-
Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
I’ve done some searching on this forum, but I can’t see any how-to tips on contact printing as a final product. I love a contact print that you can stare at forever and fall into! Can you point me to an existing thread?
Alternately, do you know any web resources? They all tell you how to put a sheet of 35mm to choose what to print, but not how to do it as the end result.
I can contact print, but they aren’t very good. I’ve got my darkroom back up after the child-rearing fallow, and I want to practise, but directed practice is sometime better. Oh, 4x5 and 8x10. Regular paper to start.
Thank you,
Dean
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dean Lastoria
I can contact print, but they aren’t very good.
It will help if you can tell us what specifically you don't like about your current results.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Making a good contact print is not all that different from making an enlargement. The possibilities for burning and dodging are somewhat more limited, but otherwise, it's basically the same process. I agree with Oren : if you explain what the problem is with your prints, it's easier to think of possible solutions.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
2 things help any contact print.
First you need to have a way to ensure the negative and image paper is very tightly and evenly in contact.
Second is enough appropriate light that will evenly cover the entire area.
I have at least 3 methods of making contact prints.
A Print File Custom Negative Proofer which works for up to 8X10.
B For anything up to 16X20 a old vacuum press frame Here's one discussion on them.
C I have a very old metal box Contact Printer with internal lamps, a 1/4" glass plate and a hinged soft pressure plate that seals light and hold the 2 pieces very tightly. Picture of mine later. Here is a bunch of them, but I don't recomend any of the ones FS.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Good info here: http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/html/Azo_Main.html
See Writings about Azo: "On Printing"
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
The better the negative the better the print. If you’re not happy with the print, start by taking more care exposing and developing your negative.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
what everyone else has already suggested, esp the firm contact between the negative and paper. Also make sure you have good blacks as it a) let's you know whether your exposures are good or not, and b) it looks better than something approaching black, but is really a very dark grey. muddy iow
and make sure your contact frame glass is spotless. can't emphasize this enough because spotting contact prints is beyond hellacious.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Dean,
Even though you said "regular paper to start," you should realize that one major advantage of contact printing over enlarging is that you can use alternative process techniques. These processes are not that difficult to learn and the results can be amazing. Christopher James' book is an excellent reference:
https://www.christopherjames-studio....okreviews.html
Pete
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
http://stores.photoformulary.com/contact-print-frame/
http://thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/html...tent=07Jan2013
I use a contact printing frame. Spring back. Common in alt process. Clean the glass, load it up and set it under the light source. Enlarger for B&W paper, sunshine or UV box for alt process.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
first learn to make negatives which print well with the chosen process. For most contact processes that means more contrast than for enlarging. if interested in glossy silver prints, it is necessary to find a source for silver chloride paper instead of silver bromide which is used for enlarging. I don't know about the current availability of the one made fro and sold by Michael Smith and PAula Chamlee since I Don't Use it."Azo" has not been made for many years, thus the price is always high. VAn Dyke Brown is an excellent alternative process method which is cheap and easily available. Bostick and Sullivan market an excellent kit with which to begin. Later you may wantot move toward other alternative processes sch as palladium,but save your money until you learn to make negatives appropriate for the process.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oren Grad
It will help if you can tell us what specifically you don't like about your current results.
^^^this^^^
What do your images look like under a loupe?
What method/equipment are you using?
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Good question OP. I agree and I've wondered just how effective burning and dodging is achieved while contact printing. I suppose it's a skill that is acquired through repeated practice, but I would guess that starting with the best negative possible is probably a good strategy. Still, trying to burn and dodge using enlarger techniques is awkward at best and I always feel like I'm working in the blind. And dodging with strips of tissue paper seems to bring on rage and insanity.
Good luck in your quest!
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Right now I use an enlarger as a light source. Way out of focus. Grade 2 filter and then up or down -- maybe I should be starting with grade 3 then since it was pointed out that we want more contrast? I have an 8x10 plywood "canvas" thing that painters use instead of canvas to hold it up off the surface and then a much bigger piece of glass to hold it down. Then I expose..
Though I keep the glass clean, the prints have a million white flecks that aren't dust shaped. I wear a hat so as not to moult and don't get those enlarging. I tried just putting the 8x10 neg on paper without glass, and was much happier as no millions of flecks. It was a portrait so the fact it was soft worked out, but it was soft without the glass holding it down. It is also flatter than I can get with my condenser enlarger ... hmmm ... maybe I'm doing the negatives wrong. I've also tried a very small utility bulb from about 3 feet above with a multigrade filter holder in front, and that seems to do as well as the enlarger without having to set up the enlarger all the time -- it is sort of focussed for what I usually print.
This has been extraordinarily helpful! I'll look into the Van Dyke and other processes but I had assumed they were all chemistry beyond me but that Van Dyke sounds very good. I didn't know where to start so that's a good suggestion.
Thank you all!
Dean
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete Roody
Dean,
Even though you said "regular paper to start," you should realize that one major advantage of contact printing over enlarging is that you can use alternative process techniques. These processes are not that difficult to learn and the results can be amazing. Christopher James' book is an excellent reference:
https://www.christopherjames-studio....okreviews.html
Pete
I didn't know about this book, but it looks like a worthy addition to the library. The price of a new one made me gasp. But I found a used copy on Amazon for about 1/5 the price of new. :-)
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Pete, I’ve ordered that book — apparently only 3 left in Canada! Jim, thanks for the Van Dyke suggestion — I had an alternate process book that I’d been afraid of and looked up Van Dyke and it does not seem intimidating. And my little book by Webb and Reed even has a chapter on getting a better negative as David suggests. Thanks again! Dean
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
if interested in glossy silver prints, it is necessary to find a source for silver chloride paper instead of silver bromide which is used for enlarging.
It is not at all 'necessary' to find a pure chloride papers (of which two are currently manufactured and I have serious doubts about the future of one of them). Any kind of photographic paper works fine for contact printing.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
first learn to make negatives which print well with the chosen process. For most contact processes that means more contrast than for enlarging. if interested in glossy silver prints, it is necessary to find a source for silver chloride paper instead of silver bromide which is used for enlarging.
In my experience, I tend to lose contrast as I increase print size. And, you can certainly use enlarging papers for contact printing; been making contact prints for nearly 40 years with enlarging papers before I started using Lodima and Lupex a few years ago.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koraks
It is not at all 'necessary' to find a pure chloride papers (of which two are currently manufactured and I have serious doubts about the future of one of them). Any kind of photographic paper works fine for contact printing.
No truer words have ever been written. :)
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
FYI: https://www.lodima.org/photographic-paper
Palladium toned kallitypes are quite affordable, and very archival. A vacuum frame is probably the best method, IMHO.
For contact printing I burn very little and dodging is more so used. Cardboard taped to coat hangers and moved around a lot close to the frame.
For me it probably takes 5 proofs before the final print.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koraks
It is not at all 'necessary' to find a pure chloride papers (of which two are currently manufactured and I have serious doubts about the future of one of them). Any kind of photographic paper works fine for contact printing.
Bromide paper does not give the density range of chloride paper. This was proved to me many years ago,and bromide papers have changed, bu not improved in this manner.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Christopher James' book, third edition, is also available at Bostick & Sullivan, which is where i got mine.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
koraks
It is not at all 'necessary' to find a pure chloride papers (of which two are currently manufactured and I have serious doubts about the future of one of them). Any kind of photographic paper works fine for contact printing.
Most current multigrade papers have high or very high chloride content emulsions, as do chromogenic papers.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
Bromide paper does not give the density range of chloride paper. This was proved to me many years ago,and bromide papers have changed, bu not improved in this manner.
The maximum density of a silver chloride emulsion tends to lag behind that of a bromide emulsion unless toning is applied. I think you refer not to the density range of the print, but the density range of the negative required by the paper. This is indeed quite long (ca 2 or 2.2 iirc) for chloride papers. However, in itself, this is not an advantage unless you're stuck with negatives with such a scale. There simply is no inherent benefit to a long-scale density range negative requirement. In fact, in practice, it can be quite cumbersome.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jim Noel
Bromide paper does not give the density range of chloride paper. This was proved to me many years ago,and bromide papers have changed, bu not improved in this manner.
There appears to be difficulty in photographers communicating about this subject. "Density range" is frequently cited as a chloride contact printing paper advantage. But what does the phrase mean?
Chloride contact printing papers typically have a lower gamma (contrast) than chloro-bromide enlarging papers. As a result, they can accept -- even require -- negatives with higher density ranges. However, resulting chloride paper contact prints do not exhibit a greater maximum reflection density than do prints on chloro-bromide enlarging papers. They're not "longer scale;" only the negatives one must make to match them are.
I suspect that much of this confusion results from the fact that chloride printing out paper (POP) most definitely made prints that looked different than what one can obtain using either contact or enlarging developing out papers. POP's self-masking effect enabled extreme negative density ranges to be printed without loss of detail. Since POP is no longer commercially available, the only difference between enlarging and currently-sold contact printing papers is how one must target negative contrast for each of them.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sal Santamaura
There appears to be difficulty in photographers communicating about this subject. "Density range" is frequently cited as a chloride contact printing paper advantage. But what does the phrase mean?
Chloride contact printing papers typically have a lower gamma (contrast) than chloro-bromide enlarging papers. As a result, they can accept -- even require -- negatives with higher density ranges. However, resulting chloride paper contact prints do not exhibit a greater maximum reflection density than do prints on chloro-bromide enlarging papers. They're not "longer scale;" only the negatives one must make to match them are.
I suspect that much of this confusion results from the fact that chloride printing out paper (POP) most definitely made prints that looked different than what one can obtain using either contact or enlarging developing out papers. POP's self-masking effect enabled extreme negative density ranges to be printed without loss of detail. Since POP is no longer commercially available, the only difference between enlarging and currently-sold contact printing papers is how one must target negative contrast for each of them.
Thanks for this explanation. It answers some questions I have considered for some time.
Alex
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Received today my copy of The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes, by Christopher James, 2nd Ed. It is truly a magnum opus. It reminds me of my college chemistry text, which isn't too far off the mark. But I was thinking more in terms of bulk and volume.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William Whitaker
Received today my copy of The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes, by Christopher James, 2nd Ed. It is truly a magnum opus. It reminds me of my college chemistry text, which isn't too far off the mark. But I was thinking more in terms of bulk and volume.
I have a couple images in that edition -- both are 8x10 contact prints (one platinum, one carbon) using B&S contact printing frames.
Both processes nicely record what is on the negatives, with the carbon process being able reproduce negatives of a higher density range than the platinum/palladium process. It is nice to be able to tailor one's negatives to specific printing processes.
-
Re: Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William Whitaker
Received today my copy of The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes, by Christopher James, 2nd Ed. It is truly a magnum opus. It reminds me of my college chemistry text, which isn't too far off the mark. But I was thinking more in terms of bulk and volume.
I just got mine too! Heavy as a phonebook though... Now just waiting on the Van Dyke kit to start. Very well written too.
