Obviously it will depend on the press and the quality of the newsprint. But a contrasty print will only get more so when printed. A 65 line screen halftone or velox printed high-speed on less than prime newsprint generally suffers.
This - plus the fact that if the photo ended up being printed on newsprint using a high volume and fast press, a photo that offered soft contrast and subtle tone transitions tended to lose detail and just lie whimpering on the page, while a contrasty and very graphically strong photo - which also lost some detail - otherwise tended to jump out and grab the customer/reader's attention.
I have done the tests, that's what prompted the post. I'm getting grade 4 level contrast from the #2 filter. I expected the condenser head to produce more contrast, just wasn't expecting two grades. Especially given that I don't remember getting results this contrasty before.
2 grades difference is about where most well controlled comparison tests end up. What may also be happening is that you are no longer producing the same sort of negatives as 20 years ago in terms of exposure to process relationships - and some paper curves have changed from MGIV, which could distort your previous outcomes if you were printing by perception rather than purely relying on densitometric analysis.
I'm struggling with a contrast control problem in my printing I hope someone can help me with.
I'm currently printing with an Omega D6, the variable condenser head and Ilford contrast filters above the negative. When I test with a Stouffer step tablet I'm seeing each filter print between 1 and 2 grades higher contrast than what I'd expect (and what the sample data that ships with the BTZS WinPlotter shows.) It's consistent across Arista.EDU FB Glossy, RC Pearl, and Ilford MGRC Pearl, so I don't think it's just the paper. I'm developing in Formulary 130, 1+1, for 2 minutes but I see similar results with Ilford's Multigrade Developer. The printing of actual negatives is consistent with what I'm seeing in my test data. For reference, the #2 filter is printing with an exposure scale between 0.7 and 0.8 and the sample data seems to say I should expect 1.00 or a little greater.
I'm wondering how much switching to a diffusion light source might control my contrast and if there's something else I should try to tame things a little. I'm recently back from a 20 year break away from the darkroom and I don't remember having this problem back in the day...
Thanks!
It's brand new, as are the filters.Also sometimes depends on how old your step tablet is, and if it has yellowed in the interim.
Obviously it will depend on the press and the quality of the newsprint. But a contrasty print will only get more so when printed. A 65 line screen halftone or velox printed high-speed on less than prime newsprint generally suffers.
I have done the tests, that's what prompted the post. I'm getting grade 4 level contrast from the #2 filter. I expected the condenser head to produce more contrast, just wasn't expecting two grades. Especially given that I don't remember getting results this contrasty before.
I’m printing a Stouffer step tablet.
In that case all you are finding out is the well known difference between diffusion and condenser enlargers. It's your past results that you need to be questioning, rather than your current ones - your current tests are producing the results they inherently should.
In that case all you are finding out is the well known difference between diffusion and condenser enlargers. It's your past results that you need to be questioning, rather than your current ones - your current tests are producing the results they inherently should.
OP says currently printing with D6, is it the same enlarger he used 20 years ago? I have 2 condenser enlargers, main in D3, but I also have a Metopa that I use for 35mm and 6X6, the D3 prints with bit more contrast than the Metopa, not much maybe a 1/2 to a grade. The difference might be my 6X9 and 4X5 negatives are softer, or the condenser on the Metopa is optimized for 6X6 rather than 35mm.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?