double printing

[FallisPhoto]

has anyone else here ever done any double printing?

Explaination: In double printing, the paper, under an enlarger, is exposed to two different negatives in succession (not the same thing as a negative sandwich or a double exposure). These are double prints (warning, nudity):
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=72915
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=73002
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showfull.php?photo=73363
http://fallisphoto.deviantart.com/art/Clouds-97394512

 

[Roger Hicks]

How does it differ from a double exposure (during enlargement)?

I thought it was combination printing until I looked at the pics -- which I really rather liked, by the way, even though nudes are not one of my favourite subjects.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mbisc]

Jerry Uelsman (www.uelsmann.com) is the undisputed champion of double printing -- check out his website for some of his master pieces -- stunning stuff!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Jerry Uelsman (www.uelsmann.com) is the undisputed champion of double printing -- check out his website for some of his master pieces -- stunning stuff!

Isn't that combination printing too? Or are double exposures (unmasked) also involved?

I agree that his stuff is stunning. I met him once, and consider myself privileged.

Cheers,

R.

 

[FallisPhoto]

How does it differ from a double exposure (during enlargement)?

I thought it was combination printing until I looked at the pics -- which I really rather liked, by the way, even though nudes are not one of my favourite subjects.

Cheers,

Roger

In a double exposure, the texture would print on the background too, although it would probably be lightly (unless you overexposed the first shot). With a negative sandwich, in the darkroom, the texture would print very strongly on the background and lightly on the model.

 

[Al Kaplan]

I met Jerry once myself back in the 1960's. Another thing that's interesting to do is combining part of a negative image and part of a positive image on the same print. Either way, it requires a lot of dexterity in your burning and dodging, and you never can get two prints exactly the same. It's easiest to do if you have two or three enlargers set up so you can just move the paper from one easel to the next. And I don't want to have anybody pipe up with an "it's so easy to do in P-shop".

 

[FallisPhoto]

Jerry Uelsman (www.uelsmann.com) is the undisputed champion of double printing -- check out his website for some of his master pieces -- stunning stuff!

Jerry Uelsmann may do a little double printing, but his main forte is photomontage. J. K. Potter is another master of photomontage, although his stuff is much more "in-your-face" than Jerry Uelsmann's. http://www.jkpotter.com/ I've done some of that, but I figured I'd never "out-Uelsmann" Uelsmann. I started dong double-printed nudes because nobody else was doing them.

Photomontage is yet another way of piecing together different negatives, but in photomontage, you don't print them on top of one another; you dodge an area of one negative and burn in an area of another in the dodged area, like in this photo (warning, nudity): http://fallisphoto.deviantart.com/art/Front-Door-2836508 The tricky parts are getting the tones to match and getting everything to line up just right.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Getting everything to line up is easy with the multiple enlarger and easel set up. You stick a waste print in the easel upside down and draw the major features of the projected image of negative #1, move the paper to easel #2 and adust the size and alignment and sketch that also, etc. Then all you gotta do is make a jillion test strips. You might also want to use different variable contrast filters for the various images, and/or do your burning in through different VC filters. Figure on going through a lot of paper...LOL

 

[FallisPhoto]

Getting everything to line up is easy with the multiple enlarger and easel set up. You stick a waste print in the easel upside down and draw the major features of the projected image of negative #1, move the paper to easel #2 and adust the size and alignment and sketch that also, etc. Then all you gotta do is make a jillion test strips. You might also want to use different variable contrast filters for the various images, and/or do your burning in through different VC filters. Figure on going through a lot of paper...LOL

I'm talking about getting the burned part to line up with the dodged part. If it isn't perfect, you get either a dark or light ring around the burned in part.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Photomontage is yet another way of piecing together different negatives, but in photomontage, you don't print them on top of one another; you dodge an area of one negative and burn in an area of another in the dodged area, like in this photo (warning, nudity): http://fallisphoto.deviantart.com/art/Front-Door-2836508 The tricky parts are getting the tones to match and getting everything to line up just right.

Sorry, I must be unusually obtuse today -- and we have a difference of terminology too. What I call 'combination printing' (as in HP Robinson and OG Reijander in the 1850s and 60s), you call 'photomontage', which for me includes (and is most commonly associated with) physical cut-and-paste, as was popular among the avant-garde in the 1920s.

I still can't see how two successive exposures differs from a double exposure, though I fully take your point about the texture appearing in the background. How do you stop this happening?

Or are you distinguishing between 'double exposure' on film, and 'two successive exposures' on printing?

Sorry to keep harping on this, but I must be misunderstanding something, and I'm intrigued to know. If the pics look good on my rotten internet monitor, they're probably very good indeed,

Cheers,

Roger

 

[FallisPhoto]

... which for me includes (and is most commonly associated with) physical cut-and-paste, as was popular among the avant-garde in the 1920s.

I've always thought of that as collage, not photomontage.

Or are you distinguishing between 'double exposure' on film, and 'two successive exposures' on printing?

Yes, that's what I am doing.