Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,900   Posts: 1,521,090   Online: 999
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11
    Patrick Robert James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    244
    Images
    35
    A loupe is the fastest and easiest way. Just get a good one. If you don't want to bend over your lightbox, you can use a window. Alternatively, you could get a really small lightbox. I have one that I can hold in my hand.

  2. #12
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    584
    I make contact sheets of all my negatives. If you make sure that the negative and the paper are in direct contact (a thick glass panel helps) the contct prints are as sharp as the negatives.

    I inspect them with an old 50 mm lens, looking through it form the film side. This gives a good impression of the enlarged image. For MF I use a 80 mm lens in a similar way.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    850
    A contact-print of the whole roll fits on a sheet of 8x10". Use a standardised exposure and filtration for the contact-print so you can relate what you see, to what is actually in the neg. The glare from a lightbox becomes tiring quite quickly, and three hands would be useful, but with a paper contact-print you can more easily examine your results and discuss them with the average human who has never read a neg over a lightbox in their lives.

    In prehistoric times, when I worked in a lab with 8x10" enlargers, it was not uncommon to put the negs into the carrier and print the whole thing to 16x20". That worked fine too, for proofing, and gave our customers something "impressive" and "special" to wave under the noses of their own clients.

  4. #14
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    I have the save problem. This sounds like sacrilege. When I had to proof 20 rolls from South East Asia, I shot my negs in pages on a light table with my dslr, inversed the image in Photoshop, then sent it off to Shutterfly to have them printed 11x14.

    I'm thinking about just looking at them on a tablet or computer monitor, but I'm too old school and I like my proofs sheets printed.

    I've got an old Paterson proofer. The foam rotted on it and I want to use the glass part to make a holder that will hold 36exp on 8x10 area. I have an Epson V700 that will scan 8x10 negs. Stuffing the negs with curly film on those Paterson proofers suck though.

    I remember when I assisted, a hundreds of rolls and made proof sheets. Those are days are long gone now.
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  5. #15
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,097
    Images
    340
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    My shooting ratio is horrible, especially for 35mm which also is the hardest to proof. I get tired of squinting at dozens of tiny negatives to find the one to print. I have a light box and a loupe, but the loupe is squinty and the lightbox is never comfortable to hunch over. It would be great if I had a thing I could feed a strip of 35mm into and view the images enlarged. And that device is not a scanner because scanning takes WAY too long just to decide if the roll needs tossed. An optical device like a projector or movie film editor might do the trick but I don't know where to come up with something like that. Any ideas are appreciated. There has to be a better way than hunching over a light box.
    Have you thought about mounting your lightbox on the wall at head height. Mine is, and just to the left of my Durst enlarger, so I don't even have to walk between the two. Also, instead of a loupe, try a good quality hand held magnifying glass, of the type used by Sherlock Holmes.

    “The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”

    Francis Bacon

  6. #16
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    Something quick n' dirty. See your iPhone as an electronic loupe.

    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...e/posts/407952
    "Photography, like surfing, is an infinite process, a constantly evolving exploration of life."
    Aaron Chang

  7. #17
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,847
    Making contact prints is too costly and slow. I actually transitioned from making contacts to the lightbox to save work. I still had to use a loupe to look at the contact prints so making the contact was just one more step with little benefit. I can judge negatives fine; the issue is more how to reduce the work of looking through dozens or hundred of them.

    The idea of taking a picture of the whole roll on a lightbox and viewing on the computer is an interesting one.
    f/22 and be there.

  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,130
    Images
    46
    A fluorescent lightbox will give weird light-effects when photographed (the orange-blue flicker). So an incandescent bulb would be better behind glass. I've tried using the condenser head of the Omega DII as a backlight lightsource to photograph 4x5 negatives but the light was uneven and didn't really cover the whole frame...

  9. #19
    piu58's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Leipzig, Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    584
    > Making contact prints is too costly

    Too costy? One sheet of paper is to costy for a whole film? If you make some prints from it you need 10 sheets or so. Every print made or at least tried without success is more expansive.
    ---
    Uwe Pilz

  10. #20
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,130
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by piu58 View Post
    > Making contact prints is too costly

    Too costy? One sheet of paper is to costy for a whole film? If you make some prints from it you need 10 sheets or so. Every print made or at least tried without success is more expansive.
    piu58,

    Literally, you are right. I think you make a good point that it may be irrational to complain that contact prints are too expensive.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin