Contact printing “how-to” but as a final product, not a proof.

[Fred L]

Christopher James' book, third edition, is also available at Bostick & Sullivan, which is where i got mine.

[interneg]

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.

[koraks]

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.

[Sal Santamaura]

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.

[alexmuir]

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

[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.

[Vaughn]

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.

[Dean Lastoria]

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.