Contact printing ... sources for information and technique?

Keith

Keith

The best camera is one that still works!
Local time
3:41 PM
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
19,242
Having been guided to Ron Reeder's site recently regarding creating digitaly printed negatives on clear media, I'm interested in the process of contact printing large negatives created this way, possibly up to A3 size. Is there a source of information for the basics of doing this ... allowing for the fact that I have no wet darkroom experience at all?

Ron's site has information and advice available about the processes involved in creating the negative itself and he himself specialises in palladium prints ... but at this stage I'm more intersted in using conventional black and white photographic paper.
 
All you need is a negative, a sheet of heavy glass bigger than the negative (I use 1/4" thick), and a light source. If you are using regular enlarging paper a light source with an aperture is important to control the amount of light needed in a reasonable time so that you can repeat your efforts, dodge and burn, etc. If you are enlarging on AZO paper or similar, these are slow speed, and you can just use a general reflector and a standard light bulb, about five feet or so away, and get times around 20 seconds.
 
I think the difficulty in this technique is producing a digital negative print on transparency of sufficient quality to contact print from. But I have to ask the question why? If you are going to go to all that trouble then why not just get a MF camera, enlarger and do it the usual way. Is the quality really going to be that much better or even the equal of standard enlargement?
 
tlitody said:
I think the difficulty in this technique is producing a digital negative print on transparency of sufficient quality to contact print from. But I have to ask the question why? If you are going to go to all that trouble then why not just get a MF camera, enlarger and do it the usual way. Is the quality really going to be that much better or even the equal of standard enlargement?
Click to expand...


I've asked myself that question and I think it's the ability to manipulate the creation of the negative digitally that appeals to me. Not to mention the negative itself can be created form a digitally sourced image.
 
Well I guess if you are using your low light images then that would be tricky starting from film.
Contact printing itself is pretty straight forward from what little I know. The main thing is holding neg very tight to paper and there are contact printing frames you can buy for that. Again the largeformat site has info buried in there and plenty people with experience.
 
Keith, first thing; you need darkness and a safe light. An old enlarger and lens which covers the print area without to much fall off and an ordinary glass plate to start with. Three dev trays, thermometer and timer, tongs and the chemistry. One tray to wash the print.

Should all be gotten cheap maybe even free.

Succes.
 
And if you are taking the trouble of finding an enlarger and lens you could make it a decent one and try enlarging the odd print just for fun since you will be having everything to produce one (save a focus finder and an easel; the latter is not mandatory, I started with a glass plate.)
 
tlitody said:
...

But I have to ask the question why? If you are going to go to all that trouble then why not just get a MF camera, enlarger and do it the usual way. Is the quality really going to be that much better or even the equal of standard enlargement?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand the logic or lure of this either. Since some people have obviously gone to a lot of trouble to push and apparently commercialize this, it must be an advantage of some sort. Can somebody enlighten me and others?
 
oftheherd said:
I guess I don't understand the logic or lure of this either. Since some people have obviously gone to a lot of trouble to push and apparently commercialize this, it must be an advantage of some sort. Can somebody enlighten me and others?
Click to expand...


Check out Ron Reeder's site ... the link is in my first post.

I wandered over to the LF forum and it seems to have a fairly keen following there. Ron Reeder scans MF or LF negatives with an Imacon then post processes the images in photoshop before inverting them to a negative and printing on clear media with an inkjet. He seems to still prefer using an analog shooting process but I see an advantage in being able to convert high resolution images from my D700 into physical negatives. I'm not overly anamoured with the prints from my R2400 and I'm open to try this this to see if I like a wet print result better. To suggest using an enlarger conventionally is all very well but that's not going to help me produce an analog wet print taken with my D700. :)

I guess I'm just attracted to hybrid techniques for some reason ... something happened in my youth maybe? I'm just difficult? :D


(I haven't been to the post office for over a week but apparently there is some OS mail there for me! :))
 
Hi Keith,
I know that all that is just an excuse to buy this little toy, which is going to deliver negatives big enough to contact print them without all this annoying photoshop nonense:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/pho...mat-20x24-de-golden-busch-21-very-rare/cat/10

If you get it, you will also make the head bartender happy...

Personally, what is making me perplexed, is the internegative printed with an inkjet. The reason is, that one of the main points of doing contact prints in B&W is the incredible and "continuous" resolution and tonal transition you can obtain. However, if the internegative is made of droplets of much bigger size than the silver grains, the trick is off.

If you are so enamoured of high qulity analogue prints, explore the world of half plate cameras,(http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/01/the-single-use-device.html), or even of big size polaroids.
 
yeah, do it properly and buy yourself a mans camera from http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/cameras/lovica_20x24_e.html
You could even motorise the trolley it comes with to get you to your shooting location.
But seriously I can see why making large digital negatives from files appeals when you look at the size of these monsters. But I still don't really see the point compared to traditional enlarging. Not unless you are doing major manipulations in PS.

20x24_gr.jpg
 
Last edited:
Also Ilford introduced their positive B+W paper recently so by loading that into a film holder of one of these LF cameras, you can bypass the enlarger and go straight to the print development from taking the image. Designed for hybrid and the likes of pinhole cameras.
 
And of course you can send manipulated digi files out to a lab to print on fibre based black and white using laser such as durst lambda.

So I guess this comes down to whether you just want to do this yourself or if you are planning on hybrid printing processes which labs don't handle.

If it were just plain printing to silver gelatin papers I would use a lab. I know it costs but so does your time.
 
Keith said:
I've asked myself that question and I think it's the ability to manipulate the creation of the negative digitally that appeals to me. Not to mention the negative itself can be created form a digitally sourced image.
Click to expand...


Hi Keith, here I am to the rescue :D here are two sources for you:

http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/

http://unblinkingeye.com/index.html

As to why: Well, to each his own but with a digital negative created and saved as a TIFF, you essentially have a rasterized file that can be increased to virtually any size (within reason that is). For example, if you start with a 4x5 neg, you can create a 8x10 or larger digital negative with no distortion or loss of detail.

You might also want to checkout Sandy King, a specialist in Carbon printing.

Here is an excerpt on the unblinking eye: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/CarSym/CSK/csk.html


I believe the Photographers Formulary is offering workshops in Montana and other locales: http://stores.photoformulary.com/StoreFront.bok

Don't let the naysayers disuade you Keith - Damn the torpedos, Full Speed Ahead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom