Contrast filters

mesaboogie · Jun 7, 2016

So I am confused on something with contrast filters. They come in 00-5, but 00 and 0 are to reduce contrast? Is 1/2 or 1 the start of an increase?
I just did some test prints. No filter was way crazy. 8x10 prints at f6.7 (seems the sharpest) was about 2 seconds for the highlights to be plenty good but the shadows were already too much. So I used a 00 and moved up to F11. That got way up to about 6 seconds and if I recall correctly, I probably could have done another test strip but it felt like the highlights were almost good but the shadows needed more time. I went to 1/2 and found at 7 seconds with the same f11 I was good.
I could be mis-remembering some of this.
Anyways, is there a threshold where the contrast filters are an increase or reduction? and is that #1?

Helinophoto · Jun 7, 2016

Are you familiar with split grade printing?

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/split-grade-printing-guest-post.html

mesaboogie · Jun 7, 2016

Helinophoto said:
Are you familiar with split grade printing?

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2014/01/split-grade-printing-guest-post.html

Yes, and I would like to venture into that, but I guess my real question... If I don't use any filter, is 00 an increase or a reduction in contrast? (Given the exposure time difference is accounted for) And if it's a reduction, where does the increase start?

Doremus Scudder · Jun 7, 2016

To answer the original question:

"Normal" contrast is generally accepted to be grade 2. Printing without a filter, it's the quality of the light source that determines the actual contrast, but it should be somewhere close to grade 2 give or take a bit. Contrast filter numbering is such that moving from a higher number to a lower number is a reduction in overall contrast and vice-versa. Numbers lower than 2 are moving into the "low-contrast" or "soft" area; numbers higher than two move toward "high contrast" or "hard."

FWIW, I like print exposure times of 20-30 seconds. If you can't stop down without losing quality, you might want to consider a ND filter, longer lens or different light source.

Hope this helps,

Doremus

MattKing · Jun 7, 2016

The low numbered filters don't decrease contrast, they just add much less than the average.

Variable contrast papers have at least two emulsions. One emulsion is sensitive to green, while the other is sensitive to blue. The two emulsions have the same contrast, but they have two different sensitivities. The blue sensitive emulsion is more sensitive.

The contrast of your print is varied by controlling how much density in the print is contributed by each emulsion - more density from the blue sensitive means more contrast. If you add yellow filtration, it cuts back blue sensitive emulsion response.

Always start your test prints with a filter - usually a #2 - because if you need to change the contrast, it is really hard to figure out what changes are necessary if you had no filter in place for the test.

Sounds like you need to add some neutral density to the light path or change the bulb to a lower wattage version.

You need to first determine an exposure time with a number two filter. Use the near highlights (Caucasian skin?) as a target. Once you have done that, use a filter change to bring the shadows under control.

DELETED - addressed to wrong person

In my experience, a lot of newer photographers tend to under-expose their negatives, and then over-develop them. That leads to high contrast. If you are finding that you need the 0 and 00 filters, I would bet that you may also be under-exposing and over-developing

Your printing experiences will help you learn to create better (or at least easier to print) negatives. It is part of the fun!

tedr1 · Jun 7, 2016

Normal contrast is filter 2 for use with negatives having normal contrast.

Don't print using white light, the paper speed using no filter (white light) is double normal, the exposure times will be uncomfortably short.

Starting with filter 2 as normal (for normal contrast negatives) then filter 1 is less contrast than filter 2, filter 0 is less contrast than filter 1 and filter 00 is less contrast than filter 0.

DREW WILEY · Jun 7, 2016

"Normal contrast" is any damn thing you personally define it to be. It's YOUR ideal of normal. Many of us once standardized on Grade 3 paper of such
and such a brand, not Grade 2. Now that VC papers are predominant instead of graded papers, there are new opportunities to redefine all this. The point is to bag a versatile enough negative to begin with, using suitable exposure and development technique, so that it will easily develop any
number of preferred methods. I print "white light" most of the time. And I suspect I am a world class printer, quality-wise. But I also print black and
white papers using blue-green cold light, while also using both additive and subtractive colorheads of different types, and also using a variety of split printing techniques using hard blue and green separation filters. I have all these options and still more. Just more tools in the toolbox to pick from, as far as I'm concerned. But there is no inherently right or wrong method of printing. Whatever works, works! Otherwise, I totally ignore all that "grade
this or grade that" talk when it comes to VC papers themselves. I know what graded papers are. I still use some; but there aren't many left! Grade
talk largely belongs to the past along with graded papers. It just confuses beginners starting out with VC.

mesaboogie · Jun 7, 2016

So for this 23c that says 75watt PH140 bulb, I can use a lower wattage bulb? can I do it with the head in all the standard settings? Meaning the bellows on the 35mm with 50mm lens, or the bellows on the 6x6 with the 80mm lens? Just curious in the light falloff of the circle would change drastically. I would love to get a 20-30 second print time for 5x7 or 8x10s.

MattKing · Jun 8, 2016

With a 23C, I would use the filter opening and ND filters.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 8, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
"Normal contrast" is any damn thing you personally define it to be. It's YOUR ideal of normal. Many of us once standardized on Grade 3 paper of such
and such a brand, not Grade 2.

+1

Personally I never considered Grade 2 to be normal contrast. I usually use the equivalent of Grade 2-1/2 or 3. In terms of exposure I am looking for the thinnest possible negative with good shadow detail. This usually requires Grade 3.

mesaboogie · Jun 8, 2016

I tried split grade tonight. What a mess. I tried as hard as I could to not move the head while swapping contrast filters and out of 7 I didn't get a single one that was clear. Just a blurry mess.
I ran out of paper or I would have tried a different negative just in case, but the 00 and 5 test strips seemed way cleaner.

Doremus Scudder · Jun 8, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
"Normal contrast" is any damn thing you personally define it to be. It's YOUR ideal of normal. Many of us once standardized on Grade 3 paper of such and such a brand, not Grade 2. Now that VC papers are predominant instead of graded papers, there are new opportunities to redefine all this. ... I totally ignore all that "grade
this or grade that" talk when it comes to VC papers themselves. I know what graded papers are. I still use some; but there aren't many left! Grade talk largely belongs to the past along with graded papers. It just confuses beginners starting out with VC.

Gerald C Koch said:
Personally I never considered Grade 2 to be normal contrast. I usually use the equivalent of Grade 2-1/2 or 3. In terms of exposure I am looking for the thinnest possible negative with good shadow detail. This usually requires Grade 3.

Gentlemen,

I think we're clouding the issue for the OP here with unnecessary (at this point, anyway) refinements.

The basic thing that needs to be understood when beginning to print is that we should target some intermediate contrast grade (using the word in its strict meaning of degree or amount) as "standard," or "normal," or whatever term you want to indicate the situation that occurs most often.

The industry seems to have pretty well standardized on "grade 2," whether for graded or VC papers, as a designation for "normal" paper contrast. Heck, those numbers on the VC filters aren't just arbitrary; they correspond to (gasp!) paper grades!

Yes, I know that VC papers open a myriad of possibilities to achieve areas of different contrast in one print, and that there are lots of ways to get a desired mix of blue and green light on the paper. And, I too, indicate grade 2.5 or grade 3 (there's that damn "grade" word again...) as a target contrast for many (maybe even the majority) of my negatives. (I indicate grade 2 a lot as well, though).

Nevertheless, as a starting point, an ideal paper contrast, i.e., what kind of negative we should be aiming for, has to be somewhere in the middle of the contrast scale in order to provide some leeway in either direction; not, "any damn thing you personally define it to be," without taking that into consideration. Be it grade 2, VC filter #2.5, 1/2 #00 and 1/2 #5 filters, 35cc magenta or whatever or however you achieve it, our target "normal" contrast is most useful when it's somewhere in the middle of the achievable contrast range. I'm certainly not going to recommend to a beginner to try to develop his/her negatives so they print well with a #0 filter... Neither would you.

In that spirit, and in the spirit of simplifying things, lets agree that the advice for best results (and best practice) for those starting out to shoot film and wet print their negatives is to:

Develop your negatives so that they print well on an intermediate paper contrast. That gives you the possibility to adjust the contrast in either direction, more or less, for negatives that fall outside the target area, for whatever reason.

There, I've avoided using the word "grade" and any numbers as indicators of the degree of contrast.

For those just starting out with printing and using the standard set of VC numbered filters, however, I'm still gonna tell 'em to try to achieve negatives that print well with the #2 or #3 filter. Then later, I might tell 'em about all that other stuff.

Best,

Doremus

gone · Jun 8, 2016

I would agree, it sounds like something that is getting needlessly complicated, and it sounds like something is being left out. The op states that he tried printing w/ no filter and the results were way crazy. What exactly does this mean?

FWIW, my very first prints were made using some good negs I picked out because A- I liked the shot and B- they looked like great negs that had good contrast. My thinking was that later on I would get to printing negs that were less than optimal, and initially keep it simple. Test strips were made w/ the lens stopped down two stops from wide open w/ no filters on a condenser enlarger, and dried w/ a blow drier. Then I looked at them under a good light and made my prints. Aside from my very first print being a little too dark due to my inexperience at reading the test strips, all the other 8 or 10 prints came out great using no filter.

At the end of the print session I pulled out a sheet of fiber paper for the very first time, as all the other prints had been made w/ RC. A test strip was made and printed on the fiber paper. That print really blew away the RC prints in every measurable way, and now that is all I print on. So I would recommend this simple method initially. It worked fine for me. Split printing is for later on, contrast filtering is if you need it. I would also recommend not even bothering w/ RC and learn to print on good fiber from the get go. RC is for convenience, and just looks and feels exactly like what it is, plastic crap. I know a lot of people like it, but when you see the difference between fiber and RC and consider the known archival qualities, why use anything but fiber? It's worth the small extra trouble and greater expense because you won't have to fuss w/ it so much to get much higher print quality.

RalphLambrecht · Jun 8, 2016

Doremus Scudder said:
Gentlemen,

I think we're clouding the issue for the OP here with unnecessary (at this point, anyway) refinements.

The basic thing that needs to be understood when beginning to print is that we should target some intermediate contrast grade (using the word in its strict meaning of degree or amount) as "standard," or "normal," or whatever term you want to indicate the situation that occurs most often.

The industry seems to have pretty well standardized on "grade 2," whether for graded or VC papers, as a designation for "normal" paper contrast. Heck, those numbers on the VC filters aren't just arbitrary; they correspond to (gasp!) paper grades!

Yes, I know that VC papers open a myriad of possibilities to achieve areas of different contrast in one print, and that there are lots of ways to get a desired mix of blue and green light on the paper. And, I too, indicate grade 2.5 or grade 3 (there's that damn "grade" word again...) as a target contrast for many (maybe even the majority) of my negatives. (I indicate grade 2 a lot as well, though).

Nevertheless, as a starting point, an ideal paper contrast, i.e., what kind of negative we should be aiming for, has to be somewhere in the middle of the contrast scale in order to provide some leeway in either direction; not, "any damn thing you personally define it to be," without taking that into consideration. Be it grade 2, VC filter #2.5, 1/2 #00 and 1/2 #5 filters, 35cc magenta or whatever or however you achieve it, our target "normal" contrast is most useful when it's somewhere in the middle of the achievable contrast range. I'm certainly not going to recommend to a beginner to try to develop his/her negatives so they print well with a #0 filter... Neither would you.

In that spirit, and in the spirit of simplifying things, lets agree that the advice for best results (and best practice) for those starting out to shoot film and wet print their negatives is to:

Develop your negatives so that they print well on an intermediate paper contrast. That gives you the possibility to adjust the contrast in either direction, more or less, for negatives that fall outside the target area, for whatever reason.

There, I've avoided using the word "grade" and any numbers as indicators of the degree of contrast.

For those just starting out with printing and using the standard set of VC numbered filters, however, I'm still gonna tell 'em to try to achieve negatives that print well with the #2 or #3 filter. Then later, I might tell 'em about all that other stuff.

Best,

Doremus

Actually,the filter numbers are arbitrary and do not relate to paper grades at all.the only thing you can be sure of is that a higher number means more contrast than a lower number.a filter number 2 from one manufacturer may be different to a number 2 from another. And both may be different than a grade 2 paper from any paper manufacturer. Make this as simple as you can;higher number means more and lower number means less contrast;everything else is enough to do your head in. I prefer color enlargers so I can fine-tune the contrast, but that is yet another complication for this conversation.Printing can be this easy: start with a filter number 2 and find an exposure time to fit your dominant highlights.Then add or reduce contrast until the shadows are right;don't forget about dodge &burn to manage extremes.

Bob Carnie · Jun 8, 2016

I tend to print with a low filter and a high filter. I do not like using white light as as some pointed out it is quite strong.

When I am printing I will make a first test at the filter I think is appropriate.
Then after seeing the test the decision is made higher or lower filter?
Second tests uses the adjusted filter and density is achieved.

At this point I will set timer with a reduced time and I will pick a lower filter.

Next step is to put a full sheet in easel hit the timer with the adjusted filter and then do a second hit with the 5 filter.
I do not change the timer or apeture.

I evaluate this test print that has no dodge or burn. I will change the low filter if required and timer if required.
I will make a second print with dodges and burns as required

I evaluate this test print .

At this point I decide if I need more or less contrast for the over all scene.
if I want more contrast I will hit the third print with two hits of 5 filter
sometimes up to three or four hits.

At all times I will dodge and burn appropriately and here is where lots of micro contrast changes an experienced printer can work with.

At this point I make a few more prints with adjustments let dry and frame.

Like Doremus I have not used the word gra..d.

I am working on a name for my method of printing - something like final contrast ratio prints. A direct
opposite approach to original scene ratio.

Bob

ic-racer · Jun 8, 2016

mesaboogie said:
Anyways, is there a threshold where the contrast filters are an increase or reduction? and is that #1?

The threshold where increasing or decreasing contrast makes the print worse would be the ideal filter for that negative. It is determined by the negative density range. That [negative density range] is influenced by a thousand things. You can, however, measure it [negative density range] to calculate a starting filter to try. I think it is easier to do trial and error to choose the ideal contrast filter for the negative.

Rick A · Jun 8, 2016

mesaboogie said:
So for this 23c that says 75watt PH140 bulb, I can use a lower wattage bulb? can I do it with the head in all the standard settings? Meaning the bellows on the 35mm with 50mm lens, or the bellows on the 6x6 with the 80mm lens? Just curious in the light falloff of the circle would change drastically. I would love to get a 20-30 second print time for 5x7 or 8x10s.

For starters, you need a contrast filter in place when printing on VC paper, typically anything from #2 through #3. Here's where I strongly suggest you learn to make in camera exposures (and develop) that suit your taste at this setting. Then, if the negative needs a little more contrast, you move up by half a grade until you get what you like. Conversely, if you want less contrast, you move to a lower number until you get what you like. It is imperative you learn to be consistent with exposure and developing, you end up with negatives that almost print themselves with no (or minimal) adjustment.

rpavich · Jun 8, 2016

in answer to your question; yes, printing with no filter is equivalent to grade 2 (I think) that's been my experience...it's not lower than 00 though that would make sense.

So if you were to put in a 00 from "no filter" you'd actually get decreased contrast...and then moving up the scale to 5.

DREW WILEY · Jun 8, 2016

I'm almost laughing with the stereotypes on this thread. How come I totally ignore some of this stuff in my own highly equipped lab, and still can arrive at what I want any number of different ways? Colorheads make life easy with VC papers'; but I also often split print using only a 47B blue and
58 green filter, and even more often use "white" light only, even though the definition of "white" depends on the specific enlarger head. I have never
owned a set of "graded" variable contrast filters, and rarely over these past forty years have even kept Grade 2 paper on hand. Lots of Grade 3, even
to this day. The simple fact is, that things tend to be confusing and messy during early stages of the learning curve. One learns from one's mistakes,
along with asking pertinent questions. But some of the best prints I've ever made were unintended mistakes. They might have been far and few between in the early days; but I learned both positive and negative lessons in each instance. Go have fun. It's that simple.

Paul Howell · Jun 8, 2016

Or buy graded papers, grade 2, 3, and 4, start with grade 2, then move to 3 or even 4 if you need more contrast.

DREW WILEY · Jun 8, 2016

Does anyone even make a Grade 4 anymore? The last time neo-Seagull tried to resurrect it, it was a conspicuous bellyflop. Let's face it, VC papers
have made gigantic strides since that time, while the graded papers are slowly dying off. If something has enough silver in it, like the still extant
Grades 2&B of Ilfobrom Galerie, a significant variation in contrast is possible simply by method and cumulative time of development. And then there's
always unsharp masking, which can precisely either raise or lower contrast, depending.

mesaboogie · Jun 8, 2016

Well I got a 100 sheets to blow figuring this out.

Paul Howell · Jun 9, 2016

DREW WILEY said:
Does anyone even make a Grade 4 anymore? The last time neo-Seagull tried to resurrect it, it was a conspicuous bellyflop. Let's face it, VC papers
have made gigantic strides since that time, while the graded papers are slowly dying off. If something has enough silver in it, like the still extant
Grades 2&B of Ilfobrom Galerie, a significant variation in contrast is possible simply by method and cumulative time of development. And then there's
always unsharp masking, which can precisely either raise or lower contrast, depending.

Salvish still makes a grade 4, no one makes grade 4 in RC, and yes I recall the days when papers were made grade 1 to 6.

paul ron · Jun 9, 2016

the higher the number, the higher the contrast.

DREW WILEY · Jun 9, 2016

I have no use for anything but true premium fiber-based papers. I'm thinking back to when there was a selection between Seagull G, Ilford Galerie,
Brilliant Bromide, Portriga, to name a few. Now I'm down to just E-Maks (no longer made) and Galerie. Otherwise, my inventory is all VC FB, plus
random odd n's ends. Had a bit of luck a few weeks ago and found an old Seagull print that wasn't drymounted yet. So I gold toned it just for the heck, something I didn't practice back then. Wow! Talk about D-Max!

Contrast filters

mesaboogie

Helinophoto

mesaboogie

Doremus Scudder

MattKing

Moderator

tedr1

DREW WILEY

mesaboogie

MattKing

Moderator

Gerald C Koch

mesaboogie

Doremus Scudder

gone

RalphLambrecht

Bob Carnie

ic-racer

Rick A

rpavich

DREW WILEY

Paul Howell

DREW WILEY

mesaboogie

Paul Howell

paul ron

DREW WILEY

Contrast filters

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency