image should be. The contact sheet is just a reference point to start with.

 

[Peter Schrager]

raise the enlarger head....those times are way too short....film edge should be black!

 

[ann]

Try f8 rather that 5.6 and the rebate should be=black

 

[Vaughn]

Don't worry about the frame numbers being grey -- just means that they were not exposed as heavily onto the film (or like old Ilford Pan F, the latent image would eventually degrade if not developed when fresh.)

Print so that you can just still see the sprocket holes -- not totally black. You get better info that way.

PS -- also how well the rebate lettering prints out depends on how you expose and develop your film. The more exposure and development one gives ones negatives, the darker the lettering will be in relation to the image.

 

[winger]

Are you talking about the info on the film rebate or the info on the PrintFile sheet? The Print file sheet really means nothing as far as exposure - you only need to be concerned about the negatives.

FWIW, my standard setup for contact sheets using a Beseler 23CIII is a 50mm lens approximately 18" from the baseboard (I have a spot marked with tape on the support), a #2 filter, f8, and 8 seconds. I use Ilford MGRC paper and multigrade developer. I don't see sprocket holes, but can read the film rebate info clearly. The negs are in Print File sheets under a piece of ordinary frame glass, too.

 

[Lucky Luke]

Wow, thanks for all the quick replies. I did some more contact prints today and I might have already found the (slightly embarrassing) problem. Again I did some test strips so I quite exactly exposed it so the sprocket holes are just not visible anymore. The same "problem" with the film rebate info. Now... At some point, I went to sit at a window in the living room where quite a lot of light was coming in, and there the contacts looked fine. The slightly embarrassing issue might have been that my house is a bit less light than I had thought it to be... In case this isn't the issue, I'll still reply to all the questions asked.

How do the images on the film look? I would worry less about the sprocket holes and type and concentrate on whether the images give a good representation of what the enlarged image should be. The contact sheet is just a reference point to start with.

The images look fine, they have good whites & good blacks. It's merely the film rebate info that seems too dark.

raise the enlarger head....those times are way too short....film edge should be black!

Could you elaborate as to why 9 seconds is too short? I was under the assumption that any time after 5-6 seconds is enough to reach black in the paper.

Are you talking about the info on the film rebate or the info on the PrintFile sheet? The Print file sheet really means nothing as far as exposure - you only need to be concerned about the negatives.

FWIW, my standard setup for contact sheets using a Beseler 23CIII is a 50mm lens approximately 18" from the baseboard (I have a spot marked with tape on the support), a #2 filter, f8, and 8 seconds. I use Ilford MGRC paper and multigrade developer. I don't see sprocket holes but can read the film rebate info clearly. The negs are in Print File sheets under a piece of ordinary frame glass, too.

That the PrintFile info isn't that visible doesn't bother me that much, it's more the film rebate info. Maybe I'm just spoiled by the scanned images of contact sheets that I see online. I made some more contact sheets to test today and took a picture of them with my digital camera, where the rebate info already looked a lot brighter.

 

[ann]

9 seconds is too short as you will have no time for burning and doging

 

[Lucky Luke]

We're talking about making contact prints of full rolls of 35mm, so why would I be dodging or burning? For normal prints I stop the lens down of course.

 

[ann]

Because it is helpful to use the same starting times for the=print as well as the contract print

 

[removedacct1]

9 seconds is too short as you will have no time for burning and doging

There is rarely a need to burn and dodge a contact sheet, and even if you did, starting with a 9 second base time is perfectly satisfactory to allow for B&D.

 

[ic-racer]

Get a loupe and examine the negatives directly.

 

[Lucky Luke]

Get a loupe and examine the negatives directly.

Aren't there enough threads about if one should or shouldn't make contact prints? I prefer contact prints for multiple reasons, so I don't see how this comment applies to a thread about a printing issue.

 

[Lucky Luke]

Because it is helpful to use the same starting times for the=print as well as the contract print

Ah, never thought about it like that. I don't think it would apply to me though, I print on different papers and very variable sizes, so a test strip would be necessary anyway.

 

[koraks]

Your contact sheet print time is just fine; I don't follow the argument of those who say that it's too long or too short. If you get a good exposure on the paper, it's fine.

As to the edge numbers: what Vaughn said. They don't matter. It's about the images.

 

[MattKing]

Don't worry about the frame numbers being grey -- just means that they were not exposed as heavily onto the film (or like old Ilford Pan F, the latent image would eventually degrade if not developed when fresh.)

Print so that you can just still see the sprocket holes -- not totally black. You get better info that way.

PS -- also how well the rebate lettering prints out depends on how you expose and develop your film. The more exposure and development one gives ones negatives, the darker the lettering will be in relation to the image.

I agree with Vaughn, with one qualification.
If your negatives are much more dense then the rebate lettering, it is possible (but not certain) that you may be giving them much more exposure than necessary.
Try bracketing as an experiment, and check to see if the negatives with less exposure print as well or better than the negatives with more exposure.

 

[Vaughn]

I was contact printing (palladium/Na2) some 120 negatives last night. Tri-X, Acros100, etc. Not greatly successful, so it goes, but remembering this thread, I noticed a wide range in the densities of the printed info on the negs between the different brands and types with-in brands. So they are not a great standard to judge by.

When I am making contact prints (120 film and up to 11x14 negatives) as finished work, I judge the basic exposure using the equivilent of the sprocket hole method -- when the exposure through the clear film rebate matches the print black exposed without film, I know a full black is possible in the print (if I haven't grossly over-exposed the film)...then I adjust the exposure from there.