Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,455   Posts: 1,570,545   Online: 871
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    344

    From contact sheet to enlargement

    So, a two-part question based on some experiments this weekend. I've only been back to printing for a month and honestly can't remember how I used to print based off contact sheets before.

    1) Let's say I have the exact same paper for contact sheets and 5x7s. If I can see that a frame looks perfectly exposed on the contact sheet, is there some formula to figure out the same exposure for 5x7 without having to do test strips?

    2) OK, so I DON'T actually use the same paper for contacts. It should be possible to get an exposure that looks exactly the same as my contacts on different paper though, right? Most of my negatives on the contact sheets--of course unfiltered--had a pleasing medium contrast. I had difficulty replicating this in 5x7...looked muddy. Needed to add filters. Some of the contrastier enlargements look fine, but when I go back to the contact sheet I realize I still prefer the lower contrast of the contacts. I'm going to try to reprint a few this weekend, but since it was bugging me...is there any reason that the same level of contrast/exposure cannot be easily replicated from contacts to enlargements?? Or is my eye fooling me, and what looks like medium contrast is actually much lower, and simply works at 35mm size but not at 5x7 or larger?

  2. #2
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,344
    The concept of the "Proper Proof" is the answer to your question. (ala Fred Picker).

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,515
    Images
    90
    If you do a "proper Proof"
    Set the enlarger head to the height it would be for your target full-frame print size, in your case 5x7. Mark that position so you can easily go back there.
    Put an empty 35 carrier in the enlarger
    Focus using the edge of the carrier
    Put in your desired proof filtration, some folks like soft, some like "normal"
    Set the lens to the f/stop you'd use for enlarging
    Expose for your minimum time to maximum black time

    Now you can make a useful proof sheet.
    For example, if if the negative looks good on the contact, you can put it in the carrier and make a 5x7 enlargement that looks just like it, without changing anything, except where the negative is.
    One note, The proofer glass and the sleeve (if you print in the sleeve) will add a little density, so for the enlargement you may need to back off on the time slightly. After some testing you'll always know what that factor is.

    If you want to use a different paper, test and figure out what the required exposure difference is, then use that correction factor.

    Doing proofs with the enlarger at some random height, without filtration, at some guessed f/stop and time is a waste of time, paper and money.
    Last edited by bdial; 11-02-2009 at 07:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #4
    EASmithV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,877
    Blog Entries
    4
    Images
    123
    Test strips, test strips, test strips.

    You can't expect to guess time of an enlargement and get a perfect print by looking at a contact sheet.
    www.EASmithV.com

    "The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera."— Dorothea Lange
    http://www.flickr.com/easmithv/
    RIP Kodachrome

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,515
    Images
    90
    You can't expect to guess time of an enlargement and get a perfect print by looking at a contact sheet.
    Not perfect perhaps, but you should be very close, no guessing required.

  6. #6
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Try to stick to the same paper for the same set of contacts generally. I.e. if you're printing frames on a given roll, try to keep it to one paper unless you have a very good reason not to. Once you test one frame, one should be able to generally use the same time/grade on the others, adjusting by feel for variance in exposure and contrast. Obviously an initial test sheet and a few others will have to be made for problem frames.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #7
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,079
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    The distance of the bulb, the aperture, and the enlargement factor will determine the exposure time. It is possible to compute a new exposure time based on these factors and it will look like the formula for bellows factor, but... it's usually not worth it, in my opinion. Bear in mind that your test strips need only cover a very small portion of the enlarged frame. So waste a little bit of paper and take it easy You'd likely waste more time making measurements and running numbers than you would simply doing a quick test strip or two.

    I've gotten to know my typical exposures times well enough to do decent guesstimates without test strips, but when enlarging I might want to dodge and burn or use a different enlarging lens or different developer concentration etc... not to mention that I do all my contacts on RC glossy (quick! flat!) but almost never do enlargements on that, so... although I can get in the ballpark, usually it's just not worth it to try to skip steps.

    2) Not sure what caused your difference in tonality, but... I don't use small or med. format contacts to judge tonality. Did you do your contacts with the same bulb? Same paper, developer etc.? Same aperture? Anyway, at the end of the day you want to optimize your parameters specifically for the enlargement, the contact is just for quick comparisons and cataloguing.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  8. #8
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    Test Strips. But if you want to try cheating, my best guess would be . . .

    24mm<1"

    <1
    <1.4
    <2
    <2.8
    <4
    <5.6

    5"<5.6"

    Multiply your exposure duration by a factor of five. Maybe.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    344
    OK, well, I guess the gist is there are no shortcuts and my contacts possibly have nothing to do with my final print. But I'll try bdial's method next time I make contacts .



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin