Image Degradation From Filters In Printing

[DF]

I can see that prints loose a certain "crispness" when filters are applied, but I guess a rational could be that even though there's a loss, what's gained maybe made up for it.
Are some printing filters - for B&W that is, noticeably better than others? I usually dial in a "30-yellow" on the Omega Color-Head to minimize contrast in my FP4 prints when the neg is a tad overexposed. Would those square Ilford filters you place on top of the glass in the condensers show much difference?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

No A dichroic filter or a plastic one placed above the condenser will not be in the imaging path. There they will have no effect on print quality.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The best position for any filter is above the film.

PE

 

[Hilo]

Respectfully, to me prints do not lose anything when using clean and undamaged filters. I use the filter trays just above the negative with the Laborator 1000, Focomat 2c and 1c. And I use them as well on the same enlargers plus the Valoy II with under-the-lens filter holders. I print daily, it is my profession, and I do a lot of 20X24 (50X60) size prints and smaller. There's simply hardly any difference (if any at all) between the various placing of the filters, from putting them on the condensers, in the filter trays or under the lens.

I am aware many people are of a different opinion. And perhaps there exist parameters where differences do come out (different enlargers, different papers, different films). I have no experience using color heads for filtering b/w prints.

 

[ic-racer]

I can see that prints loose a certain "crispness" when filters are applied,

If you mean a yellow filter with multigrade filter, then yes. The apparent loss of sharpness with decreasing contrast is a reason MTF is used to evaluate lenses.

 

[Ian Grant]

If you dial in 30Y you will lose what you are calling "crispness" compared to no filter, this is because dropping the contrast will lessen the differences between different areas of tone and the micro contrast as well, you see it better the other way around increasing the contrast would give more apparent sharpness, In reality a careful check will sow both a low contrast print and a high contrast print off the same negative at the same size.

Ian

 

[markbarendt]

I usually dial in a "30-yellow" on the Omega Color-Head to minimize contrast in my FP4 prints when the neg is a tad overexposed.

Overexposure doesn't automatically mean you need a contrast reduction.

For me when I use extra exposure in the camera, I simply use more enlarger exposure. (No added yellow.)

 

[tedr1]

Forgive what seems to be an elementary question, I think some information is needed, what paper are you using? Fixed grade or variable contrast?

 

[DF]

I'm printing with Ilford Multi-Grade RC De luxe Glossy.

 

[tedr1]

Thank you. According to the Ilford information 30Y seems to be a contrast change of about one half a step less contrast, or softer, this is a small change in contrast.
Introducing the contrast filter by any method above the negative, has no effect on the "sharpness" of the image. Image sharpness is controlled by the focusing of the lens.
Introducing a filter that changes the image contrast, for example 30Y, changes the appearance of the image, in this case making it lower in contrast and therefore a little softer. Introducing 20M instead would increase the contrast about one half step, and this increase in contrast may be perceived as an increase in "sharpness" although it is actually an increase in contrast, and sometimes is called hardness.

The Ilford filters are a good way to work with Ilford papers, I used them for years.

The technical information about Ilford contrast control is found here https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Contrast-control-for-Ilford-Multigrade.pdf

 

[DF]

Yes - it's must be a perception thing on my part - something psychological or attitude. I feel like my photo is losing its "virginal" quality by "defiling" it through filterization. 'course it's always good to have good neg's to start out with.

 

[markbarendt]

Yes - it's must be a perception thing on my part - something psychological or attitude. I feel like my photo is losing its "virginal" quality by "defiling" it through filterization. 'course it's always good to have good neg's to start out with.

Removing the Yellow and adding Magenta will make it 'more' virgin.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Yes - it's must be a perception thing on my part - something psychological or attitude. I feel like my photo is losing its "virginal" quality by "defiling" it through filtration. 'course it's always good to have good negs to start out with.

Contact print

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I can see that prints loose a certain "crispness" when filters are applied, but I guess a rational could be that even though there's a loss, what's gained maybe made up for it.
Are some printing filters - for B&W that is, noticeably better than others? I usually dial in a "30-yellow" on the Omega Color-Head to minimize contrast in my FP4 prints when the neg is a tad overexposed. Would those square Ilford filters you place on top of the glass in the condensers show much difference?

No, they will make no difference; I suspect that you are printing too soft and printing with more contrast will give you the crispness you're after.To much negative contrast should be addressed in film development and not with print contrast.

 

[DF]

I don't usually ever want nor need more contrast/adding some magenta - there's plenty of that to start out with the way my neg's come out.
Everyone is so gung-ho over contrast. Why? doesn't anyone like good grey-balence/tones?
If I'm printing too "soft" - is that referring to the softness of light produced by a diffuser as opposed to a condenser?

 

[markbarendt]

DF we aren't talking about our prints. You complained about your print lacking "crispness". Typically that's a contrast problem or print exposure problem or a blur (motion or focus) problem; not a filter problem.

There are differences in contrast that you can get from condensers and diffusers. There are trade offs to everything though, condensers may show other problems in the print (from the neg) that the diffuser hides. In a perfect world one might adjust film development time to compensate for the printing differences of the heads. Yeah, I'm actually saying that you might want to develop the film differently depending on if you plan to print with one head or the other more regularly, to get your preferred print contrast, because the heads really do print differently.

Back to a more practical questions. Are there any signs of blur? If not, have you tried printing this negative with a touch of magenta or a bit more exposure or a bit more print development?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Crispness, is usually lost when the negative is not dead accurately grain focused. You can have a really soft grade from filtration, that is as sharp as a tack, you can also have a really hard grade from filtration, that is as sharp as a tack.

The amount of softness or hardness, or wished for contrast in your print, is usually completely different to a soft or out of focus print.

One trick of darkroom printers in commercial labs, was to knock the focus out a poofteenth, one would then (usually) have a soft focus print at whatever grade of contrast you chose. That said, making the focus slightly off, will (in my experience) give you an apparent softer or lower contrast of any given level of chosen contrast, than if the negative is grain sharp.

When the grain is focused with a glass held negative, in a correctly aligned enlarger, which includes the baseboard being in alignment with the negative, you have almost no possibility of obtaining soft, or non crisp prints. Unless you wish to deliberately have soft, or non crisp prints.

Within reason, having a glassless held negative, especially 135 format, should not make that much of a difference. Apart from the fact it may, with some curved negatives, cause apparent loss of crispness in areas that are not in absolute alignment.

With enlargements over 15 x the size of your negative, then it would be normal (if possible) to use a glass held negative. If not possible, then consider holding the negative on either side (where the rebates/sprocket holes are) with removeable magic tape. This tape does not damage film, does not, in my experience, leave any residue, yet allows you to work quickly and with more control in obtaining a more flattish negative. that tape is available in various widths, the width I use is the narrowest available at 12.7mm in width.

I use this tape myself, having first encountered it around 30+ years ago in a commercial lab where I was printing. I personally use it for all 135, 120 formats in my own enlarger using glassless negative holders and also when doing 4x5" enlarging, where I wish to align the negative for whatever reason on the glass holder.

More or less filtration, or no filtration, should, all things being equal, make no difference to the crispness of your print, just the chosen conrast grade should be the difference.

There are many variables required to be in alignment with each other in order to have crisp prints, by eliminating each possible variable, you should be able to narrow down your apparent problem.

Mick.

 

[klownshed]

Soft things don't tend to be crispy.

There's a reason we use similar adjectives for contrast and sharpness. Contrast is integral to our perception of sharpness.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Yes - it's must be a perception thing on my part - something psychological or attitude. I feel like my photo is losing its "virginal" quality by "defiling" it through filterization. 'course it's always good to have good neg's to start out with.

This is utterly bizarre - why would you deny yourself the use of the designed contrast range of a material?

I don't usually ever want nor need more contrast/adding some magenta - there's plenty of that to start out with the way my neg's come out.
Everyone is so gung-ho over contrast. Why? doesn't anyone like good grey-balence/tones?
If I'm printing too "soft" - is that referring to the softness of light produced by a diffuser as opposed to a condenser?

Nothing wrong with printing with a slightly softer grade to express a richer range of tones (though go too far & the print will become flat & boring). However, you may well be giving excessive development or inadequate exposure if you are routinely finding yourself needing to use the softest contrast grades regularly.