Contact Printing from a Television....

Discussion in 'Contact Printing' started by holmburgers, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hey all,

    This post might be better in alternative processes, but technically what I'm dreaming up is 'contact printing' so alas, here it is!

    In my opinion, the vivid reds, greens & blues of a traditional CRT television tube are the post-modern equivalent to stained glass windows, and I've always wanted to get a perfect 1:1 image from it, with quality good enough to discern the individual pixels.

    There are many technical hurdles to overcome, like getting a stable image, figuring out how to turn the TV on without the initial ZAP destroying the image. And so forth.

    It's a crazy idea, I know, but if anyone has some ideas or suggestions or duragatory comments, I'd love to hear them.

    Thanks,

    Chris H.
     
  2. Jeff Bannow

    Jeff Bannow Member

    Messages:
    1,759
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Location:
    Royal Oak, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Crazy idea - I like it!
     
  3. archphoto

    archphoto Member

    Messages:
    1,066
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Location:
    Holland and
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Get one channel with the picture you want and one channel that is completely black.
    In that way you can turn on your tv without fogging your paper.

    As for the other one: how about a DVD or so ?

    Peter
     
  4. Jeff Bannow

    Jeff Bannow Member

    Messages:
    1,759
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Location:
    Royal Oak, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Heck, you could make a DVD with your image on it, and time it so when it plays you get like 1 minute of black, then the image for your exposure time, then more black. DVD shutter! :smile:
     
  5. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    aaahhh, both are great ideas. DVD shutter, beautiful. I was also thinking about fading the picture out using the various knobs (picture, contrast, brightness..... [it's definitely an old school television]).

    Now how about exposure times? I guess trial & error is the only option really.
     
  6. Jeff Bannow

    Jeff Bannow Member

    Messages:
    1,759
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Location:
    Royal Oak, M
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    You'll want some slow paper to work with - Cyanotypes maybe? Standard color or B&W paper would be too fast I would think ...
     
  7. keithwms

    keithwms Member

    Messages:
    6,070
    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    Location:
    Charlottesvi
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Very cool ideas, do it! I'd be inclined to photograph the TV on large format and contact print that slide or neg. Reason being the flicker and the static, and the issue of how to define the exposure time- the response likely won't be fast enough to define short exposure, you might aim more for 5 or 10 sec exposure. But simply photographing the screen would fix all of these problems easily. I know it's not as cool, but...
     
  8. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Imagine this, contact straight to Ilfochrome. You'd have a beautiful first generation print straight from the TV. I think this could look really cool. Also, I'd like to use slide dupe film sheets and get a 1:1 transparency, then mount that in a light box that looked like a tv and you'd have a completely functional STATIC IMAGINE TV, hahaha. Once I get my darkroom set up, I'll definitely try this!
     
  9. Joe VanCleave

    Joe VanCleave Member

    Messages:
    618
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque,
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    I tried a similar thing with a pinhole camera setup to capture the full screen on a B/W paper negative (but you could use panchro and color film, of course.) I used a pinhole sized about the same as the pixel size of the video screen, since you don't really need any more sharpness than what you're limited to by the video pixels themselves; plus, larger pinholes mean shorter exposure times.

    During last year's US presidential election I recorded several hours of the election night coverage, then reviewed them and freeze-framed the appropriate footage where I like the compositions. Some of the most interesting freeze-frame images were during dissolves from one scene to another, for instance the face of an adoring fan dissolving to candidate Obama's face, etc. Lots of interesting dichotomies to play with, subject matter wise.

    Once the appropriate freeze-framed image is selected, you can then set up the pinhole camera and capture it on film.

    ~Joe

    PS: You can calculate with good accuracy the correct distance from the video screen to the pinhole on the camera to get the video image to nearly fill the film's frame, by using the following ratios. Assuming your video aspect ratio isn't the same as the film's, just use the figures for the video screen's width and the film's longest dimension. You supply three of the following values, and solve for the fourth. Most likely you already know your video screen's width, and the film size you wish to use, so you're left to decide on the camera's focal length and/or the required distance from the screen to the pinhole.

    (width of video screen)/(distance from video screen to pinhole) = (width of film)/(focal length of pinhole camera)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 14, 2009
  10. Evans Wetmore

    Evans Wetmore Member

    Messages:
    3
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Copyright Issue

    I would point out that a great deal of the content on television is subject to copyright, eg, TV shows, DVDs, etc. I would, therefore, suggest great caution in deciding what content to copy.

    Evans
     
  11. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    "Every party needs a pooper, that's why we invited you...."

    JUST KIDDING. You raise a good point. It definitely depends on what your end goal is though. Personal enjoyment in my case.
     
  12. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,933
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I imagine the only way to know is try it, but I would be concerned that the glass face plate on a traditional CRT is quite thick -- approaching a half inch on the larger ones, and the phosphors are essentially point source emitters on the inner surface. This suggests to me there will be a lot of light dispersion and the print will be very low in detail -- but after all those words -- I could be wrong!

    Have access to a Polaroid back? You could experiment by holding it against your TV (assuming you can come up with the film).

    DaveT
     
  13. Mr Bill

    Mr Bill Member

    Messages:
    421
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hi Chris (holmburgers), it looks like quite a bit of interest in your idea, so sorry I'm going to be another party pooper.

    I sort of chased down a similar idea long time ago, so maybe I can save you some time.

    First, you won't be able to make an actual contact print of the CRT screen, because the glass faceplate keeps you too far away from the image. (You would end up with the equivalent of an unsharp mask.) One way around this is to use a CRT with a fiber optic faceplate, as some commercial printers once did (search for things like Sienna Mileca, or Gretag Netprinter, etc.)

    So once you convince yourself that contact printing won't work, you can move on to the next step, using a lens system to project an image. In essence, you would build an enlarger, using the CRT in place of the negative.

    What I did, rather than build an enlarger, was to simply cut down some color paper to the size of a piece of film, then, in the dark, lay it in the back of a camera. Then, took photos of the CRT screen. You'll have to go back in the dark to remove your paper, then develop it, etc. But you'll be able to see the effect of an enlarger without actually building one.

    The next thing you'll discover is that any color CRT made in modern times has a really difficult time making a red exposure. What you see on the monitor, visually, looks great, partially because of a specific red phosphor (invented in the 1960s, I think), which is really good at stimulating human vision, but otherwise is spectrally lousy. You'll have to drastically hold back exposure on the green and blue. I would guess somewhere around 150 to 200 cc units each, of magenta and yellow printing filtration. My memory is really fuzzy here, but a camera exposure of around 10 seconds at f/4 is probably getting into ballpark range.

    If you have a CRT monitor on your computer, you probably have software to invert an image (that is, it looks like a negative), then lower the conrast, you can probably get a decent image onto your color paper. Then, decide if building the "enlarger" (or use large format camera ala keithwms) is worth it. HAve fun!
     
  14. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Hmm, that's fascinating about the red phosphors. My TV has the ability to change tint w/ quite a bit of latitude. Maybe by experimenting with that I can get the color balance right.

    I think to test what you're all saying (that the glass is too thick for a tight image) I'll cut off a short strip of 35mm and tape it to the screen. Then I'll hang my head and admit defeat.... or not!

    Isn't there an Adam and the Ants album with a picture from a TV on the cover. I love that look.

    Thanks again for all the input!
     
  15. Joe VanCleave

    Joe VanCleave Member

    Messages:
    618
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque,
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    I will again repeat my actual experience with doing this, that a simple pinhole box camera, positioned on a tripod in front of the screen at the approriate distance as per the formula I posted previously, is the simplest, most effective way to do this.

    A glass lens capable of imaging the screen with little or no geometric distortion, and able to cover a large format, will be expensive and problematic.

    Regarding the use of color film, you have, with a video image, the ability to alter its hue (i.e. color balance), instead of using filters over the lens/pinhole, so as to compensate for reciprocity failure of the color film that would otherwise throw off the colors in the resulting film image.

    ~Joe
     
  16. eddym

    eddym Member

    Messages:
    1,927
    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Since all TV is now digital, shouldn't this be under the Hybrid site? :wink:
     
  17. Joe VanCleave

    Joe VanCleave Member

    Messages:
    618
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque,
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    Digital TV rant warning:

    Not all TVs are digital; I'm still using an old 27" Sony analog CRT set, with a DTV converter box. I detest 16:9 screens, especially considering, after we've supposedly passed the cutoff date for NTSC broadcast, most program material is still originated in 4:3, even many live sporting events that should be broadcasting 16:9. Only prime-time material is originated in 16:9; and your local news broadcast is almost certainly still 4:3, as are most all commercials that originate locally. The result, when viewing 4:3 material on 16:9 screens, are fat-heads, where the images are stretched out horizontally to fit the full width of the high-dollar screen.

    I'd prefer, when "upgrading" my old TV set, to get a large flat panel display in 4:3 aspect ratio, that way I can watch the majority of program material in its original aspect ratio using the full area of the screen, and still enjoy the full width of a 16:9 DVD program. But, alas, 4:3 flat panel screens can only found in sizes under 20" wide. All you people who plunked down your hard earned cash for 16:9 flat panel displays were cheated; they cut off the top and bottom of your picture, so you're forced to watch the fat-heads.

    End of rant.

    But still, taking analog photographs of TV screens, digital or otherwise, is a neat idea, considering how much of our lives the TV occupies, it should be included in central prominence in any kind of documentary of domestic western culture.

    ~Joe

    PS: I was just kidding about the 16:9 TV thing. Y'all can go back to watching your stories. :wink:
     
  18. Mr Bill

    Mr Bill Member

    Messages:
    421
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Joe, you indicated that your exposures were onto B&W paper, right? Do you recall exposure times?

    My post was speaking to color paper, from probably a 1990s time frame. The yellow and magenta filtration I alluded to will essentially allow red light to come through unrestricted, but cut down the green and blue by factors of ROUGHLY 30 to 100 times. Thus, overall exposure has to increase by the same factor. So, IF my fuzzy memory is halfway close, and IF today's paper has similar characteristics, exposure times for a pinhole may be unreasonable. That is, possibly 5 or 10 hours for COLOR PAPER, using pinhole, when color balanced to a CRT. Remember, also, this is not just a single exposure and it's done; this is the exposure needed for every test strip while color balancing.

    Clearly, I think some sensible f-number (f/2.8 to f/5.6 or so) is needed if one desires to use color paper, for a color corrected CRT image.
     
  19. Joe VanCleave

    Joe VanCleave Member

    Messages:
    618
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque,
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    I first tried this using a refractive lens, rather than pinhole; this was a single-element adapted lens, so it wasn't anywhere near as sharp as a "real" camera lens; but it only needed to resolve down to the pixel level of the video screen. Rating my paper negatives at an Exposure Index of "2", and using a Gossen Luna Pro F light meter with which to meter the scene, I measured various video frames with readings of from EV3 to EV6. With the lens set to around f/4.8, the exposure times were around 4-8 seconds. The results came out good, exposure-wise, albeit with a bit excessive contrast, which should be adjustable by tweaking the contrast of the display monitor down somewhat.

    BTW, that's what I love about this process, you have the option of tweaking the image prior to exposure. In the case of using color film, you can tweak the tint (i.e. the color balance) of the display to compensate for reciprocity effects, which effects the various color layers in the film differently, throwing off the color balance.

    Then I tried this using an F350, 8"x10" format pinhole camera, using the same paper negatives rated at an Exposure Index of "2". I did three exposures using this method; the first used my camcorder as a video source, with a freeze-framed image as the subject. With the TV set to normal brightness and contrast it required a 40 minute exposure. The remainder of the shooting I did on a playback of a recording from election night 2008, using my old VCR (yes, I still have several); I was ultimately able to get a good exposure at 17 minutes by running the brightness all the way up on the TV. FYI this was a 27" Sony CRT display.

    I'm not familiar with the reciprocity characteristics of color papers, but I'm assuming that their paper exposure index is similar to B/W papers. I also understand that during extended exposures some of the emulsion layers end up with different reciprocity characteristics than others, throwing off the color balance wildly, requiring special filtration; or living with the wild colors.

    Yep, sound like a good flat-field copy lens on a large format camera would be required for your needs. Keep us informed as to the progress of your project, it sounds interesting.

    ~Joe
     
  20. holmburgers

    holmburgers Member

    Messages:
    4,423
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Location:
    Rochester NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'll keep you posted, though it might be a bit down the road. :wink:

    Thanks for everyone's interest, this is a really great community!
     
  21. michaelbsc

    michaelbsc Member

    Messages:
    2,106
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    South Caroli
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    no defeat

    NO DEFEAT! You learn! And you express!

    Technical photographs must mimic physical reality. Art may do so if that's what you are after. But they don't have to do so.

    I think it is an extremely interesting idea, and I don't even own a TV.
     
  22. Joe VanCleave

    Joe VanCleave Member

    Messages:
    618
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    Albuquerque,
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    Having, in a former life, worked as a TV repair technician, and having personally administered the violent release of CRT vacuum on numerous occasions, I can testify that most CRTs have a front glass thickness ~1/2" - 3/4" thick, depending on the size of the CRT.

    Hence my attempt at doing this resulted in my using a pinhole camera in front of the CRT, where the pinhole size was about the same as the phosphor pixels on the CRT. Of course, a glass camera lens also would work, perhaps with a faster exposure time, but you may have issues with focus at the edge, since most glass CRTs are curved, if you used a wide angle lens and a close-up distance to the TV. You probably would have better results with a longer lens further away from the screen, getting a flatter field.

    ~Joe
     
  23. BetterSense

    BetterSense Member

    Messages:
    3,126
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2008
    Location:
    North Caroli
    Shooter:
    35mm
    On old scanning electron microscopes, images used to be recorded by exposing sheet film laid on the CRT display. It used to be acceptable to label images as $largenumberX where X was based on a 4x5 negative's proportions. Now that everything is digital, the "10,000X" doesn't mean anything and you have to put a ruler somewhere in the image for scale.
     
  24. Kaboom

    Kaboom Member

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi! this might be a little forward for my first post, but i haven't gotten round to introducing myself yet- i will shortly, i promise.

    There's relatively simple way around the glass thickness problem, but then again it might defeat your purpose:
    Use/find a plasma or TFT screen.
    With a TFT screen hooked to a monitor, you can do "powerpoint shutter" instead of DVD shutter, the top layer of the TFT is really thin compared to the CRT glass, you can do endles color balance, exposure, contrast and so on to the image on photoshop and powerpoint...
    But then you lose the cool factor of doing it from a "vintage" TV...
    Cheers!