Help! My contact prints are less sharp than original film

[D. Bryant]

I need urgent help! I got what first appeared to be gorgeous contact prints. Contrast and tones are excellent, and under the naked eye the detail was nice as well. Unfortunately this was just an illusion, because under my 22x loupe, the contact print was clearly less sharp than the original film. What am I doing wrong?

I did my contact prints the usual way, by putting a peice of glass over the negative, emulsion side down onto the paper, and using diffuse light. I'm using Ilford RC Multigrade IV paper, Dektol developer. What am I doing wrong? Why is there less detail in the contact print?

You need a contact printing frame or better yet a vacuum easel to maintain tight contact of the film against the paper.

A diffuse light source, such as the light from an enlarger with a color head, will work fine. You don't need a point light source.

Don Bryant

[Ralph Barker]

Obviously, opinions vary on this issue, based on individual practice and experience.

Personally, I prefer to use the quasi-collimated light from my condenser enlarger to make contact prints. But a diffused head will work, too. The farther the light source is from the contact sandwich, however, the more it will behave like a point light source, relative to the size of the negative. The closer it is, the softer the contact print.

[Armin Seeholzer]

To look on a paper with a 22x loup does not make sence anyway!
The paper resolution is around 16-20 line pairs mm if I remember correctly, there will be your problem you have to make your own better paper or just cool down and never look on a print with a loup!!!!

My 2 cents, Armin

[Pat Kearns]

Do you use a Print File negative sleeve or the like while making the contact print? If so, these soften the detail in a contact print.

[cotdt]

The paper resolution is around 16-20 line pairs mm if I remember correctly, there will be your problem you have to make your own better paper or just cool down and never look on a print with a loup!!!!

What paper will give me 50 line pairs/mm? What about using Ortho film as the paper? Will it have enough contrast as a positive? Making detailed transparencies would sure be neat.

I'm planning to get a 100x microscope next to study the grain.

My scanner can't scan negatives so I'm making prints and scanning those as "documents" on my flatbed. I want high resolution prints for both scanning and to post them on my wall.

[G Benaim]

Hi all,

Reading this thread got me thinking about my contact printing practice, since I sometimes get soft areas, especially highlights. I'm not sure whether it's lack of contact or distance from light source. I use my dichroic enlarger for,light, but have been using it about a foot from the print. I also only use a piece of 1/4 inch glass, not a frame. I just did a test with racking the enlarger head about 4 feet from the print and using bulldog clkips to add pressure to the sandwich, and the prints look better, but not by a lot. I'll wait til tomorrow to see them dry and compare. Why would the distance from the light source affect sharpness? Is this tru only of a diffused light? ALso, what does the fact of softness in the highlights mean? All of the above refers to 8x10 contact prints on fiber paper, Kent Bromide and EMaks, btw, deved in PF-130. Thanks in advance,

GB

[cotdt]

I found that the distance is not all that crucial after all as long as it is far enough. You can get sharper contact prints by using filters. I use cold collimated light through an enlarger now, and I'm getting the maximum resolution possible from the RC paper (I think).

The image on the paper is beneath the surface layer, unlike inkjet prints where the print resides on the surface, so it is impossible to get the negative to "touch" the paper. There is going to be some distance between the negative and the print layer on the paper, and this is enough distance for diffuse light to create some softness.

I guess for the best contact prints you'll have to make your own paper.

[John O'Connell]

I guess for the best contact prints you'll have to make your own paper.

Handmade papers, as I recall, give about 20 lp/mm maximum resolution, unless you plan on creating your own glossy baryta paper with optical whiteners, etc., and simply intend to leave off the anti-scratch coating on top.

I've seen reports of 85+ lp/mm for ordinary graded glossy RC paper, and glossy paper resolution has always been a nonissue for me.

[cotdt]

Handmade papers, as I recall, give about 20 lp/mm maximum resolution, unless you plan on creating your own glossy baryta paper with optical whiteners, etc., and simply intend to leave off the anti-scratch coating on top.

I've seen reports of 85+ lp/mm for ordinary graded glossy RC paper, and glossy paper resolution has always been a nonissue for me.

I'm looking at my prints under a 100x microscope for the sake of curiosity. On the negative, there is a book in the distance that is opened to a page. I can read every word on the negative with the microscope, but on the contact print i can't even see the lines. There is a huge difference in resolution under the microscope, though it's not visible to the naked eye. I'm using Ilford Multigrade RC paper. Maybe I should try more of a point source next time, like the full moon.