Some questions about contact printing

[Rory_3532]

I am planning to make contact prints from T-Max 100 4x5 negatives. I want to make them using a light bulb over two panes of glass, or one pane and a foam bed.

The main purpose of these prints will be to make it easier to identify negatives that I want to scan, manipulate in Photoshop and enlarge. That said, I am interested in optical, as distinct from digital, processes and would like to play around with traditional printing to see how I like it. Call it a learning experience if you will.

Here are my questions:

What do I need as a light source? Kodak's paper How to Process Black and White Film (paper AJ-3) specifies a 7 watt incandescent light bulb. However, Kodak documentation on Black and White photographic papers, which assume the use of an enlarger, call for tungsten or tungsten-halogen enlarger lamps, and say that other forms of light, specifically cool-white fluorescent lamps, mercury-vapor lamps or cathode-ray tubes, can be used but with various potential complications. The exception is the technical paper on Azo, which specfies the use of a contact frame rather than an enlarger, but does not specify wattage. Michael Smith, on his web site, recommends the use of a 300 watt bulb to make Azo contact prints.

What is a good paper for making contact prints from T-Max negatives? I do almost all of my photography in natural light in the early morning, late afternoon or under overcast conditions. Most of my photographs are of people in their environment (not portraits, but faces are important), cityscapes and landscapes. I am thinking of using Kodak Polymax Fine Art fiber paper, but would be interested in hearing other suggestions. I am probably not interested in Azo; I have no desire to work in the proximitiy of a 300 watt light bulb, the paper is not readily available and I want to use a paper on which enlargements can be made.

Thanks for comments.

[Rory_3532]

I forgot to mention that I plan to develop the prints in trays and that the Kodak technical paper on Polymax fiber paper makes a point of saying that it is a good paper for contacts and for tray development.

[Nick_3536]

If you're using an enlarger then you're using a lens to. A fast enlarger lens would be f/2.8. For 4x5 use it would more likely be f/5.6. That would be wide open. If you had too much light then you could still stop the lens down. That's why Kodak suggests the small 7watt bulb. You can't stop the lens down if the bulb is too bright. You won't have a lens. OTOH if you don't have enough light you can to a point always use more time.

From the sounds of it starting with some RC paper sounds like a better idea to me. I wouldn't worry about the tray bit. I doubt you'll find a B&W paper that doesn't like tray development.

[Michael J. Kravit]

Not to answer your question with a question, BUT.

Why get into wet darkroom work when you can do a quick scan of the 4x5 and have a "digital" contact print?

I am not advocating digital printing as I do not make digital prints, but it just seems a bit excessive to invest in chemicals and trays only to make 4x5 contact prints.

Are you also planning to process your 4x5 film?

I have many friends who have their 4x5 film lab processed as color films are said to be easier to scan. They then convert to b/w utilizing a number of techniques and print digitally. Why go through all the work for traditional contact prints when the final product will be a digital print?

[Matt Miller]

"The main purpose of these prints will be to make it easier to identify negatives that I want to scan, manipulate in Photoshop and enlarge"

That said, I would suggest that you use RC paper. It is cheaper, quicker, and dries flat. Glossy RC would be my choice because it will not hide flaws like pearl/matte can.

[Mark_3632]

For what it sounds like you are doing fiber is not necessary. RC is just fine. Get what is on sale, some dektol, and fixer.

is there a community college in your neighborhood that might have a darkroom? It is the easiest way to play with enlargement and any wet darkroom stuff. You use their stuff you supply the paper, and get a lot of experience. You shell out very little. If you do not have this option then suspending a light, any light, above the surface of your glass sheet will be fine. no matter what the wattage. The less wattage the longer the exposure, check exposure with test strips. Regular paper is quite quick to expose. Make sure the light has a readily available switch or buy a dirt cheap darkroom timer(the best option) and you are in business.

Hope this helps

[Sidney Cammeresi]

Any light source will be fine so long as you can move it far enough away or otherwise decrease its intensity so that your exposure isn't 1/100 of a second. I recommend you use an enlarger timer for consistency. I've contact printed before with a desk lamp, a 15-watt bulb, and an enlarger timer. It really doesn't take much to do it.

[John Cook]

If you use a contact speed paper like AZO, a 60 watt bulb is about right. For RC enlarging paper, a common 2 watt nightlight bulb is sufficient. A nice Gralab timer would also be useful. I have always used some sort of reflector like a Kodak bullet safelight (without filter) but it may not be absolutely necessary. In theory, a small clear bulb will make sharper pinpoint-light contacts.

[Andre Noble]

Nick, you mentioned in general that "You can't stop a lens down if the bulb is too bright. You won't have a lens."

Will the 300w bulb burn a hole in the lens diaphram if it is closed down too far?

I am concerned about my own enlarger set up with a 250w bulb (I used previously because of a diffusion disc which sucks up alot of light before the lens, but have not yet removed it, even though I have done a lttle enlarging with solely glass condensers).

Maybe i should check my enlrger lens to make sure i haven't done some damage.

Andre

[Nick_3536]

No I meant in his case. He wants to just hang a bulb over the negative. I wouldn't worry about your lens. If the lens is being damaged then what happened to your negatives? My enlarger uses two 200 watt bulbs and other then the fact it warms the room I'm not worried.

[Michael S. Briggs]

Rory, for your purposes don't be too concerned about which bulb. A common, low wattage incandescent bulb will work well. You can adjust the print times by changing the distance between the paper and bulb. The high wattage bulb mentioned by Michael Smith is for Azo, which is a slow paper only suitable for contact printing. Papers suitable for enlarging are much faster. Different bulbs will have different color temperatures, which will have some effect on variable contrast papers.

Any method that keeps good contact between the negative and paper is fine. This can be heavy glass, or a contact printing frame. For 4x5 negatives, a simple setup should work well.

Andre, a 300 Watt bulb is unlikely to burn a hole in the diaphram of a lens. However, you should never use a bulb of higher wattage than specified by the manufacturer of the enlarger. A higher wattage bulb might lead to excessive temperatures, which might cause accelerated ageing of some components or even cause a fire.

[wfwhitaker]

You sure don't need a 300W bulb for most commonly available papers. In the past, lacking a real darkroom I have had good success making contact prints in the bathroom by merely setting the contact printing frame on the counter and flipping the bathroom light on while I timed it on my watch with the second hand. Crude, yes. But it worked fine. Keep it simple.

[Andre Noble]

Nick and Michael, thanks.

Michael, re: using a 250watt instead of 75watt in the omega condenser head, I should have mentioned that I've remove the side ventilation fins and inserted a computer case fan to help cool the head. But you're right, the 250w bulbs in this set up don't have an exceptionally long life.

[Bob._3483]

Andre - the only thing I would check is that the body of the lens is not getting too hot. If it is only warm, your lens will be fine - if it gets too hot to hold then you may have problems.... My enlargers use 250W lamps, but then, they were designed for it. One thought: you have fitted a fan, but do you have sufficient ventilation for the air you are sucking in to escape back out again? That may be why the lamp does not last.

As for Rory's original question, I have nothing to add - has all been said. Use glossy enlarging paper. Get a low wattage bulb. Hang it 3 feet above your home made frame. Try it. Time too short? Buy a lower wattage bulb. Time too long? Buy a brighter bulb. Have fun.

Cheers,

[John D Gerndt]

You might be aware of this already but if you are looking to gian all the data possible out our you negative through the optical/chemical process you need to use a long scale paper: AZO. IF you are looking for a simple reversal of the tones for interpretation I don't see how contact printing will save you any time over scanning. I am going to recommend AZO as it makes for beautiful prints. It was developed specifically for what you wish to do. Be careful, you could get hooked on these tiny contact prints and then...you'll be one of us! :)

[Rory_3532]

John,

Fine, so tell me how I can use Azo under the following conditions: I don't want to use a 300 watt light bulb, I don't want to use Amidol, I want to use a paper that can also be used for enlargments and I don't want to be involved in using materials that appear to be the subject of an authoritarian and dogamatic movement :)

[Ole Tjugen]

Rory,

May I suggest Bergger Art Contact? A very nice emulsion, that can also be used as a slow enlarging paper. I use my enlarger as a light source for contact printing... Develops nicely in just about any developer, although Ansco 130 has given me the best results so far. It also responds very well to changes in developing, so that the contrast can be varied.

No 300 Watt light bulb, no Amidol needed, no dogma involved.

[jantman]

Rory,

Azo is a contact printing paper. The last of its kind, it is too slow to use with an enlarger. In ALMOST all cases. The exception is that Durst makes a 3000W head for the L138 that will handle it (and pt/pd) with no problem. If you want a $20,000 enlarger, it's great.

If you just want this for contact prints of 4x5, and archival stability isn't a concern, this is what I suggest:

Hang a 60-75W light bulb over a table. Get a box of Freestyle's cheapest RC (Arista Premium RC VC) in 8x10. Get a glass plate and a piece of flat cardboard. Put the neg over the paper, put that over the cardboard, and put the glass over it. Now print. Develop in Dektol, stop in water, fix. Hang to dry.

Thay's about the cheapest way it can be done. Just be aware that with a bare bulb you can't control the contrast and will end up with high contrast prints due to the magenta tendencies of tungsten light.

If you want better results, go to graded RC and get grade 2.

On a last note, what's wrong with 300W? My Elwood enlarger takes a 250W. I have 500W tungsten photo lights. In a darkroom, you don't have to be as close as when you're shooting tabletop.

[Rory_3532]

Ole,

I'm probably going to go with an RC paper for basic contact printing, but the Bergger paper sounds very interesting for negatives that I want to play with. Thanks.

[Rory_3532]

So I tried this on the weekend and here's what I found in case anyone comes across this thread through a search.

I used a light socket hung straight down from the ceiling. I selected a socket that has a conical metal shade attached to it in order to reflect the light downward. The bulb was a Philips 7.5 watt, frosted. The paper was Ilford Multigrade IV RC Deluxe glossy paper. As a timer, I used an electronic metronome, which worked really well.

I found that I had to place the bulb higher above the negative and paper than the 2' recommended by Kodak in one of its publications. Two feet will work, but I wanted a slower exposure in order to test 4, 8 and 16 second exposures in sequence across the paper. Ultimately, four feet seemed about right. Indeed, I also tried using the bulb at that height with a piece of paper towel taped to the front of the shade to diffuse the light further.

I used a 4x5 negative that had been processed by a local lab and for which I was given a proof. After experimenting a bit, I was able to make prints that were clearly superior to the proof. I was also able to do some rough and ready, but effective, dodging and burning.

The setup is simple, not to say crude, but I've concluded that doing my own black and white processing and proof printing is worth it financially. Also, it's fun, especially playing around with the printing.