Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,993   Posts: 1,524,266   Online: 1005
      
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Maryland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97

    Contrast Mystery (not a necessarily a problem)

    After a number of years happily printing with my Omega D2V condenser head I decided to run some tests (a la Anchell) with a Stouffer Step Wedge (31 step) using a new set of 6" Ilford MG filters, MG IV RC Perle, and fresh Dektol with the following results:
    Filter #2 = grade 1 (iso range # 135)
    Filter #3 = grade 1 1/2 (iso range # 115)
    Filter #4 = grade 3 (iso range # 85)
    Filter #5 = grade 4 1/2 (iso range # 65)
    No Filter = grade 1 (iso range # 125)
    My condensers are clean, clean condition Nikkor 80mm f5.6 and my safe lights have pasted the Kodak test out to 7 minutes. After reading Anchell's results with a D5 I was expecting a solid grade 2 with no filtration as well as higher iso numbers from all my filters. Not that I can't work with these uneven steps in contrast, because I have been, but am curious if other using my setup have experienced similar lowered contrast results. Could it be my paper? Purchased 250 sheet box in October 2010. Would appreciate any thoughts as to why my results were so different from Anchell's.

  2. #2
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,195
    Images
    15
    While no master printer, a couple suggestions come to mind...

    What dilution, temperature, time, and agitation did you use in the Dektol?

    Why not try a developer Ilford recommends for this paper, and compare. Then try some glossy fibre base MGIV and compare again.
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  3. #3
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,134
    Dektol should be fine. You need to contact print the wedge to test your filter/paper combo. Then project the wedge to see how much contrast you lose to fog and flare. Could be you are having issues masking light around the negative, a dirty lens or safelight issues.

  4. #4
    MurrayMinchin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Coast, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,195
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Could be you are having issues masking light around the negative...
    Good point. Try putting the lens cap on the enlarger lens, and a mirror on the enlargers base. Turn off safelight and let your eyes adjust to the dark, then turn enlarger lamp on. Be prepared with black tape and to be shocked at how many light leaks there are.
    _________________________________________
    Note to self: Turn your negatives into positives.

  5. #5
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,156
    Images
    46
    Does the Anchell test have you put the negative on the easel (contact test for paper range) or in the negative carrier (system test of paper + enlarger range ... which incorporates flare)?

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington area
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Dektol should be fine. You need to contact print the wedge to test your filter/paper combo. Then project the wedge to see how much contrast you lose to fog and flare. Could be you are having issues masking light around the negative, a dirty lens or safelight issues.
    This is excellent advice. I've just completed some exhaustive tests with my 5x7 Omega after modifying the lamphouse to an LED source, just to see how it performs with MGIV glossy paper & MG dev (1+9). After confirming my safelight was SAFE for my typical workflow (including time in dev under the overhead safelight), and after plotting HD curves with a projected 31-step wedge for each new Ilford under-lens filter (except half-grades) from 00-5, I did this projection-vs-contact comparison as a final test, using #2 filter, and found the contact resulted in a solid increase from "grade 2" to "grade 3." My initial tests with NO FILTER in the carrier showed a smooth curve that closely matches the #2 curve (not as smooth) at high density and fell between #2-#3 curves in the mid-range. Lens was clean and tablet/carrier masking was thorough.
    Last edited by silveror0; 08-10-2013 at 01:48 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #7
    David Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    near Dallas, TX USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,261
    Images
    5
    I also wouldn't discount the effect of the pearl surface.
    David
    Taking pictures is easy. Making photographs is hard.

    http://www.behance.net/silverdarkroom
    http://silverdarkroom.wordpress.com



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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