Contact Printing Frame Sizes

[ReallyBigCameras]

I am in the process of adding a line of high quality contact printing frames to my product offerings. The manufacturer currently makes them in the following sizes:

24x30cm (9.4" x 11.8") - This seems like the perfect size for anything up to 8x10 negatives on paper up to 8.5" x 11". I expect this size will be my biggest seller.

30x40cm (11.8" x 15.7") - Another size that seems very logical. Obviously works well for negatives up to 11x14. And, I also noticed that several types of paper stock favored by alt process printers (Arches Platine, watercolor papers, etc.) come in 11x15 sheets. This frame would work with this size of pre-cut paper.

40x50cm (15.7" x 19.7) - I'm not sure if this is a good size. It would work fine for 14x17, but it a hair too small for 16x20. Also, I know that for sizes larger than 11x14, many printers prefer a vacumm frame over a conventional contact printing frame.

So, I welcome comments on these sizes, and I'd like to hear input for additional sizes, either bigger or smaller.

One thing I've noticed about the current market is a void of contact printing frames in the banquet sizes. Do you think there is a market for contact printing frames supporting 4x10, 5x12, 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 film sizes? The frames would be slightly oversized (an inch or two bigger than the nominal format size in both directions). Also, maintaining good center pressure should be less of a problem in the banquet formats than the standard formats as you move up in sizes. The length of the back springs would remain reasonably short, and additional springs can be added as the length of the negative increases.

All comments welcome.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

[jgjbowen]

Kerry,

All I can speak of is my personal experience. I started doing 8x10 contact prints with a printing frame. When I moved up to 7x17 I got a vacuum frame. Now I use the vacuum frame for 5x7, 8x10 and 7x17 contact prints.

I find the vacuum frame is much more efficient then the contact printing frame.

Best,

[Alex Hawley]

Hi Kerry,

I'm needing a new frame for 8x10 prints so I may hold off on getting one to see what you come up with.

I would think there would be a market for an 8x20 frame. It would also handle 7x17. I wound up getting an 16x20 frame for my 7x17 prints. It works fine of course but sure gives me a work out flipping it around. A smaller frame would be appreciated.

[TheFlyingCamera]

I would think the interest for banquet sizes would lie in the larger (7x17, 8x20, 12x20) sizes. I do 5x12's in my 11x14 frame.

[ReallyBigCameras]

Kerry,

All I can speak of is my personal experience. I started doing 8x10 contact prints with a printing frame. When I moved up to 7x17 I got a vacuum frame. Now I use the vacuum frame for 5x7, 8x10 and 7x17 contact prints.

I find the vacuum frame is much more efficient then the contact printing frame.

Best,

John,

Thanks for the input. Vacuum frames are definitely nice, but some people still prefer/require traditional contact printing frames. Some photographers still produce contact prints using the sun as a light source. Others have limited, or no, permanent darkroom space. So, having something smaller, that's easy to move around, is desirable.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

[ReallyBigCameras]

Alex and Scott,

Thanks for the feedback.

It appears there may be a market for a frame that would handle both 7x17 and 8x20.

It could be the same height as the 24x30cm size, but somewhere between 54cm (21.25") and 60cm (23.6") in length. How much extra wiggle room do you like? The 24cm (9.4") height should be fine for both 7x17 and 8x20. Would 54cm (21.25") be long enough, or would you prefer something a little longer?

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

[TheFlyingCamera]

I would think so long as you had at least the 3/4" border on each side of an 8x20, you'd be good - 9 1/2" x 21 1/2" exposed glass area so you can print the entire negative with a border if you choose.

[Alex Hawley]

Would 54cm (21.25") be long enough, or would you prefer something a little longer?

The 21.25 length would be great for the 7x17, but if I was doing 8x20, I would prefer a full 22 inches. That's just my druthers though; I could get along with 21.25.

[jgjbowen]

John,

Thanks for the input. Vacuum frames are definitely nice, but some people still prefer/require traditional contact printing frames. Some photographers still produce contact prints using the sun as a light source. Others have limited, or no, permanent darkroom space. So, having something smaller, that's easy to move around, is desirable.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

Kerry,

Excellent point. I've yet to venture into any alternative printing methods, but if/when I do, I'll need a frame that will handle 8x20 paper. Good luck with your new venture.

[ReallyBigCameras]

It does appear there may be a market, no doubt a small one, but a market none-the-less, for contact printing frames in the banquet sizes. Or, at least a frame capable of handling 7x17 and 8x20 negatives.

A NOS (new, old stock) AWB 10" x 22" contact printing frame sold on eBay this morning for $237.50. From, the photos that accompany the auction, one of the corners has come unglued and will need to be re-glued by the new owner. The frames I will be selling have reinforced (splined) corners to prevent this from happening.

The frames I will be selling are made by the camera manufacturer Argentum. They are very well made from high quality materials. The wood is white ash (the same straight-grained hardwood use to make baseball bats). The actual imaging area is 1cm larger in both direction than the nominal frame size. So, the image area of the 24x30cm frame is actually 25x31cm (9.8" x 12.2"). So, a 24x55cm frame for 7x17 and 8x20 would have image area of 25x56cm (9.8" x 22").

I'll try to get some pictures of the 24x30cm frame posted in the next day or two. In the mean time, here's a link to a pdf file of the contact printing frames page from the manufacturer's printed catalog.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras