Suggestions for 8x10 Contact Print Paper?

[Chauncey Walden]

Try this: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/428282...ets?cat_id=505

[Brian Ellis]

I used Azo for quite a while to make 8x10 contact prints, then switched to Kodak Polymax Fine Art and finally to Ilford MG IV. I developed Azo in Amidol, the others in an Ilford developer the exact name of which I don't remember. I exposed Azo under a light bulb, the other two under an enlarger with an Aristo variable contrast head. I didn't think any one paper was "better" than the other, it was just a question of what look one preferred, though I never cared for the single weight of Azo or the relative difficulty of processing between grades when 2 was too flat and 3 had too much contrast.

[Ralph Miyashiro]

Try Fomalux 312 as previously mentioned. It's RC with a mat finish. It's inexpensive. It's easy to use, it's RC, fixes and washes quickly. I use it on 5x7. Very slow, with a 15 watt bulb I have exposure times of about 30sec. to sometimes over a minute and a half. I know RC is shunned but I'm a beginner and don't know any better and it has enabled me to print without an enlarger. I just wish it came in glossy.

Ralph

[John Bowen]

Thanks John, I stand corrected, two grades. The fact that I will have to start adjusting negatives to fit the paper is not for me a selling point. I'm not keen on locking my negatives into a paper that may or may not be available next year; and if this adjusting makes scanning fussy, it is for sure not an option.

I'm sorry if I misled you, but I have always adjusted my negatives to "fit the paper." I guess that comes from almost always using fixed grade papers. We really won't know for sure until the paper arrives.

As far as a paper "that may not be available next year" given the state of analog photography can you name a paper that WILL be available next year? We all face that potential dilemna.

I've never scanned a negative, so I can't comment on that.

I'm sure you'll find a paper that fits your needs. Have fun!

[nolindan]

I know that an 8x10 enlarger might be better...

You don't need an 8x10 enlarger for contacting - any old enlarger will work - 35mm, 2 1/4, whatever. Don't need much of a lens either. An enlarger just makes for a convenient, even, light source.

A hanging light bulb doesn't produce very even illumination because of light bouncing off the ceiling and walls.

[JR Steel]

A hanging light bulb doesn't produce very even illumination because of light bouncing off the ceiling and walls.

I just put my light bulb in a coffee can and drill a 1/2 inch hole in the bottom and you have a point light source.

[r.e.]

Thanks for all the responses.

When I did contact prints in the past, it was just for proofing. I used a low wattage bulb (8w or 15w, can't recall which now), in a reflector precisely to get broad illumination, with the bulb placed far enough from the glass to slow things down. I didn't have a lot of trouble dodging, etc. with this setup, but I wasn't trying to do anything fancy.

The coffee can with a hole or a 35mm enlarger are interesting ideas.

As for paper, I think that I'll start something readily available and uncomplicated.

[John O'Connell]

If you're just starting up with 8x10 contact printing, I'd order some small packs of fiber-based enlarging paper to try---Ilford Multigrade & Multigrade Warmtone, certainly, and a sampling of whatever else trips your trigger.

I really liked Azo, and still have some American stuff in grades 2 and 3. But it was a bear to process because of the single-weight base. I wouldn't bother with it now for two reasons: dwindling supply and increasing cost.

I tried the Lodima practice run, and it didn't replace Azo for my process or tastes. It might be worth trying, however, because you can order a bunch of fresh paper to play with now.

[Donald Miller]

It all depends on what you want. For those that aspire to the finest in prints, then contact printing with Azo (I assume Lodima as well) is probably the finest in silver based prints that I have seen from currently available materials. I am judging this from actual prints that Michael and Paula have produced and that I have seen first hand up close and personal, so to speak.

If all you want is to proof images then I would probably buy the cheapest RC paper I could get.

While a camera negative density range should match the paper, no matter the paper used, Azo (I assume Lodima as well) DR closely approximates Pt/Pd process.

With water bath and Amidol you can fine tune the paper's characteristics over a fairly substantial range.

I don't use this paper any longer since I primarily digitially print now.

Donald Miller

[nolindan]

I just put my light bulb in a coffee can and drill a 1/2 inch hole in the bottom and you have a point light source.

Not a bad idea. Paint the inside of the can flat black - the 1/2 hole will work as a 'pin hole' and image the lamp onto the contacting frame. You may need to sort through light bulbs to find one that has even illumination.

Another alternative is to paint the inside of the can or box white and arrange it so the light bulb can't be 'seen' by the exit hole. You are then making a mixing chamber - a light source that can produce very even illumination