Analog photoshop, 2 enlargers, photomontage

[Lumipan]

Hi, I found a second enlarger have an Opemus III and now bought an Axomat 3. I'd like to try combining 2 negatives, Jerry Uelsmann style, only simpler and in harmony with my capabilities

So I'm wondering if anyone has some experience here with similar stuff, maybe send a link or 2 with info, share your experience... Still didn't try it out as I've lately been quite busy with work etc, but next week I just might...

I'm thinking about combining some images of the microworld I shoot on my microscope with 'normal' images. Is there something more I need to use that isn't obvious, I'm thinking I'd probably have to mask the paper with something, or similar. I'm not much into spending money, more into DIY, although I don't mind spending a few Euros

Thanks

 

[AnselMortensen]

I did this twice, a long time ago.
To start with...
Tape your easels down!
Be careful not to confuse the orientation of the paper between exposures.
It's easiest to add a dark image into a light area of the first exposure.
Soft-edged blends are generally easier than hard-edge blends.
Hard-edge blends will require precise masking, soft-edge blends will require burning & dodging.
Use a lot of test strips.
Be prepared to use (waste) a lot of paper...but don't give up!

 

[Lumipan]

Thanks for the tips, I'll try it out in a few days

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

There is a long learning curve to doing this. I agree with A-M's points - but screwing or gluing the easels down wouldn't hurt (just kidding (maybe)). Shifting easels drove me nuts. This is a good use for old paper, if I were going to do this again I would probably get a 100 sheet box of 1990's paper just for the practice runs.

 

[Lumipan]

Ok, I have only one easel, so maybe I'll screw down 2 pieces of wood to the enlargers wooden bases, to keep the easel in the same spot every time .

I figured it won't be easy to do, so I won't strive for perfection just try to make something weird

 

[Don_ih]

maybe I'll screw down 2 pieces of wood to the enlargers wooden bases, to keep the easel in the same spot every time .

That will prove very difficult, is my guess. Frankly, it's difficult to get two easels in the correct location - and you will want that location to be variable depending what final print you're making. You are far better off getting a second easel.

Look at it this way. You need to set up for your first exposure. That involves composing the image and very likely making an enlargement of it - the enlargement you then use to align your second easel. As in, you put the developed, fixed, dried print in your second easel to figure out where it has to be to get that second exposure. If you're screwing down wood to line up that easel, your baseboard will be Swiss cheese within a week.

Like all good things, preparation is likely not only the key to success but also to not ripping out your hair.

 

[MattKing]

Normally, I use rubberized shelf liners on my baseboards to keep my easels from moving. That should suffice for this specialized use as well.
If I needed to remove and then replace easels in the same place, I would clamp wood guide stops to the baseboard. A single L shaped stop would be easiest to use.

 

[Don_ih]

Normally, I use rubberized shelf liners on my baseboards to keep my easels from moving. That should suffice for this specialized use as well.
If I needed to remove and then replace easels in the same place, I would clamp wood guide stops to the baseboard. A single L shaped stop would be easiest to use.

The issue is exactly how precise the placement needs to be. Being off by 1/132" could be noticeable in a final print - but not at all noticeable in the movement of an easel. Believe me, this procedure is challenging enough when you have two easels clamped down. It's also noteworthy that the easel issue is the least significant difficulty of the process....

 

[Lumipan]

I understand now, I didn't think I'll have to align the image moving the easel. I thought I can align the negative, mask and put the easel on the same place on the baseboard. Which I suppose is possible in some situations and some not.

 

[MTGseattle]

I embarked on your mission for my “intro to photo” class in college.
Everything above is true. Maintaining easel position and print orientation are essential.
I found myself making arguably “weird” images with this process in mind. Lots of negatives with an isolated subject and not much in the background.
I think I had 4 or 5 offset (two pieces of board) burning masks, and a bunch of dodging tools made.
Having overnight darkroom access was the only thing that allowed my even slight success. I maxed out at 3 enlargers.
The images are contrived and somewhat silly, but my tonal range was good, and I got a good grade in the class.
I was using 35mm back then, and whatever flavor Arista mg paper. Circa ‘95.

 

[Lumipan]

Hi, I tried combining negatives and it was harder than I thought it would be.
I made an image of playing chess with myself.
Essentially I was doing something for 2 hours (spent 5€ worth of paper) which could have been done digitally in 13 seconds for free...

My next idea is to use one negative in the first enlarger, plus something I'll make on my computer, print on transparent foil and use on the other enlarger. That should be simpler and the result might be a bit more interesting...

 

[jeffreyg]

Why not post the two images you wish to combine that would be helpful to give us an idea as to go about it.

 

[xkaes]

Two enlargers make a lot of creative darkroom work a lot easier, but you have to get everything set up for each enlarger first. One thing is the easels. They have to stay in place really well, and they have to be easy to get the paper in the exact position EASILY. Some are much better at this than others.

 

[koraks]

My next idea is to use one negative in the first enlarger, plus something I'll make on my computer, print on transparent foil and use on the other enlarger.

Cool! Yes, I imagine it might be a little easier since you can include the mask in the digitally printed negative.
For image quality purposes, you might consider contact printing the digitally printed negative. Inkjet printers don't really have sufficient resolution to allow enlargement of inkjet negatives. Well, of course, you technically can enlarge them, but it'll look...funny.

 

[Lumipan]

I'll post the result in a few days, I don't have it on me right now. It is nothing special. I feel the best thing is that is imperfect, as I didn't align or mask perfectly or get the contrast to be the same on both sides of the print.
If it was perfect then it would be too similar to digital,so not sure what I'd get out of that... And I'd have to waste more paper.
So I'll try to find a way to make it even more imperfect maybe a combination of scanned pencil drawings and images. Or something...

I feel the best thing about analog are the imperfections, I'm a musician and I feel that the biggest difference between old analog recordings and new ones is that they just didn't have the time or most often funds to record so many takes or edits. So they would leave the imperfections or just settle with a take. Completely different approach.
I feel often the music was more alive/human that way... It's what I feel like doing anyway. And of course there is some great modern music, with a lot of edits. It is just different...

 

[Lumipan]

Cool! Yes, I imagine it might be a little easier since you can include the mask in the digitally printed negative.
For image quality purposes, you might consider contact printing the digitally printed negative. Inkjet printers don't really have sufficient resolution to allow enlargement of inkjet negatives. Well, of course, you technically can enlarge them, but it'll look...funny.

I don't have an inkjet anyway, I'll go to a photo printing place to print. Not sure what contact printing is, I'll look into it.
And examine the forum section concerning these hybrid methods.
Thanks

 

[koraks]

I'll go to a photo printing place to print.

If they output a digital file onto a transparency, they use either laser printers or inkjet. On both systems, you may (will) find resolution to be inadequate for enlargement.

Not sure what contact printing is, I'll look into it.

Place the negative in direct contact with the printing paper, using e.g. a contact printing frame or simply a sheet of heavy/thick glass. Then expose the paper through the negative. The main challenge will be to get your digital negative to line up with the enlarged print on the paper, but since you've already dealing with this aspect, I assume you've figured out ways to solve it.

 

[Lumipan]

If they output a digital file onto a transparency, they use either laser printers or inkjet. On both systems, you may (will) find resolution to be inadequate for enlargement.


Place the negative in direct contact with the printing paper, using e.g. a contact printing frame or simply a sheet of heavy/thick glass. Then expose the paper through the negative. The main challenge will be to get your digital negative to line up with the enlarged print on the paper, but since you've already dealing with this aspect, I assume you've figured out ways to solve it.

I understand now.
Basically I need to make a larger negative and use the empty enlarger just for light... That seems relatively simple.
Thanks

 

[koraks]

Exactly, that's it!

 

[DREW WILEY]

The standard more precise way is with pin-registered carriers, easel bars, and a matching punch system. That's how "comps" were done for decades. But it's also an investment in gear. Uelsmann's method was lower-tech, but involved a long workbench for sake of multiple enlargers.

I will say this, however .... How Jerry U.'s prints turned out was a league above the paste-up & re-photograph crowd. The textural nuance alone was way better. Better than Fauxtoshop too.

Sounds like you have a fun project involved. I was kidding with a friend the other day who grew up running a movie theater projector. I had just been viewing a molting Tardigrade under the microscope. Imagine the kind of B horror movie one could make with a giant one of those running around! Even a still poster would be intriguing.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi, I found a second enlarger have an Opemus III and now bought an Axomat 3. I'd like to try combining 2 negatives, Jerry Uelsmann style, only simpler and in harmony with my capabilities

So I'm wondering if anyone has some experience here with similar stuff, maybe send a link or 2 with info, share your experience... Still didn't try it out as I've lately been quite busy with work etc, but next week I just might...

I'm thinking about combining some images of the microworld I shoot on my microscope with 'normal' images. Is there something more I need to use that isn't obvious, I'm thinking I'd probably have to mask the paper with something, or similar. I'm not much into spending money, more into DIY, although I don't mind spending a few Euros

Thanks

Uelsman is quite unique in what hw does and how well he does it. Us folks have trouble doing it in PS, but no chance doing it his style. I tried it and only having even more respect for his work!

 

[DREW WILEY]

I had a friend who owned a very large commercial photo lab. He also collected prints. One day he showed me a couple of Uelsmann prints, and explained that for the past twenty years he had been trying to figure out how Uelsmann had done it so seamlessly. He never could find a flaw, or the magician showing his hand, so to speak. Now everyone thinks they can do the same thing in mere minutes due to Photoshop or Ai, whatever ... but most of it betrays itself pretty fast, and looks both fake and corny. But even Uelsmann's evident sense of whimsical playfulness had a solid ring to it.

 

[warden]

Hi, I tried combining negatives and it was harder than I thought it would be.
I made an image of playing chess with myself.
Essentially I was doing something for 2 hours (spent 5€ worth of paper) which could have been done digitally in 13 seconds for free...

My next idea is to use one negative in the first enlarger, plus something I'll make on my computer, print on transparent foil and use on the other enlarger. That should be simpler and the result might be a bit more interesting...

I like your idea of mixing techniques and technologies in the second paragraph. Uelsmann would approve as long as you get the image you're after. He'd likely be a skilled user of Photoshop if he had been born a bit later.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank goodness he didn't use PS. And if he did, he'd be just another easily forgotten one among the millions.

 

[warden]

Thank goodness he didn't use PS. And if he did, he'd be just another easily forgotten one among the millions.

Maybe, maybe not. If the work is memorable it doesn't matter what tools you use to make it.