Author Topic: 4x5 contact prints and/or buying an enlarger (Read 12297 times)

Urban Hafner · « **on:** December 03, 2015, 11:37:11 AM »

So ... I'm planning to make contact prints of 4x5 negatives in the coming weeks/months. I already have everything I need including a box of Ilford MG paper. But to make decent looking prints I think I will need contrast filters. And the 6x6 inch ones from Ilford are quite expensive (100€) and it's been suggested that buying an enlarger may actually be cheaper.

If that is true do you have any suggestions for brands and models to look for? For now I'm looking to make 4x5 contact prints, but being able to use it for 35mm and MF would be nice, too. Also, as I'm located in Germany I guess I'd prefer tips for brands that are available in Europe (Durst and Kaiser come to mind).

Cheers!

Andrej K · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2015, 11:44:49 AM »

Durst 1200 (various variants) come up quite often on ebay, but I would think that you'd do fine with contact printing for start.

I don't believe you need contrast filters when making contact prints - you may use different developers (or concentrations maybe), or simply use graded papers - foma sells their graded paper still - and it is good. But I would reccoment most the specialty contact printing paper - FOMALUX - it is much slower, gives longer exposures with the light bulb and therefore some time to play with your printing...

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2015, 12:10:59 PM »

Thanks Andrej! I didn't even know that developers could change the contrast of the print. But as it works with film I guess it's not too much of a surprise that it works with paper, too.

Maybe the best solution would be to just try doing contact prints with what I have right now (a box of Ilford MGIV) and see if I can get somewhat decent results and then either invest in an enlarger or maybe just build a DIY cardboard housing around my (LED) light bulb so that I can use small filters (like these https://www.macodirect.de/en/darkroom/paper-developing/gelatine-filters/4632/foma-variant-correction-filters-8.9x8.9-cm?c=68).

Late Developer · « **Reply #3 on:** December 03, 2015, 12:29:17 PM »

The third way:

A decent flatbed scanner. Although I agree there's no true substitute for a chemical print, I've seen some great scans from 5x4 on the web and printed by pro labs.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #4 on:** December 03, 2015, 12:34:02 PM »

Quote from: Late Developer on December 03, 2015, 12:29:17 PM

A decent flatbed scanner. Although I agree there's no true substitute for a chemical print, I've seen some great scans from 5x4 on the web and printed by pro labs.

I'd like to move away from scanning or at least give darkroom printing a real try as I'm not a big fan of scanning. Of course I realise that there will be equally big (if not bigger) challenges with darkroom printing.

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** December 03, 2015, 01:22:51 PM »

I know you're lucky in Europe as many fantastic enlarger makers come from there.
There's also DeVere, Meopta, and one from the old Soviet block... What's its name...oh, there it is, Krokus... And there's also Priox...

And on the Japanese side, there's LPL that made some pretty decent stuff too, and Nikkor.
American wise, there's Besseler, Omega, Salt Hill, Federal and a host of others.

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:00:45 PM »

If you have any suitable parts lying around you can make your own light projector, as I did when I first tried contact printing. The advantage was twofold, firstly a constant adjustable light (bulb choice, height) and secondly having a tray for the small Ilford filters. (And yes, that is a tripod leg.

)

It was worth the effort, as the multigrade filters can make a huge difference to each print on MG paper.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #7 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:09:18 PM »

Very nice Sandeha! And probably something that even I could pull of. Maybe not out of wood, but from cardboard & gaffer tape (after all it's just a LED light bulb).

hookstrapped · « **Reply #8 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:17:28 PM »

Quote from: Sandeha Lynch on December 03, 2015, 02:00:45 PM

If you have any suitable parts lying around you can make your own light projector, as I did when I first tried contact printing. The advantage was twofold, firstly a constant adjustable light (bulb choice, height) and secondly having a tray for the small Ilford filters. (And yes, that is a tripod leg. )

It was worth the effort, as the multigrade filters can make a huge difference to each print on MG paper.

Nice!

hookstrapped · « **Reply #9 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:21:05 PM »

I recently went to a gallery in town that had a showing of these 120 and 4x5 contact prints. It was real interesting to see 120 contact prints but they were a bit small... the 4x5 contact prints were wonderful

http://www.robertmann.com/15-nikodem-images

JoeV · « **Reply #10 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:25:57 PM »

Urban, I know you said you might want to enlarge 35 or 120 film, hence the need for an enlarger, but for contact printing alone, you don't need the large sized Ilford contrast filters, the smaller ones will work, depending on your light source.

I cobbled together a light from a metal soup can, an electrical socket, wiring and a few other bits I had on hand. I suspend it above the darkroom table. Thus far I've used it for preflashing paper negatives, and it has a ~1/4" aperture, along with a 7.5 watt bulb, to limit the intensity. But for contact printing I only need to enlarge the aperture and/or use a higher wattage bulb. The enclosure and aperture are small enough to use the smallest contrast filters.

My point is that just for contact printing you don't need to spend a lot of money, there are ways to make do.

~Joe

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:41:54 PM »

That's Joe. The soup can is a great idea! Yes, that should work!

Francois · « **Reply #12 on:** December 03, 2015, 02:59:06 PM »

I don't know if LED bulbs work with a dimmer?

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #13 on:** December 03, 2015, 03:14:32 PM »

Quote from: Francois on December 03, 2015, 02:59:06 PM

I don't know if LED bulbs work with a dimmer?

Neither do I Francois, but an aperture made out of cardboard should be enough of it's far enough away from the paper, right?

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #14 on:** December 03, 2015, 03:53:59 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on December 03, 2015, 03:14:32 PM

Quote from: Francois on December 03, 2015, 02:59:06 PM
I don't know if LED bulbs work with a dimmer?

Neither do I Francois, but an aperture made out of cardboard should be enough of it's far enough away from the paper, right?

You're also looking at how far the bulb is from the aperture, but you'll quickly see if the image circle cast by the light is wide enough to avoid fall off in the corner. Shouldn't be an issue with 4x5 but it can be with larger negs.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #15 on:** December 03, 2015, 04:57:43 PM »

Quote from: hookstrapped on December 03, 2015, 02:21:05 PM

I recently went to a gallery in town that had a showing of these 120 and 4x5 contact prints. It was real interesting to see 120 contact prints but they were a bit small... the 4x5 contact prints were wonderful

http://www.robertmann.com/15-nikodem-images

oh, I've done and seen 120 contacts framed. it can be quite intimate and nice but it needs the right picture.
some graphic 6x9's I've seen were stunning.

02Pilot · « **Reply #16 on:** December 03, 2015, 05:34:20 PM »

LED bulbs can work with a dimmer, but you must buy dimmable units (they will be so marked).

Francois · « **Reply #17 on:** December 03, 2015, 08:17:35 PM »

If yours isn't, you can always pack some sheets of vellum between the light and the printing frame.
Or just get some rosco ND filters... these won't introduce any color shift.

Jack Johnson · « **Reply #18 on:** December 04, 2015, 05:56:11 AM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on December 03, 2015, 04:57:43 PM

oh, I've done and seen 120 contacts framed. it can be quite intimate and nice but it needs the right picture.
some graphic 6x9's I've seen were stunning.

I keep wanting to do 6x9 contact prints as a diptych on 4x6 but haven't found/made the right pair.

gsgary · « **Reply #19 on:** December 04, 2015, 03:33:14 PM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on December 03, 2015, 12:10:59 PM

Thanks Andrej! I didn't even know that developers could change the contrast of the print. But as it works with film I guess it's not too much of a surprise that it works with paper, too.

Maybe the best solution would be to just try doing contact prints with what I have right now (a box of Ilford MGIV) and see if I can get somewhat decent results and then either invest in an enlarger or maybe just build a DIY cardboard housing around my (LED) light bulb so that I can use small filters (like these https://www.macodirect.de/en/darkroom/paper-developing/gelatine-filters/4632/foma-variant-correction-filters-8.9x8.9-cm?c=68).

Rollei RPN is a great old formula that you should be able to get easily, I use it and love it with Adox mcp 312 paper

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #20 on:** December 04, 2015, 05:12:10 PM »

Print developers are something else I will have to investigate eventually.

BTW, what's the difference between the Foma and the Ilford contrast filters? Is it worth it to spend the money on the Ilford ones?

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #21 on:** December 04, 2015, 06:03:20 PM »

I don't know the difference, but I'd say it's important that they are marked clearly (or have instructions) so that you know which grade is which. The colour order is not completely intuitive.

Pete_R · « **Reply #22 on:** December 04, 2015, 09:56:56 PM »

Will MG filters work (as expected) with a LED light source? They normally get used with an incandescent light source so I'm thinking the results will be different.

Pete_R · « **Reply #23 on:** December 04, 2015, 10:17:55 PM »

Quote from: Peter R on December 04, 2015, 09:56:56 PM

Will MG filters work (as expected) with a LED light source? They normally get used with an incandescent light source so I'm thinking the results will be different.

Just found this on the Iford site:

"Filter transmission values are based on the assumption that a tungsten light source will be used to expose the paper."

Francois · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2015, 10:47:47 PM »

I guess that it won't matter much if a warm LED light is used compared to the cold ones.
I have some at home which are rated at something like 3600°K... probably close enough to incandescent to avoid any problems.
Besides, the blue-ish one will activate mainly the low contrast layers.

Though you can always use come CC filters to bring the light down to a decent value.

Pete_R · « **Reply #25 on:** December 04, 2015, 11:23:23 PM »

Colour temperature is pretty meaningless here as it doesn't say anything about the spectral response. LEDs don't conform to the requirement for a true colour temperature instead they are classified using a colour rendering index which is purely a visual system and just because it might match a colour temperature of an incandescent source doesn't mean it will have the same spectral response.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jharr · « **Reply #26 on:** December 05, 2015, 12:16:15 AM »

"spectral response"?? Really??

FLOWER FOUL!

Chinon-Ektachrome-020 by James Harr, on Flickr

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #27 on:** December 05, 2015, 07:37:58 AM »

OK. So using contrast filters with a LED light might not be ideal. But it's probably better than using NO filters at all.

I will eventually get an enlarger anyway, but for now this will have to do.

Pete_R · « **Reply #28 on:** December 05, 2015, 08:58:26 AM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on December 05, 2015, 07:37:58 AM

OK. So using contrast filters with a LED light might not be ideal. But it's probably better than using NO filters at all.

I will eventually get an enlarger anyway, but for now this will have to do.

Suck it and see I would say but, if you get unexpected results, then just keep in mind the LEDs might be a cause.

Pete_R · « **Reply #29 on:** December 05, 2015, 09:05:57 AM »

Quote from: jharr on December 05, 2015, 12:16:15 AM

"spectral response"?? Really??

FLOWER FOUL!

Only a little foul surely - more like a hand ball?

Andrej K · « **Reply #30 on:** December 05, 2015, 09:10:14 AM »

Quote from: Urban Hafner on December 04, 2015, 05:12:10 PM

BTW, what's the difference between the Foma and the Ilford contrast filters? Is it worth it to spend the money on the Ilford ones?

YES! YES and YES! While foma filters work, they are a PITA - you have to fine-tune the desired effect by combining two filters - sometimes you use just one and it makes a mess in exposure times.

Wait, I may have a set of gel ilford filters that I no longer use, since they are too small for my 13x18cm durst (I use ilford under-lens filters now).

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #31 on:** December 05, 2015, 09:16:51 AM »

Thanks everyone. I expected something like this from the Foma gels as the Ilford blurb said that they are better as you don't have to adjust the exposure times.

And if you find the filters Andrej ... That would be awesome!

Francois · « **Reply #32 on:** December 05, 2015, 03:45:44 PM »

The Ilford filters are definitely well designed. On my 6x6 enlarger, they have a permanent place in the tray, even for grade 2.
The difference between them and the other brands is that they combine both a color component and a ND component to make exposures even at nearly all grades (except the high contrast ones that need one more stop)

Dave Elden · « **Reply #33 on:** December 05, 2015, 06:46:23 PM »

Quote from: Peter R on December 05, 2015, 08:58:26 AM

Quote from: Urban Hafner on December 05, 2015, 07:37:58 AM
OK. So using contrast filters with a LED light might not be ideal. But it's probably better than using NO filters at all.

I will eventually get an enlarger anyway, but for now this will have to do.

Suck it and see I would say but, if you get unexpected results, then just keep in mind the LEDs might be a cause.

Agreed, you'll likely see somewhat uneven steps between grades (compared to with a standard incandescent lamp), this is what you observe using a cold cathode source designed for graded paper for example. That source probably has a spectral energy distribution even further away from incandescent than the white LED though so I would not expect the effect to be so large.
Having said that it sounds as if you aren't currently using contrast filters as part of your workflow so these may be second order effects initially.

Dave.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #34 on:** December 05, 2015, 06:49:39 PM »

I don't do any printing at this point Dave. I'm still trying to get all the parts together.

BTW, I think your post calls for another flower foul.

Francois · « **Reply #35 on:** December 05, 2015, 08:31:46 PM »

Quote from: Dave Elden on December 05, 2015, 06:46:23 PM

Agreed, you'll likely see somewhat uneven steps between grades (compared to with a standard incandescent lamp), this is what you observe using a cold cathode source designed for graded paper for example. That source probably has a spectral energy distribution even further away from incandescent than the white LED though so I would not expect the effect to be so large.
Having said that it sounds as if you aren't currently using contrast filters as part of your workflow so these may be second order effects initially.

Dave.

Ilford did make a cold cathode enlarger for Multigrade paper. It used two tubes, one green and one blue, that were computer controlled to get very precise grades and all the intermediates.
I think they probably used some sort of pulse width modulation system to get the full range.

I know Phototechniques tried it many years ago using some CFLs and had quite some success... but they said it printed softer than incandescent.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #36 on:** December 06, 2015, 03:36:12 PM »

on the theme of cheap contrast filters, he had some (can't remember what brand) that got smudged if you had a wet hand while handling them

Francois · « **Reply #37 on:** December 06, 2015, 09:48:19 PM »

They're the Ilford sheets you use over the lens. The color is set in a gelatin layer that isn't hardened. So when you wet them, the color just runs.

But if you can't find filters at a proper price, I have a conversion table for Ilford to Rosco that is supposed to work just fine.
This has the added advantages that the sheets are waterproof, heatproof and come in huge sizes.
Here's the list

Ilford - Rosco Calcolor series
0   90Y
½   60Y
1   30Y
1½   15Y
2½   15M
3   30M
3½   60M
4   90M

As for the exposure, you can calculate a factor pretty easily using the transmission datasheets that come with the filters. Those values are set in % of light going through.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #38 on:** December 07, 2015, 11:54:31 AM »

Hey look at that YouTube video I found on exactly the same topic.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #39 on:** December 10, 2015, 06:34:31 PM »

I made a lamp shade out of a can on the weekend and installed the safe light I bought years ago. The drying is also sorted with a small rotary clothes drying I have hanging from the ceiling.

And yesterday I ordered development trays, tongs, and a bottle of Rollei RPN.

Now I just need the contrast filters and I ready. Luckily the darkroom has no windows (by design) so getting it light tight will be easy.

To say that I'm excited is and understatement.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #40 on:** December 12, 2015, 11:36:21 PM »

wohoo urban is getting a darkroom! this is great, congrats

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2016, 09:05:28 AM »

I finally made it. With the filters that Andrej so graciously sent me for free I was now able to hack together a light source with contrast filters. I just use four paperclips (the clamp type) to attach the filter to the lamp shade.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2016, 09:07:18 AM »

I then tried doing contact prints of my first successful 4x5 negative. I played around with it a bit and for some reason thought that an 8s exposure would be correct. Now I think that something like 4s (or even less?) would be better. I'll have to give it another try soon!

Sandeha Lynch · « **Reply #43 on:** January 17, 2016, 01:39:54 PM »

Wow, that's super for a first time set up.

Although it soon becomes predictable and intuitive, I think they say that you should sort the exposure first, and then adjust the contrast filters.

Francois · « **Reply #44 on:** January 17, 2016, 02:18:07 PM »

Urban: get a Kodak projection print scale.
It's a transparent calibrated step wedge that will give you all the exposures and their time on a single print.
You could do a regular test strip for free but the other one is the easiest to do.

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #45 on:** January 17, 2016, 02:38:51 PM »

Thanks for the suggestion Francois. They seem to be a bit hard to come by though.

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #46 on:** January 17, 2016, 06:51:00 PM »

Not a Kodak Product but would this do?

http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/delta-test-strip-printer-print-projection-calculator-scale/p890

Mike

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #47 on:** January 17, 2016, 07:17:24 PM »

Thanks Mike! I'll see if I can find that somewhere closer to home 25GBP postage is a bit steep!

Urban Hafner · « **Reply #48 on:** January 17, 2016, 07:28:09 PM »

I found it on B&H and there shipping to Germany is only $10. Go figure.

So before I spend $20 on a piece of foil: Is this even useful in my case? It says expose for 60s which seems rather long for my setup. I think my exposure times will be around 4s. Can I just expose for 30s and halve the times on the scale?

Francois · « **Reply #49 on:** January 17, 2016, 08:24:44 PM »

That's what they say in the kodak instructions.
Or you could expose for 15s and divide by 4.

Or you can do a log based test strip.
expose everything for 1s, cover a strip and add 1s, cover a strip and add 2s, then 4s, then 8s.
So you end up with 1,2,4,8,16 seconds.

And if you want to lower the exposure times, add either a dimmer or some ND filter to the setup.
Or just make some sort of lid with holes in it to lower the amount of light... or just stick some pieces of window screen behind the filter... that will cut light and still let air through... paint the screen with a brush to make the holes smaller.