I'm looking to combine 3 different negatives to produce an enlarged pano print in the darkroom. Now I only have a 35mm carrier in the enlarger and would like to print one negative at a time on each third of the larger piece of photographic paper.
I know i'm going to have problems trying to get proper joining between the 3 negatives on the paper, it would have to be VERY VERY precise!
I could develop the paper when I expose one negative, wash and dry it, then put the second negative in the carrier, put a red safe light filter on and align it that way..
Does anyone know a method of joining the prints seamlessly?
ps No please I dont want to do it digitally, no matter how "easy" it is :)
Print three separate prints and then physically align them properly. Shoot a copy neg of your composite print and then print your composite neg. You still may require an unsharp mask doing it this way. But I would try it without first.
If at all possible, I would shoot the copy neg on larger format then 35 mm.
The alternative would be a registration easel and probably pin registered negative carrier...not practical with 35 mm.
I hope that you had the camera perfectly level and plumb.
When I was younger I made the prints and mounted them together, seamlessly... however there was still a seam...
Let's all take a step back and think abit how best to do this...
This is something difficult to do without seeing what has been done, probably impossible,but you can minimized the effects.
This is not going to answer your question but I've seen some very nice panoramic images which have been printed separately and then combined/mounted within a larger frame with an obvious gap between them. If you have a subtle seam it'll tend to draw attention whereas an obvious gap (it doesn't have to be large) will tend to make people move backwards to view the three prints as a whole. For large prints and when done well it's quite effective.
Failing that, a variation on what Donald has suggested is to make enlarged copy negatives from 35mm and contact print them. You may find this easier to align as you're dealing with the full size print instead of a 35mm negative.
..and then there is the answer our wives or significant others love so much. "Hey, I could really make this work with a 7x17 or 8x20 camera."
Walking on the edge of marital disaster.
Hi there jag2x, next time don't wait 19 months before your next post ;)
Still another way...you could print all three individually, then dry mount them with a large, long over mat with three windows. The borders could be the usual widths, but the width of the vertical mat that seperates the images would be thinner...like looking through a window. Hinge tape the over mat to the board the images are mounted to, tack some dry mount tissue to the images, trim them to final size, place each one in its window, align each (placing something soft and heavy on it helps) tack a corner of the tissue to the mount, then dry mount.
I've done quite a bit of this, two ways. One is to print separate images, cut them for best crossover match, then drymount with a very small space between each image (no more than 1mm) between. Then cut one big matte window to fall just .5cm or so outside the edges of the prints. I find that trying to make the seam invisible (like butting the edges together) doesn't work, looks goofy, and if any emulsion chips off at the edges, it's really noticable.
Some gallery owners have recently told me that dry mounted prints are undesirable to collectors (can't unmount, etc.). So lately I have been trying to cut the prints so that there is an overlap at the crossover of about .5cm. Then I cut a window in the matte for each image. Cutting from the back, I try for 8mm width between images, a bit narrower from the viewing side with the bevel. It's a lot of work, but then the prints can be hinged and the collector can remount if desired. Frankly, I like the look of the drymounted way. I can always sell another set of prints to a collector.
I have also printed multiple images on one sheet (up to 9, when I was in college and had the stamina). As some have said, it's a lot of work, and artistically, it's a different statement, accepting some of the imprecision of the crossover in favor of the single print, with the matte covering the edges of the print, but just outside the silver image, the desired form, from what I'm told. Try different things in small scale, and pick the one you like. If your images are successful, it won't matter. (The purists may grumble about your drymounting a 100 years out.)
1. On your easel bladesmark clearly each image butt position top and bottom
2. Put tape one inch on either side of but line top and bottom , you now have 12 pieces of tape, equally spaced
3.Test each image to a size that over laps 1 1/2 inches beyond the butt lines
4.Match grades and tonalitys and make sure that you set your timer for approx 10 seconds*give or take 1 second* apeture position will be critical
5. Now position Image one and place a card on the inside tape*within the image and hit the exposure. Slowly move the card from inside tape to the inside tape of the middle image position , making sure it takes you 10 seconds.* a foot switch or helper will be helpful*
6. put the second image in place *you will need red filter under lens to position* bleed the second image into the first and third. * Now since it is a three image piece you and your assistant must put a card on the inside tape of the middle image and you use the 10 seconds to slowly move the card to the inside tape of the first image and your assistant slowly moves the card to the inside of the third image.
7. Now put in the third image, remember the red filter under lens.Place the card on the tape on the inside of the third image, hit the exposure and slowly move the card to the inside tape of the middle image in the 10 second time.
I did this as an assignment in college and it only takes one full day, If you are lucky to have an nice assistant its much like a twister game, good possibilitys at the end of the day.
If you do everything right you should have three images perfectly and seamlessly blended together balanced for density and contrast.
This is a challange. post your image . you can do it. screw Photo Shop.
This one excersise will give you more printing information and skill *done properly*
Bob Carnie's method is closest to your original plan and does sound like a great exercise.
If you decide to go with three prints mounted together, the way to line them up is to put them on a light table, so that the adjacent images overlap, tape the edges temporarily with drafting tape, then cut through the two adjacent prints where they overlap using a straightedge and X-acto knife, and then you can drymount them so the edges butt against each other.
This presumes that the prints actually line up (camera mounted with lens node over the point of rotation, lens not too wide, even illumination of neg, etc.).
Another way you could try to do this. Print each print individually to the required size & join them up on a light box, tape or mount them together. Then trace the outlines of the entire image & transfer the tracing on to a stiff board like foamcore. Use this board with the traced image on it as your easel. Print each neg on to your paper by first lining it up exactly with the traced image on your "easel" & then expose at your pre determined exposure. I'm not sure how well this would work, but I have blended two negs together using this technique, with limited success. You can also soften the edges where the images overlap to get them to blend together.