Perforated frame around wet print

[nikon_sam]

Boy...I was wrong...

Boy...I was wrong...

I must say now after really looking at the first image that I was completely wrong with my answer to the OP's question...in my haste to provide feedback I did not think through the whole image...if done the way I explained it the whole border around the image would be black...perf holes would be black not white...
I need to do more thinking...before taking action...that's three times this week I've had to apologize for my "Not Thinking"...:bang:

 

[filmtwit]

is it just me, or are also seeing color in the edge codes?

 

[taylan]

is it just me, or are also seeing color in the edge codes?

I didn't noticed....

 

[MartinP]

Well, I played around in the darkroom on Sunday and, after everything dried, this is what I came up with...

The straight print was made by simply printing the whole negative, perforations and all. The white perforations seen on the sample at the top of the thread are not possible in a straight print and that sample was composed digitally. There are perfectly good reasons for that, as the frame-number has special significance for the photographer and a plain black border would not be "understood" by most viewers of the photo at the anniversary for which it was made.

The prints here were placed on a piece of card on the floor and photographed with a digi point-and-shoot. The lighting wasn't so great either, but you can get the idea...


1) Straight_print by martinp_2009, on Flickr

The effect that started the thread is something like this instead . . .


2) Masked_print by martinp_2009, on Flickr

This print was made with two exposures on the same piece of paper. One for the image, which remains the same as in the straight print, and another exposure for the print outside of the image (the perforations, frame-numbers and so on).

If this post works, I'll put another one here with the embarrassingly simple way of making the print with the white perforations.

 

[MartinP]

Looking closely at the filmcode and markings on the masked print it is clear that the non-image parts of the photo come from a piece of Kodachrome-64 ! That's because it was necessary to reverse a piece of black slide-film to get the white perforations, and K-chrome was what I had available.

As seen below, this was simply done by contacting the K-chrome on an ordinary piece of sheet-film (Fomapan 100, not that it makes much difference) and there are the required three tones visible - black, grey and film-base - after dev, stop and fix in print-trays.


3) Slidestrip & sheet-contact by martinp_2009, on Flickr

The resulting strip was carefully cut from the sheet-film so that I could use it in the neg-carrier in place of the image-negative.

The two exposures on the paper need to be separate, so I just cut a mask from black paper. The image size was marking on the mask-sheet while under the enlarger, and then cut out. That gave a mask for the perforations etc. The rectangle which I had removed was trimmed another couple of mm, so that there would be no untidy gaps between the masks, and this piece was the mask for the image.

Here are the outer and inner (with the filmbox on it to keep it still and flat) masks at that point.


4) Both masks by martinp_2009, on Flickr

As the image posting seems to be working, I'll post pictures of each mask as used for the exposures, and the resulting prints side by side.

 

[loquax ludens]

Great work, MartinP! I look forward to seeing your masks and final prints.

 

[MartinP]

For lining up the masks it seemed easier to make the image exposure first, so I removed the inner-mask from the easel and printed the negative with the whole image. I suppose it would be possible to enlarge and adjust the image too, but in this case I didn't do so.


5) Mask_outer by martinp_2009, on Flickr


The inner-mask was returned to the easel, the outer mask was removed (carefully so as not to disturb the paper underneath), and the negative-strip was swapped for the cut-down piece of sheetfilm. The second exposure was made.


6) Mask_inner by martinp_2009, on Flickr

A couple of test-strips had showed that both exposures could be the same, so that reduced the fiddling around a bit. Here are both prints together.


7) Both prints by martinp_2009, on Flickr

For someone with no film experience, the white perforations shout "FILM" far more clearly than the more genuine straight print so, for many audiences, this way of presentation might make the origin of an photograph more immediately understandable.

The image in my example is a backstreet in Istanbul and has some significance for Taylan, the OP. Maybe he can mention that himself . . .

😉

 

[MartinP]

The immediate question is why not reverse a piece of black neg film on to the sheet, then laminate a piece of blank neg film (with numbers etc. but no images) along with it for printing, in order to get the correct format of text and film-markings to match the filmstock used for the image. Well, it was tricky to get that lined up and flat in my neg-carrier, and also the perforations and lettering were not equally sharp and contrasty.

This alternative would best be done by making yet another pair of film contact-prints, to get a better match, then using that for the filmstrip exposure. Maybe that's for the next playtime. 🙂

 

[dano87]

Just get a spare film holder and take a file to it. Takes about 10 minutes.

Agreed, I've done it like this.

 

[taylan]

...The image in my example is a backstreet in Istanbul and has some significance for Taylan, the OP. Maybe he can mention that himself . . .

😉

You are a great man Martin 🙂. Thank you for your effort. Also photograph you printed is a great surprise for me. It is our darkroom and party place for RFF meetings🙂