Contact printing 8X10 negs

[Randy]

I have contact printed many years ago, just for reference mostly - 35mm, 120, 4X5, and a few from 8X10 negs. My method was to use a contact printing frame under my Omega D2 with cold light head using the 150mm lens.

For the past few years, since I have had my Epson 4990 scanner, I have done no darkroom enlarging or contact printing.
I would like to give contact printing a try again, with my 8X10 negs, hopefully resulting in some nice 8X10's suitable for display.

A few questions for those experienced contact printers:

For the light source, is it absolutely necessary to use an enlarger and project through a lens, or is there a less bulky method of exposure (can you just use an overhead room light and get the same results, or is that a stupid question)? I just no longer have the room to set up the D2.
I suspect dodging and burning can only be done with a light source being projected through a lens?

Favorite paper & developer combinations?

Any other advice on what I may not have thought to ask :)

[Vlad Soare]

If you print on graded paper, then any light source will do. I use an 80W halogen reflector lamp, mounted approximately one meter above the counter. I've also installed a voltage regulator, which allows me to adjust the light output to get comfortable exposure times with any negative (because the paper is graded, I don't care about any changes in color temperature that might come with lowered voltage).

For timing I use a piece of cardboard and a small electronic metronome. The method is explained here (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/onprinting.html).

My favorite paper/developer combination is Lodima with amidol. Lodima was my only reason for moving up to 8x10". Contact printing on an enlarging paper would give me results totally indistinguishable from an 8x10" enlargement from 4x5" film. I'm willing to put up with the weight, bulk and expense of 8x10" only because I want to print on Lodima.


I suspect dodging and burning can only be done with a light source being projected through a lens?
They can be done with any light source. The only difference is that the dodge tool must be exactly the size of the dodged area, because it must be held in contact with the glass, I mean you cannot vary the dodged area's size by moving the tool up or down, like you can do under an enlarger. The same stands for burning.

[MIke Sherck]

I use my enlarger with no negative carrier as a light source these days but years ago before I had the enlarger I used a 100w bulb hanging from the ceiling on a cord. I used a couple of clothespins to shorten the cord as necessary and mangled together a widget out of wood and cardboard scraps (and duct tape!) to hold 6" x 6" contrast gels under it so I could print on multigrade papers. It was just a frame that I could lay the contrast filter onto. Worked fine as long as I didn't have a fan going in the darkroom and didn't move around too fast. I used a piece of thick (1/8") window glass to hold the paper and negative flat, and that worked fine, too.

I've always preferred dark darkrooms and my walls have always been matt dark gray, so I didn't get much in the way of reflections off of them. If the walls were lighter I'd have had to make some sort of box around the light, to keep non-filtered light off the paper.

Mike

[John Jarosz]

Edward Weston used a bare bulb hung over the print frame.

Simple can be better.

[ic-racer]

The collimated light from the lens will show all the dust on the glass. A more diffuse source might be better.

[Daniel Stone]

after just getting out of my 2nd session with Lodima and Amidol(MAS formula), I'm hooked 100%!!!!

if you have the room, get a vacuum frame/pump. Printing with a metronome is zen-like, and lets you really focus on the print, rather than the timer.

many people will say that using a contact frame is sufficient for 8x10 negs, hey, if Weston was able to do it, it should be fine for you! Nonsense I say... Vacuum frames are a dime a dozen these days, and locating a pump should be no sweat, with little monetary outlay. My whole setup(frame, pump, and parts to get it back to a "up and running" status) was less than $150. A "good" contact frame will run you more than that. And they won't be as sharp as the prints from the vacuum frame. My eyes can see the difference, and its "BIG"! Micro contrast in small details(like sand) really pops with the vacuum frame(vs same neg printed with a contact frame).

read up on Michael and Paula's page about Lodima and Amidol, and you'll see what I'm referring to. Charge on over to the Azo Forum too, lots of great information there too.

have fun!

-Dan

[Brian Ellis]

You can use a light bulb suspended over your negative and paper to contact print. Just set the height at a point such that there's no light fall-off at the edges of the paper (you can check that with your light meter) and also at a height such that your normal exposure time is something on the order of 30 seconds to a minute (so you have time to dodge and burn without unnecessarily extending the time). It helps if you use a pulley system of some kind so you can adjust the height of the bulb for different negatives but that's certainly not necessary.

You can dodge and burn large areas of a contact print (e.g. the sky and foreground) but I was never able to do small areas as well when contact printing as I could when enlarging. The glare from the printing frame glass made it difficult to see smaller areas and the method I used to dodge and burn small areas when enlarging couldn't be used with contact printing. Fortunately you'll find that you don't need to dodge and burn nearly as much when contact printing as you do when enlarging.

I never found a need for a vacuum system with 8x10 contact prints as long as you get a good frame, preferably one with two sets of metal clamps at either end of the back. As Daniel points out, the cost isn't a big deal (I probably paid more for my contact printing frame from Great Basin Somethingorother as I would have for a vacuum system). But to me the noise of a vacuum motor was unpleasant and since I didn't find a need I never investigated putting the motor in another room which is what some people do to minimize the noise.

[reyno bundit]

i use a piece of glass and heavy steel strips to weigh the glass down onto a piece of foam.

i modified a old safe light with tape and cardboard, this allows me to have a 25w bulb and the ability to slide large ilford filters over the light source to split grade, i also have a dimmer to control the intensity. hung 2 foot over the work area on a chain. controlled by a digital timer.

my glass is pre lith taped for full frame , and a twist, rebate etc

works well and cost v little to set up, 10 dollars or so i guess

keep it simple and unique to you.

foma 111 + any old dev lol

[Drew Wiley]

I don't contact print very often, though I do have several options for this. But this
afternoon, as soon as I finish lunch, I'm going to do it under an enlarger colorhead
simply because I'll be experimenting with variable-contrast papers.

[Randy]

Wow! Lot's of great information and suggestions.
It's funny, I was so glad when I got a scanner that would handle my large negs. I was very tired of spending hours in the dark room. Now I can't wait to make some contact prints.

[JMB]

It's funny, I was so glad when I got a scanner that would handle my large negs. I was very tired of spending hours in the dark room. Now I can't wait to make some contact prints.


Right on, Brother. --Joe

[CG]

... The only difference is that the dodge tool must be exactly the size of the dodged area, because it must be held in contact with the glass, I mean you cannot vary the dodged area's size by moving the tool up or down, like you can do under an enlarger. The same stands for burning. ... Why not? I can't see why raising a dodging tool a few inches would cause any problem, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you elaborate?

[Ramiro Elena]

hey Vlad, where do you get your Lodima, US or EU?

[Daniel Stone]

the only place to get Lodima anywhere, unless its 2nd hand, is from M+P themselves.

http://store.michaelandpaula.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1

-Dan

[Vlad Soare]

... The only difference is that the dodge tool must be exactly the size of the dodged area, because it must be held in contact with the glass, I mean you cannot vary the dodged area's size by moving the tool up or down, like you can do under an enlarger. The same stands for burning. ...
Why not? I can't see why raising a dodging tool a few inches would cause any problem, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you elaborate?
Because the light coming from a bare bulb isn't collimated, like the one that's projected through a lens. If you raise the dodge tool, the area underneath it will still receive some stray light. The dodge tool will make just a penumbra, not a true shadow.


hey Vlad, where do you get your Lodima, US or EU?
I've got it directly from Michael Smith. This time I was lucky, he gave it to me in person, but next time I'll have to order it via his web site. I believe he can arrange to have it shipped from a European location, so we pay lower postage and no customs.

[Ramiro Elena]

I believe he can arrange to have it shipped from a European location, so we pay lower postage and no customs.

Awesome! Shipping and customs was one of my worries apart from x-ray... although I've read people from the UK who had no problems with it (only customs.)

I can't wait to start contact printing again.

[John Kasaian]

I've used a painter's light from a hardware store to good effect, but an enlarger is more convenient if there is no place to hang the painter's light from.

[Drew Wiley]

A small f-stop under an enlarging lens will act much like a point light source and allow crisp dodging and burning, but of course, might also diminish the light a bit too
much for convenient printing of slower papers like Azo. A high quality contact frame
will work just as well as a vacuum frame, but these aren't easy to come by. I use the same 8X10 Condit masking frame that I use for making duplicate transparencies,
which is a far more demanding application than contact printing per se, and the results are superb. It is also a myth that high quality contact prints can only be made with special papers. Ordinary projection papers are capable of excellent results if your film is developed appropriately. Slower silver chloride papers like Azo or Lodima have some special characteristics which make them their own look, especially with respect to microcontrast in the midtones and so forth, but learning to contact print well does not necessarily require these papers. It's certainly nice that
we have the option of them once again, however.

[Bruce Barlow]

In my experience, a small f-stop under an enlarger (45MX/Cold Light, LPL) doesn't work for Azo at all. Nor does a big f-stop. I barely get an image with 5-minute exposures. I can use my enlargers as Azo light sources if I remove the lens and lensboard and just blast away, and even then exposure times can be long (90 seconds). Just bought 300W bulbs to hang and use instead. Much more workable for the impatient.

Were I just learning, I'd use cheap RC like I use for proofing, just to get the hang of it. They'll be just fine. Save the really good stuff when I'm familiar for the best of negs. Yes, there may be development time differences for RC vs. Lodima or Azo, but if I'm just learning that becomes part of the learning process.

On the other hand, life's too short to use less than the best...and grinding my way through on Lodima helps support Michael and Paula, because then I need to buy more.

Either way, 8x10 contact prints are delicious, and I find them easier to print than enlargements from 4x5.

[Vlad Soare]

I find them easier to print than enlargements from 4x5.
Yup. So do I. Not only easier, but also much faster, which is a great boon when one's only time for darkroom work is when the kids are asleep. :D

The suggestion of learning on cheap RC paper is a sound one, but it's a double-edged sword. If one tries to learn on a paper that's incapable of looking good, then one might start to question the benefits of contact printing. I got better pictures from 6x7 enlarged on FB than I could ever get with 8x10 contact printed on RC. If I hadn't seen prints made on Lodima with my own eyes, I would have never taken up 8x10. :)

[Drew Wiley]

Bruce - a cold light would indeed be very slow with Azo. Colorheads are generally much brighter, and I have even easily enlarged onto Azo from small negatives. But
there's also something to be said for a bright bulb simply hanging from the ceiling.
Lot's of different ways to have fun and achieve excellent results.

[CG]

Because the light coming from a bare bulb isn't collimated, like the one that's projected through a lens. If you raise the dodge tool, the area underneath it will still receive some stray light. The dodge tool will make just a penumbra, not a true shadow ... As far as I can see it, it all depends upon the size of the light source as seen from the printing paper, and also upon the height of the dodging tool. An angularly broad source would force you to stay very close to the paper, whereas an angularly narrow source would act quite a bit more like the light from an enlarger and allow you to use more height if you want to soften the edge of the shadow.

If you want a sharp image of the dodging tool, then you would have to stay right down on the paper. Usually, I want to soften the edges of areas I mess with.