Contact printing through sleeves?

[John Kasaian]

I've been thinking of up grading from my glassines to either Print file or View all negative preservers. The binder rings on the Print file look to be worth the extra cost and I find the ability to make contact prints without removing the negative from either product both attractive and in one regard, repellant, as something is placed between the negative and the paper.

Seperation.

I have a problem with that. I feel the negative should physically contact the paper as part of a continuity of the process.
Yeah, I know this sounds flakey, but not having that "touch" just makes me feel wierd. It is to me like the negative imparts some element of it's self onto the print besides just holding back particles of light from the emulsion.

I think that this is the main reason why I haven't been able to embrace digital printing in my own work.

It is a personal thing, I realize, but I was wondering if anyone else here has the same or similar philosophy?

[ljsegil]

I can't speak for contact printing, but I have scanned 4x5 trannies through Print File pages on an Epson flatbed, and although the results are suitable for cataloging the images on the computer, they are certainly not of reproduction quality. I get occasional image obscurement by what I presume to be reflection off the sleeve, loss of detail compared to scans without the sleeves, and sometimes inaccurate color. That aside, it is a quick and handy way to get a lot of images into the machine quickly. The extra pressure from the print holder might ameliorate a lot of these problems, though it may also introduce Newton's rings as an additional impediment. The sheets are easy to remove from the Print File sleeves for conventional neg/paper printing however, and the storage in ring binders is certainly convenient. Now if only I were organized enough to keep track of it all....
LJS

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can't stand contacts made through sleeves or file pages. I want to be able to assess sharpness from the contact print with a loupe without having to check the negative. Not-quite-contact prints made through sleeves or print file pages aren't sharp. Proofs made with a scanner aren't reliable either, because the scanner's unsharpness and subsequent sharpening routines obscure the actual sharpness or lack thereof in the original neg.

A contact print requires contact.

[Renato Tonelli]

I can't stand contacts made through sleeves or file pages. I want to be able to assess sharpness from the contact print with a loupe without having to check the negative. Not-quite-contact prints made through sleeves or print file pages aren't sharp. Proofs made with a scanner aren't reliable either, because the scanner's unsharpness and subsequent sharpening routines obscure the actual sharpness or lack thereof in the original neg.

A contact print requires contact.

I agree. I know this after having printed hundreds of contact sheets through the plastic sleeves. Is it really sharp? Is that little blemish on the negative or the plastic sleeve?, etc. I still use the Printfile pages: I put them in binders with the contact sheets. It makes life easier when searching for a particular negative.

[willwilson]

I catalog all of my negatives by contact print. I do not remove them from there individual sleeve. I use the individual side-lock type sleeve, not a binder sheet. I try to handle negatives as little as possible. I use the contact prints for indexing and cropping ideas. If I am in doubt about sharpness I examine the negative with a loupe on a light table or just make a test print.

I don't see a reason to go to the trouble of making a bunch of "perfect" contact prints if they are just for indexing and selecting prints for proofing, especially if you shoot 4x5, but ymmv.

[Brian Ellis]

I wouldn't make a print through a negative sleeve. But I always - in darkroom and digitally - make contact sheets through the sleeve. The only purpose for which I use a contact sheet is to give me an idea of which negatives are worth pursuing further and to create a record of the negatives so I can go back later and find one if necessary. The sleeves are fine for that purpose. I don't evaluate "sharpness" on the basis of a contact sheet and wouldn't do that even if I removed the negatives from the sleeve. Seeing a 35mm, 6x7, or 4x5 image isn't good enough to tell me how "sharp" my 11x14 or 16x20 print is going to be. I evaluate "sharpness" with the first proof.

[Patrik Roseen]

I have switched from glassine envelops to transparent sleeves where the sleeve is open on both shorter sides. The sleeve is melted together on one side and I put the film sheet in so that this thicker melting is on the non emulsion side, i.e. the negative emulsion will be as close as possible to the paper for contact printing.

I only do contact prints through the sleeve for test purposes!

[Mark Sawyer]

I agree. I know this after having printed hundreds of contact sheets through the plastic sleeves. Is it really sharp? Is that little blemish on the negative or the plastic sleeve?, etc.

I'm with Renato on this; I'd never print through a sleeve. And I have plenty of reject prints I could use for index prints, but with large format, I find the negatives are sufficient in themselves when I go looking for something.

I use the Print File for my 8x10 negatives, but I have a strong preference for using their print sleeves ("Style No. 810-2P") rather than their 8x10 negative sleeves, as they are made from a thicker material. This gives a little better protection in handling, and makes removal of the negative for printing much easier.

[John Kasaian]

Thanks Mark, that's a very useful tip!

[John Bowen]

I love the Print File sleeves for LF negatives. I NEVER print, even proof prints through the sleeves. I tried it once and was very disappointed in the results. YMMV