Controlling contrast when making LARGE medium format prints

M

Merkin

For the Weekend
Local time
1:20 PM
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
867
View My Gallery
The only time I have ever tried making a very large print (approx. 48 inches square) the contrast was too low, even with a number five filter. Granted, the negative was from a holga, but the negative looked fine printed at smaller sizes, and I was using delta 100 film. I shot with a flash in a studio, so my exposure was as correct as exposure can ever be with a holga. Other than the low contrast, the image looked surprisingly good, especially for a Holga image. The grain was a lot smaller than I expected. I was printing from a standard beseler 35mm enlarger instead of a 4x5 enlarger. Assuming I used a camera with a proper lens, and a 4x5 enlarger, could I expect better results? Also, are there any particular tricks, either at the time of taking the shot, or in the darkroom that I should be aware of when making very large prints from 6x6 negatives? I have really been missing that experience of very large printing, but I would like to know that better results are possible before I invest in doing it again.
 
Alot of possible variables - off the top of my head

Print underexposure?

Under-development (due to the large surface area - method would be tricky to keep the developer from exausting) - most likely IMO.

paper not matched to filters

graded paper?
 
The only thing I can think of would be if the paper wasn't fresh and properly stored. Try a piece of your regular small paper at that magnification with the same lens and magnification and see if that's the problem.
 
When I made this image (for a class) it was for a final project which involved multiple prints. I used a fresh box of 8x10 paper, cut each piece to 8x8, and affixed them all to a wall. I used the 2x10 strips left over to do loads of test strips, and the best result I got was still a bit too low, it (the image was a self portrait) made my skin tone look about a stop darker than it is, somewhere in the neighborhood of zone four to five instead of five to six. If there had been a 'number six' filter, I think that would have nailed it. The paper was Ilford VC, I forget whether I used fiber or RC. I think I may have used RC, as I didn't want to spend the money on a fresh 100 sheet box of fiber. I changed the developer two or three times over the course of the processing, and I had the safelights turned off.
 
In the first paragraph you said "48 inches square". So you used multiple pieces for the one image? That would have been 36 8x8 prints, plus however many test strips you made. Did you immediately make the prints after making the test strips? Mix fresh developer for the prints? Seems like exausted developer is the culprit. You probably need to mix up at least a gallon of working solution for that many prints.
 
Nod Al, I whipped up a gallon of developer, did my test strips, whipped up a second gallon, did half of the 36 prints, and then whipped up a third gallon to do the other half. All of the prints looked the same, I couldn't see any difference in contrast from one batch to the next, it was all uniformly a bit too low. I am reassured enough to try this again with negs from a better camera, I am beginning to suspect that the holga was the culprit, as one thing I am certain of is the fact that I had plenty of developer that was changed often and mixed correctly.
 
I'd be a 'chicken' and use 12"x16" paper, as that is still easy to handle and relatively cheap per sheet. And like everyone says, plenty of developer and plenty (within reason) of development too.

It sounds interesting - may I borrow your idea ? I'm thinking of not-quite-the-same negative per sheet though 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom