^^^this^^^Originally Posted by Oren Grad
What do your images look like under a loupe?
What method/equipment are you using?
^^^this^^^
What do your images look like under a loupe?
What method/equipment are you using?
"I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White
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!
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
Dean Lastoria
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. :-)
Last edited by William Whitaker; 25-Jul-2019 at 08:04.
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
Dean Lastoria
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.
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.
No truer words have ever been written.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks