Determining contrast for enlargement

GregY · Dec 1, 2022

redbandit said:
My thoughts are more on how accurate the settings chart is, and if there is a usable Y/M dual filtration sheet for it

The results will depend on the age of the paper and the condition of the dichroic filters in your enlarger. The real answer is that you're learning...... remember the 10,000 hrs. As Ansel Adams suggested a big garbage can in the darkroom...& it will inevitably cost you time and paper.

Sirius Glass · Dec 1, 2022

MattKing said:
If you are offered a two filter option for each grade, consider using it.
That approach - speed matching - is intended to make it easier to change contrast without there being large amounts of change in exposure.
The speed matching is usually based on an upper mid-tone - something close to un-tanned Caucasian skin.
So a typical workflow is doing test prints until you get an exposure that results in good upper mid-tones, and then use that exposure when doing further tests with different contrast settings, in order to adjust how the shadows appear and the other tones render.

I use the two filter option all the time.

redbandit · Dec 1, 2022

GregY said:
The results will depend on the age of the paper and the condition of the dichroic filters in your enlarger. The real answer is that you're learning...... remember the 10,000 hrs. As Ansel Adams suggested a big garbage can in the darkroom...& it will inevitably cost you time and paper.

i knows im learning, however im trying to improve faster then some think i should.
I dont want to burn another package of paper trying to learn something that can be learned by reading.

i chopped a piece of that arista paper into 3rds and exposed one as a generic grade 2, nicest looking thing ive done all week. SO yes, newest paper can do best, but im thinking "get decent" paper is more important.

and as that sample dried, i was able to see a good bit of feather detail in the poor little birdy

GregY · Dec 1, 2022

redbandit.... Arista is Foma brand paper....& it is more than decent. I buy Foma everytime B&H has it in stock. IMO (my preference) only Ilford WT FB comes close to resulting in the depth of the image i'm looking for.

Bill Burk · Dec 1, 2022

redbandit said:
and as someone still trying to figure out the contrast difference between 1,2,3,4,5, and then tossing in the HALF grads... having an idea to figure out how it would improve a frame with each one is a killer

I understand the choices of half grades can be overwhelming with variable contrast paper. You can make things simpler. Keep the "number 2" and "number 3" filters out and try to use them. Pretend you only have Grade 2 and Grade 3.

When your negative is rich and contrasty start with Grade 2, when it is thin and delicate, start with Grade 3.

Make a test strip at that grade and look for a print exposure that makes most things look right. If a part of the subject looks better on a different step, but it's right next to the one you picked, dodge/burn that thing.

Paul Howell · Dec 1, 2022

Last pack of Foma VC paper I bought a few years ago had the same data sheet, but although I have color head for the most part I use filters in my D3 I did not bother with it.

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 1, 2022

What can I expect to happen to properly exposed Tmax 100 and 400 developed normally that had been laying around through hot and cold weather in the trunk of a car for ten months?

Alan Edward Klein · Dec 1, 2022

What about unexposed Tmax 100 and 400 and color chromes that have been lying around in the trunk of a car for ten months through hot and cold weather? How would you expose and develop?

pentaxuser · Dec 1, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I use the two filter option all the time.

If this is a reference to Y+M then I found that Ilford's Y + M operates quite well in maintaining exposures between grades 2-3. Beyond that they don't and this is clear when you see that at lower than grade 2 or above 3 either Y or M predominates and exposures alter This is fine but it means that the OP has to do some testing for the correct exposure. He seems reluctant to do this. If that is the case then Ilford filters maintain the same exposure until you get to grades 4-5 where you simply double the exposure.

OK with the change to the more constant speeds of the new Ilford Delux paper my impression( based on paper speeds) is that grades 4-5 should not require double exposure so some testing may be required .

However keeping matters simple which is what I think the OP wants to do it would seem that Ilford filters are easier to use

pentaxuser

Sirius Glass · Dec 1, 2022

pentaxuser said:
If this is a reference to Y+M then I found that Ilford's Y + M operates quite well in maintaining exposures between grades 2-3. Beyond that they don't and this is clear when you see that at lower than grade 2 or above 3 either Y or M predominates and exposures alter This is fine but it means that the OP has to do some testing for the correct exposure. He seems reluctant to do this. If that is the case then Ilford filters maintain the same exposure until you get to grades 4-5 where you simply double the exposure.

OK with the change to the more constant speeds of the new Ilford Delux paper my impression( based on paper speeds) is that grades 4-5 should not require double exposure so some testing may be required .

However keeping matters simple which is what I think the OP wants to do it would seem that Ilford filters are easier to use

pentaxuser

It does not matter what grade it is. How does the print look? That is what is important. 2.0? or 2.1? or 2.113? who cares?

Bill Burk · Dec 1, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
It does not matter what grade it is. How does the print look? That is what is important. 2.0? or 2.1? or 2.113? who cares?

You illustrated the problem with overwhelming choices... all three test strips look flat after you tried 2.0, 2.1 and 2.113

Try bigger filtration changes to get test strips closer to 2, 3 and 4.

But fundamentally you are right to say who cares whether it's 2.1, 3.3 and 4.1

So whether or not Ilford's numbers "work" for this paper doesn't matter so much. I hope the numbers give enough change to be noticeable. They are probably fine.

Sirius Glass · Dec 1, 2022

Bill Burk said:
You illustrated the problem with overwhelming choices... all three test strips look flat after you tried 2.0, 2.1 and 2.113

Try bigger filtration changes to get test strips closer to 2, 3 and 4.

But fundamentally you are right to say who cares whether it's 2.1, 3.3 and 4.1

So whether or not Ilford's numbers "work" for this paper doesn't matter so much. I hope the numbers give enough change to be noticeable. They are probably fine.

My point is that the grading scale in not set in concrete. It varies from company to company and product to product. What matters is the final print, not the numbers.

MattKing · Dec 1, 2022

The place where the grade designations might matter to you, is within your own workflow.
Once you get familiar with a particular paper in your darkroom, using your equipment and chemicals, printing your negatives, you can then use the contrast settings that you have determined work for you in particular situations with certain types of negatives, to help you print new negatives.
Essentially, when you look at a new negative, if it appears to be similar to an older negative that you printed well using a particular setting - say the numbers on the table that correspond on the table you are using with grade "3" - then you can use that setting to start your tests with.

DREW WILEY · Dec 1, 2022

Pity hands-on darkroom workshops aren't commonly available these days. Twenty minutes of good instruction hands-on is better than reading every darn book out there. It's easy to overcomplicate all this. I'd start by ignoring grade jargon totally, unless you to happen to be working with one of the very few graded papers still on the market. It's like specifying harness sizes for dinosaurs. VC papers allow a contrast continuum. Start with you colorhead set to zero on all settings, and try a test strip. Need more contrast? - add some Magenta. Need less, add some Yellow instead. It takes some practice before all this gets intuitive. There's simply no way around that. Most of the time I only need a single test strip to tell me everything I need to do.

Doremus Scudder · Dec 3, 2022

Bill has a great point: Don't make lots of little changes in one direction. Make big changes. If you're print isn't contrasty enough, make one that's too contrasty. Then you'll know better where the sweet spot in the middle is.

FWIW, I use a color head but don't bother with Ilford's speed-matched filtration combinations (it only dials in neutral density and makes many exposure times longer). Nor do I think about the grades. I just use yellow and magenta and find a setting that gives me a final print that works. I have no idea what grade I'm working with most of the time.

Having a proper proof to examine gives me a good idea for starting filtration. If you don't want to make proofs, a visual examination of the negative can give you an idea of its density range. Then, guesstimate a starting filtration, make a test strip and evaluate it. You can use one test strip to give you an idea of both proper exposure and if the contrast is close. If the contrast isn't right. Make a big change and make another test strip. Once you have narrowed things down a bit, make a straight print and go from there.

Remember, the first time you do an experiment, you don't learn about what you are testing; you learn about the experiment.

Best,

Doremus

wiltw · Dec 3, 2022

One needs to consider the tones captured on film vs. the tones you want represented in the print.
IOW, your scene might only have content within 5 tonal zones, but

you want those 5 tonal zones to span the full gamut between 'black' and 'white' in the final print,
or you might want the 5 tonal zones captured to be represented 'like reality'...only shades of gray near the middle of the tonal scale, with no real 'black' or 'white' within the printed scene.

Your choice of paper grade is driven by what you want to achieve in the final print!

redbandit · Dec 4, 2022

DREW WILEY said:
Pity hands-on darkroom workshops aren't commonly available these days. Twenty minutes of good instruction hands-on is better than reading every darn book out there. It's easy to overcomplicate all this. I'd start by ignoring grade jargon totally, unless you to happen to be working with one of the very few graded papers still on the market. It's like specifying harness sizes for dinosaurs. VC papers allow a contrast continuum. Start with you colorhead set to zero on all settings, and try a test strip. Need more contrast? - add some Magenta. Need less, add some Yellow instead. It takes some practice before all this gets intuitive. There's simply no way around that. Most of the time I only need a single test strip to tell me everything I need to do.

Community darkrooms are essentially dead. No money in it. And the mail order film places are starting to get away from what they call "true black and white".

Even getting photos made from your negative is a 90% "scan the negative and use a digital printer". Its cost effective, but i cant really justify spending 30-40 for a genuine black and white photo of 8x10 size.

The darkroom only seems to accept 3 types of black and white film now for printing on actual paper, and only because these 3 films, tri-x and two ilfords, because they print the best on a specific ilford gallerie paper they use now.

pentaxuser · Dec 4, 2022

So redbandit can I ask what you feel you have learned for the many posts of advice you have been given and how you think you can use that information to help you get better?

Where do you go from here?

pentaxuser

Determining contrast for enlargement

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency