Yeah, paper this size gets expensive, and is a bit more difficult for sure. You still managed fine, in my opinion, and the final product as several 16x20 sheets will be equally impressive as a single sheet. Nobody other than photographers will care.
Originally Posted by jcc
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
I think it's already outstanding, but a perfectionist never finishes. here's some input.
I've recently started a project to print (enlarging) on 42" paper (roll, which i came across inexpensively, albeit rc)... my output would be 42in. x 63in. I've built a faux frame/easel (for $17)
supplies from Home Dep*t
1 1/2 baseboard 17ft ($0.69 per ft)
12 large washers 14 cents or so each
4 nuts to raise 4 washers to same height as others
12 neodymium magnets 3-4 bucks for tiny ones
The cheapest natural wooden baseboards are light enough to be held together by the super glue. While i am projecting horizontally, you can do so on the floor, or where ever. you might also be able to get away from buying the magnets and just use a large sheet of plexi? or use large strips of the cheaper magnets around the border... (the tiny neodymium ones are really strong by the way).
As for chemicals, I've bought 8" large pvc pipes (diy jobo style) and still do this under safelights since i don't have the light-tight caps like jobo or patterson. I also use a cabinet mesh to separate the paper from itself, always starting out with a water wash before starting any actual chemical process. I also use very diluted dektol and go around and separate the mesh from paper manually as it processes as an extra precaution.
Of course there's always the 'roll through a trough' method, which i don't trust myself with as it involves to much handling of the paper, for this clumsy guy.
Good to see I'm not the only nutter doing stuff like this (well not yet, but I intend to).
What I've got so far is a pinhole camera that can fit about 11x14 (possibly bigger, haven't tried yet).
But paper is paper and paper is slow, and I've got a whole lot of film lying around, 135 and 120. What I intend to do is to cut up the film (maybe 1 or 2 rolls per photo) and tape it to the back of the camera. Proper alignment isn't an aim of this, I intend to have overlaps and gaps between strips of film.
Of course, I could just scan it and digitally arrange (why not, I've got 20GB of RAM to fill up), but that's boring, I also want to contact-print.
My question is, what's the best way to hold all the negs in place when contact-printing? Because of the weird alignments when shooting, I'll have to arrange them in the light and hold them in place before upturning onto the paper in the dark.
I was thinking of clear-plastic-adhesive sheets (we aussies just call it Contact, like you cover schoolbooks with to stop them getting ripped), but then the negative might stick to it too much and the emulsion could peel off and get damaged and such.
Sticky-taping to a non-adhesive floppy-plastic sheet wight not work, the negs will sag in the middle when I upturn it.
Taping to a huge sheet of glass would be perfect but fragile.
Taping to a sheet of perspex might work, but wouldn't the light refract weirdly?
All of those methods I envisage the 'holder' will interfere with the light (even though it'll be enlargerlight->holder->negatives->paper) to some degree.
Are there any better ways of holding the negs down properly? How did you go about it?
An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
f/64 and be there.
The effort it must've taken. And planning -that would be wonderful to hear about.
Sent from Tap-a-talk
I taped the negs to each other with small (~1/4 of a thumb nail) weakened gaffers tape. I weakened it by placing a fresh tape on my cotton shirt, which was still sticky enough to hold the negatives in place. The tape was mainly beyond the borders of the paper, so it wouldn't show up on the contact sheet as a white spot (except for one sheet, during at the end of the run and got sloppy). Then I used a 20x24 sheet of 4-5 mm-thick glass to weigh down the film strips.
Originally Posted by Dr Croubie
I thought about using clear tape, but decided it might leave residue. Then I tried it with the cotton shirt method and it wasn't sticky enough.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I haven't had a serious (>3 hours) printing session since. Maybe it traumatized me!
Originally Posted by analoguey
If you want to do a "Panorama" version of the same thing I could lend you my Canon FN-100 back and you could do 100 frames per strip! (Or get an older Nikon or Canon 250 exposure back...)
Thanks for the offer, Duncan!
Originally Posted by frobozz
After doing some Googling, I stumbled on the Nikon 750-frame F2. Holy cow! I'm trying to digest how to develop a 100' of film, let alone what to photograph with it.
Lomo (or other) movie film tank. There are a few websites with different approaches to home processing cine film, so you might see where google takes you with that approach. Another method is to make a drum out of two disks with dowels running between them around the perimeter, and attaching the film emulsion side out at one end, winding it in a spiral to the other end, and fastening it at that end as well, and then process, rotary fashion, in troughs.
Originally Posted by jcc
If you don't mind some scratches of if you work with tougher film stock the bucket method may work. Just unwind into 5 gallon buckets of developer, stop, and fix. I saw a video of someone doing it once with 16mm, looked like a total jumbled mess but was fine when they line dried it at the end.