Photographer's Formulary 8x10 Contact Print Frame

[formanproject]

Hello!

I'm looking to start doing some 8x10 and 4x5 contact prints, and was wondering if anyone has ever used the Photographer's Formulary 8x10 Contact Print Frame. Here's a link below:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/209108-REG/Photographers_Formulary_07_2000_8x10_Contact_Print_Frame.html


If so, did you like it? Also, in the photograph on the website, it looks like the light side is frosted glass - is that the case? (If so it would make dodging and burning difficult if you can't see the negative). Also, would it work with 4x5 negatives, or just 8x10?


I'm looking to keep this process simple, so let me know what you recommend! Thank you!

[Alan9940]

Never used that particular frame, but I've been very happy with the 8x10 and 12x15 contact printing frames from Bostick & Sullivan.

[Pete Suttner]

Don’t do it. It’s a dog. Buy Bostic and Sullivan

[dasBlute]

The glass isn't frosted, you're just seeing through to the felt-lined back.
I have not used that model, I started with old nameless ones, found on the web.

As long as your glass is clean, and the springs keep everything tight, you're
good to go. It will work with any negative that fits into the frame.
The B&S are the best I've found, but cheaper models will get you started.

Dodging and burning can be very hard with contact printing.
Everything is smaller than an enlargement, so you have to
be very precise, and it's hard to see the image, especially if the
neg is dense.

Also, without instructions, I used it all wrong for a year before someone showed me how:

Place the felt-lined back felt up on the table, then place the paper, emulsion side up,
then then neg emulsion side down, then the glass, then the frame down over it all,
reach around and grab the back with both hands, and then flip it, set the springs into place.

A self-starter like me might try to do that all face down...

Good luck, and give it time, great prints are hard to make with any method :)

-Tim

[John Kasaian]

I had one of those. It's good but I found it overkill for my needs as a contact printer--IIRC the clamps were so strong I darned near busted a fingernail on more than one occasion.
For POP, it, or something like it where you can inspect your print in progress while still keeping everything in register is what you need.

But for contact printing, a Print file Proofer
http://www.printfile.com/contact-proofer.aspx
is what I use now---a 100% improvement IMHO.

[formanproject]

I had one of those. It's good but I found it overkill for my needs as a contact printer--IIRC the clamps were so strong I darned near busted a fingernail on more than one occasion.
For POP, it, or something like it where you can inspect your print in progress while still keeping everything in register is what you need.

But for contact printing, a Print file Proofer
http://www.printfile.com/contact-proofer.aspx
is what I use now---a 100% improvement IMHO.

Awesome! Thanks so much for the suggestion. I will give that a try first.


Thanks everyone for their input!

[locutus]

I have a Paterson proof printer of a similiar design and i've found it to work really well. glass isn't sharp and clamps down very solidly.

This one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40266-REG/Paterson_PTP623_Proof_Printer_Document_Easel_for.html

[Alan9940]

If you want/need an inexpensive solution, then get a sheet of birch plywood cut to whatever size needed, glue a sheet of felt on one side of the plywood, add a sheet of plate glass, and some 99 cent clamps from Home Depot. It's not a fast way to work, but it will get the job done. And, if you don't want to go even that far I've heard of photographers that simply lay a sheet of paper on an enlarger baseboard and cover with glass. The downside to any contact printing solution is Newton Rings which are generally caused by uneven pressure which leads to gaps between the negative and the glass. Also, humidity can be an issue with Newton Rings. Many years ago when I lived in a more humid part of the USA, I had a real problem with these pesky rings which Ron Wisner solved by having a sheet of plate glass coated (think lens coatings) on one side. It wasn't a cheap solution, but it did eliminate the rings.

[Oren Grad]

And, if you don't want to go even that far I've heard of photographers that simply lay a sheet of paper on an enlarger baseboard and cover with glass.

That's more or less what I do. My stack, from the bottom, is baseboard-glass-paper-negative-glass. I have some very nice contact print frames, but...


The downside to any contact printing solution is Newton Rings...

...I don't use them because they generate ferocious Newton's rings. I've tried many different frames in my darkroom over the years, and I've yet to see one that can distribute the pressure from the clips across the paper with enough evenness to avoid the rings. The only way I've ever been able to more or less reliably avoid Newton's rings is the glass stack.

Caveat: I've not printed TXP, with its retouching surface. Possibly that would be different. But every sheet film with a smooth base that I've tried in my darkroom has been hopeless in a spring-back printing frame.

[faberryman]

Also, without instructions, I used it all wrong for a year before someone showed me how:

Place the felt-lined back felt up on the table, then place the paper, emulsion side up,
then then neg emulsion side down, then the glass, then the frame down over it all,
reach around and grab the back with both hands, and then flip it, set the springs into place.

A self-starter like me might try to do that all face down...

Good luck, and give it time, great prints are hard to make with any method :)

This seems completely backwards, but if it works for you, go for it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This seems completely backwards, but if it works for you, go for it.

Indeed, backwards. It doesn't work for me.

[dasBlute]

Indeed, backwards. It doesn't work for me.

Doing it 'face up', allows one to place the negative precisely on the paper as needed,
especially useful for alt-printing.

So, how do you guys do it?

[Michael W]

Hello!

I'm looking to start doing some 8x10 and 4x5 contact prints, and was wondering if anyone has ever used the Photographer's Formulary 8x10 Contact Print Frame. Here's a link below:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/209108-REG/Photographers_Formulary_07_2000_8x10_Contact_Print_Frame.html


If so, did you like it? Also, in the photograph on the website, it looks like the light side is frosted glass - is that the case? (If so it would make dodging and burning difficult if you can't see the negative). Also, would it work with 4x5 negatives, or just 8x10?


I'm looking to keep this process simple, so let me know what you recommend! Thank you!

I have one of them. Cheap, and it works, but as others have mentioned the locking clips are brutal, like rat traps. These are split back frames which are good for checking the print if you are doing processes like salt printing or cyanotypes. As mentioned by others, if you are doing regular silver gelatin contact printing you can use a simpler process like just putting a clean piece of regular glass on top of the film and paper.

[Pere Casals]

Hello!

I'm looking to start doing some 8x10 and 4x5 contact prints, and was wondering if anyone has ever used the Photographer's Formulary 8x10 Contact Print Frame. Here's a link below:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/209108-REG/Photographers_Formulary_07_2000_8x10_Contact_Print_Frame.html


If so, did you like it? Also, in the photograph on the website, it looks like the light side is frosted glass - is that the case? (If so it would make dodging and burning difficult if you can't see the negative). Also, would it work with 4x5 negatives, or just 8x10?


I'm looking to keep this process simple, so let me know what you recommend! Thank you!

I also use a an stack of 10mm thick glass.

A 10x10" piece of 10mm glass as a flat base, then I glue on it (with 3M Re Mount spray) a 3mm soft foam. Then it comes photography material (Paper, film, masks), then on top of it I place another piece of 10mm thick glass with side handles for convenience.

The top 10mm thick glass provides enough pressure to avoid newton rings, and to handle even a thick masking sandwich. I've been trying CRM, SCIM, and UNSHARP masking, this involves some additional film sheets and a difuser layer. The 10mm glass performed well with those sandwichs, anyway now I'm pointing to local costrast control mask in the Alan Ross way, this is a thinner sandwich. I found the CRM way has the advantage of a sharpenning look, because unsharp masking, still I'm not sure all shots benefit from it.

Using a thick piece of glass is more confortable than a frame, in special to make test strips.

This is the Alan Ross way http://phototechmag.com/selective-masking-part-iii-computer-techniques-for-the-traditional-darkroom/


I'm thinking in a setup than removes the 3mm foam on the bottom glass (perhaps not necessary in most cases) so the setup can be placed on a light table for mask alignment.


As you advance in this field you will first desire local exposure control, so you will use dodge and burning, or simple masking.

Then you will want to control local control, this will lead you to Split Grade printing combined with separate grade burning/dodging, or advanced CRM, SCIM...

May be, then you will want serious consistence in local contrast control, this may led you to the color contrast masking, As Mr Ross kindly explains it.


I'm still learning, but my view is that in this way it is possible to obtain a top notch and rocking graphic product, with best of photoshop flexibility on local contrast control / exposure , and with FB paper + toner...

With local contrast control made, we can leave manual dodge/burning handcrafting for local exposure, so every print will show the artists' hand, being a unique handcrafted product.


Oh... in today's digital/reprograhic world this is revolutionary. Ross' color masking is what it can put top level photographers in the darkroom again, IMHO.

[Alan9940]

Doing it 'face up', allows one to place the negative precisely on the paper as needed,
especially useful for alt-printing.

So, how do you guys do it?

My procedure for loading my B&S frames when doing pt/pd printing is exactly as dasBlute described in an earlier post. It may seem a bit backwards, but it works great for me.

[dsphotog]

Regarding dodge/burning...
I put a bit of masking tape on the frame to show me where the horizon is located, makes burning in the sky much simpler.

[Pere Casals]

Regarding dodge/burning...
I put a bit of masking tape on the frame to show me where the horizon is located, makes burning in the sky much simpler.

Nice idea, thanks...

[Corran]

Here's a pic of my "contact frame" that I was just using for an 8x10 contact print:

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/contactsheet1421.jpg

I bought this actually for 8x20 but of course it works with 8x10, it's just real big. This is just a piece of P99 acrylic from TAP Plastic - $25 to my door for this big size, less for smaller of course. Some time ago I bulk ordered a bunch of 3/4" A36 hot-rolled steel bars in 3" lengths - I super glued these to the edges as both handles and weight (for 8x20 contacts, I also simply place a few more lengths along the edges to weigh down the whole thing on top of the negative and paper). My piece is roughly 13x20 which is the right size for my scanner platten so I can doubly use this as a hold-down plate for scanning big negs.

I suppose there's more specialty applications where you'd want a split-frame back but this works just fine for me doing contact silver gelatin prints. I will be getting the same type of acrylic for a UV exposure box I will hopefully finally get built this winter. The rough/diffuse side goes down towards the negative. For 4x5 contacts I do just use an 8x10 proof printer but it doesn't work for 8x10, for me. If you don't have that I'd just get a 10x12 sheet of this P99 and some type of steel bar for weights/handles and go to town.

[Jim Jones]

Ouch! acrylic is awfully delicate when compared to glass.

[Corran]

That's true. I kept the small box it came in with bubble wrap and put it in there when not using it. Obviously care is important in using such a piece of acrylic.

[biswasg]

I have a Paterson proof printer of a similiar design and i've found it to work really well. glass isn't sharp and clamps down very solidly.

This one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/40266-REG/Paterson_PTP623_Proof_Printer_Document_Easel_for.html

I am also planning to buy this model. In addition to making 4x5 contact prints, is it also possible to make contact prints from 120 roll film?

[Drew Wiley]

That's why AN glass was invented! I've got it in my contact frames; but these are esp well made.

[Scott Davis]

I have one of the old Formulary 'knuckle-breaker' frames kicking around somewhere. I hate it as I'm always afraid this time will be the time the locking tab snaps down on one of my fingers while trying to open/close it. It's also a bad design in that it only provides pressure at the periphery, not in the center, so it is possible to get prints that are soft in the middle. Less likely to be a problem in 8x10 or smaller frames, but the bigger you get, the more likely it is to happen. And that's not a forgivable sin when you're making a 16x20 palladium print.

There's a new design Formulary is selling which is an improvement - it now has a center-mounted pressure bar, much like the Bostick & Sullivan frames. But I still prefer the B&S frame with the metal spring. I have two of them - a 12x15 and a 16x20. I also have vintage ones of similar design - a 14x17 and a 12x20 which has a three-part split back. The vintage ones use brass springs instead of steel like the modern ones do, and required rehabilitation (re-seating the hinges, replacing the felt, and in one case, reinforcing one of the corners with wood screws).