Weston's enlarged negatives

[Frederick Leif]

I've been asking the same question for awhile, the best clues I've come across are in an article Edward Weston authored for CAMERA CRAFT published September 1939 titled "Thirty-Five Years of Portraiture". The article is included in Peter Bunnell's "Edward Weston on Photography" - Peregrine Smith Books, 1983.

The article is lengthy, but references his use of enlarged negatives pre-1917 to make 16x20 platinum prints for the London Salon.

A couple of cites - to whet your appetite:

"From the time I left Mexico in 1926 until 1933 all of my professional portraits were made that way..." "I made negatives with a sharp lens on 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 film and enlarged them to 8x10 with the soft lens (a Verito referenced elsewhere in the article), stopped down just short of being sharp. The illusion was complete: the retouching disappeared."

I asked Cole Weston about the enlarged negative process during one of his workshops about two years ago...he said he didn't recall.

Certainly, the running debate about contact vs enlarger quality between Ansel Adams and Edward Weston indicates Weston's decided preference for contact prints for his personal work. As noted, he didn't use an enlarger as we know them.

The book cited above is a great trove of information about his evolution as an artist with many references to his professional portraiture. I'd recommend it to anyone. Fred

[david clark]

Hi again, well 1923-33, my guess is the original negs where nitrate. I'm not sure though. If nitrate, they might just be dust in an envolpe some where. Is there a good source article on this process of making positives and interpositives? Thanks, David

[david clark]

Hi again, it just occurred to me I was told that back then it was not unusual to use factory prepaired glass plate negatives. If he made the interpositive with glass, it might have been impractical to carry it home to California. David

[kthompson]

David, I seem to recall reading in a Lustrum Press darkroom book an interview with Cole Weston, where he made some remark about how he & Brett would scrape the emulsion off his dad's old glass plates (from his commercial work) and use the glass to repair windows....haha...so maybe that's where the interpostitives wound up!

Look, he could have done it any number of ways, including just making a contact print of the smaller neg, and then shooting a copy neg of it...There were also direct-positive films back in the late 40's at least, (Kodak Radiograph is one that sounds about right), but I'm just unsure of any earlier times. 1939 was the last date of manufacture for nitrate based sheet film for Kodak. Other manufacturers dates are hard to find, but unless the originals are in some cold storage vault now, they probably are all gone.

My experience duping films has mostly been by contact with the direct positive films, but I am now getting into the 2-step methods, which have been explained to me as being superior in both control & stability. There are numerous documents about this, including the vendor spec sheet for NARA, and several online sites within the museum/archives community. Probably the best how-to book is Kodak's "Copying & Duplicating in B&W and Color" (pub M-1) and "Conservation of Photography" (F-40). Another good book that may be out of print now, is "Collection, Use & Care of Historical Photographs" by the AASLH. And lastly, just about any edition of the old Morgan & Morgan "Photo Lab Handbook". I have one from the 50's and it's a great resource. One of the few commercial labs that does this for institutions is the Chicago Albumen Works. They specialize in duping 19th century plates & negs by 2-step methods. I have done some duping & making internegs of 8x10 CTs, shooting them on a vc down to 4x5. It's not really that hard, once you get the hang of it, and it doesn't require exotic equipment either. It's just a side of photography that's not exactly "fun", more work....

[kthompson]

Oh hey...one more thing about the Kodak books. They're great resources, because these techniques are solid & don't really change. Unfortunately, several of the films are no longer made that were used most for this. That's where the other sources come in handy, if you decide to try this.

[M.]

If it was an 8.25" Verito on the Graflex, and if his Senica viewcamera had a 30" bellows, he could just barely enlarge from 3.25x4.25 to 8x10. (30-8.25)/8.25 = 2.6 Reproduction ratio.

[david clark]

Hi again, in the back of volume I Mexico of The Daybooks of Edward Weston, there is a piece by B. Newhall titled Edward Weston's Technique. There Newhall writes, "To enlarge these negatives (B.N. is refering to 3 1/4 * 4 1/4 Graflex negs.) on platinum or palladium paper was tedious. An enlarged negative had to be made. First an 8*10 inch glass positive was made from a small negative. From this, in turn, he made a new negative, which he printed by contact. Apparently he never printed by projection..."

Of course he doesn't give the method here for making the glass positive. I guess some one has to come up with a list of reasonable ways to make a glass positive. I assume there were holders where you could use a glass negative in a regular 8*10 camera?

Best, David

[M.]

Paul Strand had the same problem since his originals (Before WWI) were shot with a 6x9 Ensign. First he contact printed the negatives onto Lantern Slide glass plates. (Apparently they didn't have enlargers in those days, but they did have Lantern Slide projectors.) Then, after retouching them, he PROJECTED the glass lantern slide positives directly onto 8x10 or 11x15 film, which were subsequently printed by daylight onto Platinum.

[david clark]

I don't know much about the math invovled in enlargement, but. I taped a 4*5 neg to a light table. Using a 9 1/2 lens on a C1 I was able to come very close to full 8*10 enlargement with the lens about a foot from the neg and the bellows extended about 30". So, does anyone know how you go about metering for such a shot? a magnification off a light table that is. Best, David

[M.]

David, a 9.5" lens with 30" bellows extension gives a reproduction ratio of 2.16. (30-9.5)/9.5 = 2.16 large enough to easily make a 4x5 into an 8x10, but not enough for 3.25x4.25. To figure exposure, the Effective aperture is just the marked aperture times the bellows extension divided by the focal length. For example if you're shooting at f:16 -- 16x30/9.5 = 50.5, or about f:50. Personally I use a Horseman behind the lens meter so there's no worry about extension or filter factors, etc. Don't forget to add in reciprocity.