Topic: Daft questions about contact printing.

[Nigel]

I get some time off at Festivus (keeps Leon happy) and as mentioned elsewhere I was thinking about having a go at some contact printing.

What paper should I buy, on the basis most of it will end up in the trash? I guess resin coated is the way to go?

To save buying paper dev I may never use again can I use film developer? I've got some Rodinal and HC-110.

I assume Ilfostop and Ilford fix will be ok?

[Francois]

Just get some good old Ilford Multigrade RC. It's pretty darn good so you won't be disappointed.
Their Satin finish is harder to print though, less contrast and much weaker blacks. Pearl finish is a very good compromise and completely hides fingerprints while giving good blacks. The glossy paper will give you the very most detail, very good blacks too but fingerprints can be a bit of a problem.

Fixer and stop are the same as for film, but the developer should be different. Paper developers are fairly high contrast compared to HC-110, so that's pretty much looking for disappointment if you choose to use it.

Personally, I get some Ilford PQ Universal for my paper. It works very well and keeps fairly good in normal conditions. Best part is you can use it to push process film and get that 1970's British punk scene look (they used PQ and HP5 to get that gritty look)

[Bryan]

I just ordered some paper and developer to try this as well.  I'll do it with 4x5 negatives and paper.  I already have a darkroom timer and a red darkroom light so I just need to do some experiments.  Any recommendations as far as bulb wattage, distance and timing for a starting point would be nice.

I also have some vacation time I need to use or loose so I'll be taking time off for "Festivus" as well.  That will be a good time to try this. 

[imagesfrugales]

Rodinal is a fantastic paper developer at dilutions of 1:10 or 1:15. The best I ever used myself. Downs are: quite expensive and after 1 or 2 hours in the tray its dead. Add 4 g/l Vit-C and 4 g/l washing soda (waterfree) with 1:20 dilution of Rodinal and it keeps a few hours.

[Francois]

I just ordered some paper and developer to try this as well.  I'll do it with 4x5 negatives and paper.  I already have a darkroom timer and a red darkroom light so I just need to do some experiments.  Any recommendations as far as bulb wattage, distance and timing for a starting point would be nice.

I also have some vacation time I need to use or loose so I'll be taking time off for "Festivus" as well.  That will be a good time to try this.

For contact printing you really need a low wattage indicator bulb. This allows you some time for adjustments in exposure.

[Domingo A. Siliceo]

[...]
Any recommendations as far as bulb wattage, distance and timing for a starting point would be nice.
[...]

I do 4x5 contact printing under my enlarger light. That way, I can open or close the diaphragm of the enlarger lens and (in my experience) control better the light hitting the negatives.

[Nigel]

Thanks guys, I'll get the paper and the developer on order. I'm not quite sure how to go about the light source and make it controllable, I'll have to think about that one.

[astrobeck]

Edward Weston contact printed with a simple light bulb...
I have done this as well, it works okay and is definitely a bit fussier in that having to do trial and error for a few times to get it just right but you need to do that with an enlarger as well....

Good luck!

[Francois]

For control, there are a few ways to go. You can fit a dimmer on the light. Or you could do like this contraption I built but haven't had time to try.
Originally, it's designed to pre-fog paper so I get more density range out of it for paper negatives... but I haven't gotten around to doing this.
It's just a lamp socket in a box with a semi-calibrated aperture in it. Behind it is a 5W bulb. I put it on a hook in the ceiling and fixed the cord length using a zip tie. That way the light is always at the same height of about 3 feet.

Best of all, this setup is really cheap to produce.

[Indofunk]

I don't really understand the purpose of the cord if Wile E. is there to hold the bulb .... 

[Bryan]

I don't really understand the purpose of the cord if Wile E. is there to hold the bulb .... 

You just know he'll get electrocuted or fall into the developer.

[Francois]

Well... you know how Wile E. is when it comes to things that have a caution sign on them 

Actually, my build is very safe... even with him hanging around

[Indofunk]

Excellent points. Probably best to distract him with a roadrunner right before you do your pre-fogging...

[Bryan]

I did it!  I used a 7.5 watt bulb about 3 feet above the film.  I used Ilford Multigrade IV RC Portfolio paper, it's 10 x 15cm post card stock.  The developer is Photographers' Formulary, Liquidol Paper Developer.  I hooked the light up to my Time-O-Light dark room timer and experimented with some different times until I could narrow it down to what worked the best.  I wasted a lot of paper but I got it to around 10 seconds depending on the negative.  I still need to work on it a bit, may need to order more paper and make more negatives first.  I think I will also try making the light dimmer to see how much that helps. 

The one of Riley was shot on Ilford Delta 100 and the other was shot on New55 film.  Riley came out the best but it is still a bit dark.  I couldn't seem to get the other one to look quite right.  One thing I had a bit of trouble with was lining up the negative with the paper, every time I put the glass on it the negative would move a bit.  I eliminated the glass and used an old 4x5 glass-less negative holder that seems to have worked good.  I put both the paper and negative in it and it seemed to hold them together pretty good.  Both of the photos below were done that way.  for some reason the scan of Riley looks more out of focus than the actual pring.

[Francois]

You can always make a sort of easel with a plank of wood and a strip of wood on two sides and use the glass.

For quick test prints, there's the old Kodak Projection Print Scale. I have one and it works well.
For paper negatives, you need the cheapest and thinnest paper you can get your hands on. But each time you do a reproduction the contrast goes up.

One of the old tricks with paper negs is to use a soft pencil and add density to the back of the paper where it's needed. On the first positive, you darken the blacks. On the negative print, you lighten the highlights. That way you get a perfect final print.

When scanning, you'll quickly discover that it makes every defect much more visible...

[Bryan]

For quick test prints, there's the old Kodak Projection Print Scale. I have one and it works well.

I looked up the Kodak Projection Print Scale and realized I have one.  It's in the original box with instructions just sitting on a shelf.  So should I put it between the negative and the paper or on top of the negative?  Or does that matter with contact printing. 

[Francois]

For contact printing, you make a photo paper-negative-print scale sandwich.
You expose the whole set for 60 seconds and read the proper time on the print. Or if in a hurry you can expose for 30 seconds and divide the time shown on the slices by 2.

With an enlarger, you put it on top of the paper directly.

[astrobeck]

Bryan , those are cool!
I know the frustration then the thrill you felt once one turned out!
Keep up the good work.

I need to get a dog.....

[Bryan]

Thanks Becky, this is getting me more excited about shooting 4x5.  I'll get it right eventually, maybe in time for the next post card exchange. 

Maybe Santa will bring you a dog.

[Bryan]

At the suggestion of Francois I made a few more prints today first determining the proper exposure with my Kodak Projection Print Scale.  I also modified my light source by adding a white translucent piece of plastic to cut down the amount of light it puts out.  With the print scale I followed the directions and exposed it for one minute with the paper on the bottom, the negative in the middle and the Print Scale on top with a piece of glass holding it all down.  As you can see on the first one, the Wreck of the Peter Iredale, I discovered that the negative was backwards so I fixed that in the final print.  It's not a very good negative to begin with, it has some dust and light leaks.  I chose 16 seconds on that one.  On the flower pot I chose 8 seconds and the Palouse Falls photo I chose 32 seconds.  The Palouse Falls photo was difficult because of the shadows and bright sunlight but I think it turned out ok.  Some dodging and burning may have helped but I'm not to that point yet.  The next thing I need to do is figure out a way to get everything lined up properly when I make the final print.  I still used the glass-less negative holder for the final print since that does help a little but I need to make some kind of frame that will work better. 

[Francois]

That's really getting there.
Dodging and burning is pretty hard when it comes to contact prints.
One thing I've seen once is taking a piece of vellum the size of the negative and adding cut-out pieces of vellum. Or tape to add density where dodging would be needed. I'll try and find a picture of the procedure...

[Francois]

Sorry.... I had forgotten about this until last night.
Here's the process I was talking about

[Bryan]

I was thinking of cutting a piece of paper to the shape and putting it over the area for part of the exposure.  Similar to what your instructions show but not translucent.

[Francois]

The fun thing about the translucent tape version is that you get to save the plate for a future print of the same negative. And the thickness of the glass or perspex actually diffuses the edges for a perfect print without any visible dodging lines.

[Jack Johnson]

I was thinking of cutting a piece of paper to the shape and putting it over the area for part of the exposure.  Similar to what your instructions show but not translucent.

There was an excellent article in View Camera magazine several years back about using printer transparency sheets to print a mask. It was a fantastic idea: scan the negative (in their example case 8x10), manipulate the mask in your software of choice, print it 1:1, and (carefully) layer it on top of the negative in a contact print.

[Jack Johnson]

Not the original article, but enough to get the juices flowing:

http://phototechmag.com/selective-digital-masking-part-ii/
http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/Overview/OverviewPart6.htm

...though I suspect Alan Ross -- author in that first link -- did the article in View Camera.

[Bryan]

I had a chance to test my Brumberger Contact Printer yesterday.  It works but I did run into a few problems.  The two white bulbs it came with are way too bright.  I pulled both of them out and put in one 7.5 watt bulb which is still too bright, probably because it of how close it is to the film.  There is frosted glass between the bulb and the print but it lets too much light through.  I was able to make a good print but it was only a two second exposure, that doesn't leave much room to make adjustments.  I ordered some sheets of Neutral Density Gel filter that I will cut to size and place over the frosted glass in the printer.  I figure I can stack them to make it darker until I get it to where it works for me.  Does anyone see a problem with this or have any other suggestions?  Is this what is normally used in darkroom printing or should I consider colored filters?

[Francois]

No problem with this. You can also add some layers of vellum under the glass, though Rosco or Lee lighting gels would be a better option.
You can also put a dimmer on the bulb, or if you feel like soldering, add an inline power diode on the mains line. This will effectively prevent one cycle from happening thus reducing the intensity of the bulb.

Those old printers were mainly designed to work with the much slower papers of the time (chloride papers). That's why the bulbs were overkill.

[Bryan]

I'll look into getting a dimmer for it, between that and the ND filter I should be able to make it workable.

[Francois]

Definitely.
An ND4 or ND8 filter would give you times in the 8 to 15 seconds.

The advantage of the dimmer is that you can infinitely vary the exposure.

I know old newspaper darkroom printers used to put a dimmer on their enlargers and would always expose for the same time using the same aperture.
They would learn to make the negatives look about the same density on the easel using the dimmer and then press the expose button on the timer.

[jojonas~]

I know old newspaper darkroom printers used to put a dimmer on their enlargers and would always expose for the same time using the same aperture.
They would learn to make the negatives look about the same density on the easel using the dimmer and then press the expose button on the timer.

now that's an interesting way about things!

[Francois]

It's just much easier to judge intensity than time....

[gsgary]

Get some Adox MCP 312 paper lovely dark blacks, a scan of a print does not do it justice

[JoeV]

For keeping the negative properly aligned atop the print paper I use a thin sheet of black craft foam under the print paper, then the negative goes face-down atop the paper, and finally the glass. Then if you apply gentle pressure to the glass, you can move it slightly and the negative will slide along the top of the paper; you can then adjust the negative so it's properly centered on the paper. It also helps to have your safe light directly above or near the enlarger, so you can more easily see the position of the negative atop the paper.

[JoeV]

To add: I use a sheet of glass larger than the print paper, with the edges taped to prevent cuts. The sheet of craft foam is smaller than the glass, with the print paper smaller yet. The craft foam sticks to the table surface, while sliding the glass enables the negative to be precisely moved into register with the print paper.

[Francois]

And the craft foam can squish a bit to make everything more flat.