Help! My contact prints are less sharp than original film

[cotdt]

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?

[SAShruby]

Diffusion of light, try to increase distance between light source and contact. 8ft or so.

[David Vickery]

What size is your film????

Diffuse light sources are going to produce a less sharp image than a point source (a single light bulb will be sharper than a fluorescent tube).

How many people do you expect to view your prints through a 22x loupe?

If you are printing 8x10 or smaller then the thing to change is the light source. A simple light bulb of 100 watts to 300 watts will work fine. If you are printing larger than 8x10 then you need a vacuum frame.

[cotdt]

So the issue is the diffused light? What would make a good uniform point source light? All the light bulbs I have have irregularly shaped points of light that is far from uniform.

[domenico Foschi]

I can understand that diffused light might have an effect on an enlarged negative, but how can it be influential in a contact print?

[Asher Kelman]

I can understand that diffused light might have an effect on an enlarged negative, but how can it be influential in a contact print?

If one would use a milky glass cover over the negative, then, of course, one would have very diffuse light with thousands of light sources at very short distances from each grain of silver. So there will be multiple short shadows from each silver point and so the print will be less sharp. Of course, this is a most extreme case, but anything but a point source and great distance, will give multiple shadows,

Asher

[Joe Lipka]

David - REAL Photographers will look at every photograph with a 22x loupe. :D REAL photographers will always have their nose up against the glass looking at a photograph. :D

Seriously, though, I would suggest that you need to get the glass, negative and printing paper as close together as possible. Some choices to do this would be:

Spring clamps to hold the glass/negative/printing paper/masonite backing "sandwich" together.
Contact printing frame.
Vacuum easel.

You did not mention whether the print was wet or dry. A dry print would not have a swollen gelatin emulsion on the surface. That might make it look unsharp.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

The "modern" answer: A strong white or blue LED would probably be a very good candidate for a point source light. As the nature of LED's are that they emit a light ray which is spread by a lens, one could grind the top off the LED to make a flat 1/8" point light.
A more classical answer: Any relatively small lightbulb with clear glass will do. Even if the filament thread isn't point shaped it would be small enough to act like one if you have it e.g. 3 - 4 feet or more from the glass/neg/paper sandwich. At least that is what is commonly used by many contact printers, like e.g. Brett Weston and others. I think I read somewhere that small oven bulbs or fridge bulbs were weak enough to give enough time to dodge and burn when neccesary.

//Björn

[Robert A. Zeichner]

I don't think you've done anything wrong. I think you may be expecting more from the paper that it can possibly deliver. Film is designed for magnification and as such, has far greater resolution than paper. The paper is the final product and depending on the size of the print, will be viewed at anywhere from 10" to a few feet. I can't even focus my eyes at 10" anymore and I'm sure I'm not alone. Some years ago I designed a testing system for ground glass/film plane coincidence and did all my tests with B&W negative film. Someone asked me if I had ever tried it with Polaroid to save the time and trouble of processing. I hadn't, so I did and it didn't work for the very reason I explained above.

[Mark Sampson]

There have been numerous threads about the resolving power of photographic paper. It seems to be a complex subject, at least I didn't try to understand it fully. But I seem to recall that paper only has a resolution of 10 lines per mm or so- much less than film. But I'd check neg/paper contact, and light source issues, as stated above, before worrying about paper resolution.

[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]

:D ;) :p 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.