Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,294   Posts: 1,535,552   Online: 1113
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40
  1. #11
    erikg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    pawtucket rhode island usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,398
    I think John is pulling your leg. Without an 8x10 enlarger I think you are out of luck, but there could be a dig*tal solution of which we must not speak.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    297
    Went way over my head.

    I don't possess anything d%@ita* anyway, but you could always personal message me with that of which you must not speak...

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Doing it without a really big enlarger will be difficult. Even with a 4x5 enlarger, you'll be able to fit only about 6 (maybe 9 if you really squeeze them in) frames of full frame 35 mm negatives into the carrier. I question the need for doing this with medium format negatives, since they're big enough to be evaluated easily with the naked eye. OK 645 might be a little too small, but just a little.
    Frank Schifano

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    297
    It's 35mm........... anyway it's clear I can't do it in my humble darkroom. Thanks everyone!

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    189
    While this isn't really "contact", if you make a enlarging paper holder with windows, you can expose each negative separately, creating a large contact sheet on 11x14 or 16x20.

  6. #16
    jp80874's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Bath, OH 44210 USA
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    3,419
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by gamincurieux View Post
    You mean take a shot with a large camera of a regular 8x10 contact sheet?
    No, contact print in sheet film means a one to one print of one negative to one slightly larger sheet of print paper. If you want a large print you need to start with a large negative. Before there were enlargers contacts were all there was. That is why you see pictures of the early 1860-1880s American west photographers lugging those mamouth 20x22 cameras about.

    John

  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    I know, the words "contact sheet" is technically in error here. It's a generic term for what is more accurately described as a "proof sheet".
    Frank Schifano

  8. #18
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,182
    I guess it is ironic. I have the 10x10 enlarger, but I don't do proofs

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    297
    pnance, I think your idea might be a go-er..

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by pnance View Post
    While this isn't really "contact", if you make a enlarging paper holder with windows, you can expose each negative separately, creating a large contact sheet on 11x14 or 16x20.
    That doesn't sound like a very practical solution to me. You have to change the negative and precisely shift the paper on the baseboard 36 times for each roll of film without making a mistake. Have fun with that! And we haven't even begun to take all the other aspects of processing that need to be addressed. The way I see it, 16x20 paper is really the smallest practical size for this. Anything smaller and you're not gaining much in size for each frame. Have you priced out 16x20 paper lately? It's not inexpensive. It's downright pricey as paper goes. Then you need big trays and large volumes of chemistry to process said paper. It's OK if you're already set up to make prints that large and do so regularly, or if you have the scratch to build out a setup that large. It's not a practical solution for the home hobbyist on a budget. So what's wrong with making a contact printed proof sheet on 8x10 or 8 1/2x11 paper and examining the frames with a good magnifier? You buy the magnifier once and have it for a lifetime. Heck, I contend that the home hobbyist would have and easier and far less expensive time simply making 4x6 inch proof prints.
    Frank Schifano

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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