Choices, when actual printing is not possible

[BetterSense]

How do you know whether you have negatives that print well unless you do the contact prints? That's right, experience, of which the OP has none.

Contact prints don't tell you much actually. They won't tell you if the image is sharp because magnification is too small. A contact print won't tell you how much detail is in the shadows and highlights because the paper latitude is too small to see both. You can't tell how an image will print from a single contact print; if the contact print looks reasonable that merely tells you that your contact print exposure time was in the ballpark...for that frame. About the only info you will get is an idea of the midtone contrast...but that's not critical given variable contrast papers; following the film datasheet will give you workable negative contrast.

 

[PKM-25]

This!

I have a darkroom, a high end dedicated scanner and also use my D800 to quick and dirty scan negs for a basic evals and the difference in what tonality appears in a contact sheet versus any kind of scan is remarkable.

Option 5 + option 1.1

Make contact proof prints, then send out only the negatives you really like.

I'm sure you can find similar stuff in the EU.

A contact print frame - Dead Link Removed

A stack of paper - Dead Link Removed

Developer - Dead Link Removed

Fixer - The fix stock that you use for your film should be fine, just keep the working solutions separate, one bottle for paper, another for film.

Three trays big enough to soak a print in flat, plastic or glass from a thrift store.

A safe light is handy when you are learning, also fun because you get to see the image come up, but not absolutely needed.

A dark bathroom.

Set up the print frame with the film, turn off the light, pull a sheet of paper out and put it in the frame, close the paper box, turn on the light for 5ish seconds, adjust time as needed, fully dependent on how bright your light is. Develop 1-1/2 minutes, rinse 1/2 minute, fix for the time recommended, wash for 2-3 minutes, hang with clothes pin to dry.

This will give you a good reference point for camera exposure and contrast/development changes too.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Contact prints don't tell you much actually. They won't tell you if the image is sharp because magnification is too small. A contact print won't tell you how much detail is in the shadows and highlights because the paper latitude is too small to see both. You can't tell how an image will print from a single contact print; if the contact print looks reasonable that merely tells you that your contact print exposure time was in the ballpark...for that frame. About the only info you will get is an idea of the midtone contrast...but that's not critical given variable contrast papers; following the film datasheet will give you workable negative contrast.

That's rubbish. A contact print tells you exactly what's in your negatives with respect to film exposure, film development, and tonality.
Not within the paper range? How do you figure that? You enlarge on the same paper, right? How do you fit the tones on you paper when you enlarge?

I give you that it's tough to gauge negative sharpness, particularly 35mm.

 

[markbarendt]

Contact prints don't tell you much actually. They won't tell you if the image is sharp because magnification is too small. A contact print won't tell you how much detail is in the shadows and highlights because the paper latitude is too small to see both. You can't tell how an image will print from a single contact print; if the contact print looks reasonable that merely tells you that your contact print exposure time was in the ballpark...for that frame. About the only info you will get is an idea of the midtone contrast...but that's not critical given variable contrast papers; following the film datasheet will give you workable negative contrast.

It ain't a perfect world but I have had a different experience than you describe.

No, I can't tell if it's going to look perfect as a 20x30, but a lot more out of focus stuff sticks out for me in a contact than on a neg. Getting the majority of the trash weeded out is great.

The other thing that stands out starkly for me on a contact print is if the shot "works" and deserves more attention, enlargement.

It's also no stretch to print a lighter and a darker version of a contact to see the limits of the shadows and highlights.

One of the truly special things about a contact sheet is seeing side-by-side just how tight or loose my exposure setting process is.

 

[BetterSense]

That's rubbish. A contact print tells you exactly what's in your negatives with respect to film exposure, film development, and tonality.

In a very rough way, it does tell you about those things. Yes, a half-ass print of a negative can tell you somethings about the negative, but so will...looking at the negative. If you aren't even going to enlarge or dodge-burn the print, you might as well just look at the negative.

Not within the paper range? How do you figure that? You enlarge on the same paper, right? How do you fit the tones on you paper when you enlarge?.

I don't; and neither do you. The printer chooses which tones go on the paper. Paper always has much more contrast and much less range than negatives for taking...it's foundational to the neg-pos process that the printer chooses which tones to print as midtones and which to discard on the toe or shoulder of the paper. If you print the negative straight, you are missing most of the negative information; that is why judging the merit of negatives by contact sheets is silly.

Negatives are not like memory cards where you have to download them before the image is visible. They are little photographs; notably viewable.

Contact sheets for proofing are great for filing because they are reflective and you don't need a light box. That is the extent of their utility.

 

[ac12]

I concur about printing in a small darkroom. Mine is a half-bath, about 3ft deep and about 8ft wide.
When you walk in, the toilet on your left and the sink counter on your right.
I put the enlarger on the toilet seat cover.
I use a Honeywell rocking print tray to process my prints up to 8x10. So only 1 tray on the sink.
I could also use a drum (Unicolor, Beseler, etc) to do up to 11x14.
I wash the prints in the kitchen.

Not easy to do, but it works.
The trick in something like this is to use a small enlarger that can easily be set up, broken down and stored (Durst F30, M600, etc) and stay away from the bigger enlargers.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

When I haven't had access to a darkroom, I've shot color slides, but I've done quite a lot of work in various kinds of makeshift darkrooms over the years, and it doesn't take much to make it happen.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In a very rough way, it does tell you about those things. Yes, a half-ass print of a negative can tell you somethings about the negative, but so will...looking at the negative. If you aren't even going to enlarge or dodge-burn the print, you might as well just look at the negative.

No it will not. If you have no idea what a photographic paper needs, contrast wise, you have no idea if you are developing and exposing your film correctly. The contact sheet is a control, where you always expose it at the same contrast, the same everything, and every time you do this you perform a check against a constant. This constant is the paper, the paper developer, and what it is capable of at average contrast.

I don't; and neither do you. The printer chooses which tones go on the paper. Paper always has much more contrast and much less range than negatives for taking...it's foundational to the neg-pos process that the printer chooses which tones to print as midtones and which to discard on the toe or shoulder of the paper. If you print the negative straight, you are missing most of the negative information; that is why judging the merit of negatives by contact sheets is silly.

It is not silly. Take a step wedge and lay it next to your negatives, and you can tell with very precise accuracy how your film exposure and development is going. Short of actually printing your negatives or reading them with a densitometer, it is the best way possible you can judge a negative, unless you have a LOT of experience in judging them with the naked eye. But if you don't have a reference of what a good negative looks like, you could be all over the place. If the OP some day gets to printing in a darkroom, it would be important to have negatives that will work.

If a negative looks good on a contact sheet with white light, (using the same paper as you do when you print, in my case Ilford MGIV fiber), then it will look good enlarged at a similar contrast too. That is in fact how I keep my own film development and exposure in check, to make contact sheets. It ensures I have negatives that print with very little darkroom gymnastics at around Grade 1.5 to 3.5 and I still have plenty of leeway to lower or increase contrast for when I screw up.

If you call that silly, then I will call your methods sloppy and haphazard.

Negatives are not like memory cards where you have to download them before the image is visible. They are little photographs; notably viewable.

Contact sheets for proofing are great for filing because they are reflective and you don't need a light box. That is the extent of their utility.

You don't have to tell me what negatives are. I know perfectly well what they are. They either print well or they don't. They are an intermediary and is supposed to have the tonality in a print that you like and appreciate to base your work on. A contact sheet will tell you very quickly whether you were successful in generating such a negative or not.

Even though you don't always need a perfect negative, it's important to have some sort of standard to aim for. The print is the ultimate standard, of course, but I can tell you that after nearly two decades of doing this I still can't judge a negative properly, and whether it's going to print right or not. But when I make contact sheets it gives me two things:

1. It tells me exactly how I am doing with film exposure and development. If I'm drifting with either of them it will be blatantly obvious.
2. It gives me an idea of whether I'd like to print the negative or not.

That's not silly, it's being practical.

 

[markbarendt]

The contact sheet is a control, where you always expose it at the same contrast, the same everything, and every time you do this you perform a check against a constant. This constant is the paper, the paper developer, and what it is capable of at average contrast.

...

1. It tells me exactly how I am doing with film exposure and development. If I'm drifting with either of them it will be blatantly obvious.
2. It gives me an idea of whether I'd like to print the negative or not.

That's not silly, it's being practical.

This is the crux of the whole thing for me. A contact sheet cuts though all the BS and gives me an unbiased report card.

Having an objective, fixed, standard to measure oneself against, with no autocorrect or sliding of the black and white points around allowed (or built in); means I don't get to lie to myself and any myths, wishes, and think-so's I've heard are shown for exactly what they are.

I like using an incident meter, rather than a reflective meter, for the same reason. No BS, no guessing.

 

[BetterSense]

If you find contact sheets are valuable than keep making them. They are in no way necessary, and are not even sufficient for evaluating all negative qualities. Everything they tell you can be learned from the negative, and direct inspection will tell you more about the negative than a straight contact print.

By making a straight contact print, you learn what that negative looks like, when printed on that paper, using that exposure. That seems to be touted as the great feature. If you find that kind of thing useful fine, but it's not exactly hard to predict that by looking at the negatives. I can tell pretty much as soon as I pull film off the reel what contrast I'm looking at. A range of 1.5 to 3.5 isn't exactly a precise target; you will hit that by following the datasheet easily; pushes and pulls are easy to compare. I haven't taken the grade 2 filter off my enlarger in several sessions so if someone is being sloppy, it's not me. With a quick look on the light table I see how much shadow detail I have in which elements of the scene I may decide to MAKE the "shadows". A loupe tells me exactly where the focus was and how much enlargement the negative will withstand. At this point, I could make a contact print, but there would be no point...it would tell me only what I already know. If I need to know more, I have to make an enlarged proof print to evaluate dodge, burn and masking prospects.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you find contact sheets are valuable than keep making them. They are in no way necessary, and are not even sufficient for evaluating all negative qualities. Everything they tell you can be learned from the negative, and direct inspection will tell you more about the negative than a straight contact print.

By making a straight contact print, you learn what that negative looks like, when printed on that paper, using that exposure. That seems to be touted as the great feature. If you find that kind of thing useful fine, but it's not exactly hard to predict that by looking at the negatives. I can tell pretty much as soon as I pull film off the reel what contrast I'm looking at. A range of 1.5 to 3.5 isn't exactly a precise target; you will hit that by following the datasheet easily; pushes and pulls are easy to compare. I haven't taken the grade 2 filter off my enlarger in several sessions so if someone is being sloppy, it's not me. With a quick look on the light table I see how much shadow detail I have in which elements of the scene. A loupe tells me exactly where the focus was and how much enlargement the negative will withstand. At this point, I could make a contact print, but there would be no point...it would tell me only what I already know. If I need to know more, I have to make an enlarged proof pri t to evaluate dodge, burn and masking prospects.

I wish you happy photography and shooting. I profoundly disagree with you.

 

[markbarendt]

If you find contact sheets are valuable than keep making them. They are in no way necessary, and are not even sufficient for evaluating all negative qualities. Everything they tell you can be learned from the negative, and direct inspection will tell you more about the negative than a straight contact print.

By making a straight contact print, you learn what that negative looks like, when printed on that paper, using that exposure. That seems to be touted as the great feature. If you find that kind of thing useful fine, but it's not exactly hard to predict that by looking at the negatives. I can tell pretty much as soon as I pull film off the reel what contrast I'm looking at. A range of 1.5 to 3.5 isn't exactly a precise target; you will hit that by following the datasheet easily; pushes and pulls are easy to compare. I haven't taken the grade 2 filter off my enlarger in several sessions so if someone is being sloppy, it's not me. With a quick look on the light table I see how much shadow detail I have in which elements of the scene I may decide to MAKE the "shadows". A loupe tells me exactly where the focus was and how much enlargement the negative will withstand. At this point, I could make a contact print, but there would be no point...it would tell me only what I already know. If I need to know more, I have to make an enlarged proof print to evaluate dodge, burn and masking prospects.

What did you have to do to learn this?

Does the OP have your experience?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Better Sense,

I am going to try my best to reach common ground with you, because arguing here makes us both look stupid.

Your approach seems to work fine for you, but you have a reference that is your keen eye for printing, for what I presume is a long time.

The OP does not know what a good negative looks like for printing, something they have expressed an interest in, and regretted not being able to.
If you tell a beginner to look at a negative to figure out if it's a good one or not, what do you suggest they base their judgment on?

I will also tell you that I have personally gone from a hack printer to pretty good by using contact sheets as my guide. If you dismiss them as being basically useless, you are at the same time saying something that is 100% against my experience. Both of us can be right, you know.
But for someone with virtually zero darkroom experience it is a very useful tool to start to understand the relationship between a successful print and what the negative should look like. That understanding of what qualities a negative should have does not come automatically.

I must reemphasize that for my printing, the contact sheet tells me exactly what I need to know. If you are able to print all of your prints at grade 2, then I congratulate you on remarkable skill and consistency.

 

[BetterSense]

What did you have to do to learn this?

One of the things I did was make contact sheets using the orthodox "grade 2, enough exposure to make film base print black" method.. Doing so does provide some insight to the beginner, however at the same time doing so was just a learning exerciseģtool. Now I prefer slightly more exposure and I do not judge frames which the "contact sheet test" considers sub-optimal. I probably overlooked many good negatives. I have stopped using contact sheets as anything except something occasionally useful for filing or showing the wife. Now I judge negatives by looking at them, rather than looking at some lossy copy, and I make lossy copies in the form of prints.

 

[markbarendt]

One of the things I did was make contact sheets using the orthodox "grade 2, enough exposure to make film base print black" method.. Doing so does provide some insight to the beginner, however at the same time doing so was just a learning exerciseģtool. Now I prefer slightly more exposure and I do not judge frames which the "contact sheet test" considers sub-optimal. I probably overlooked many good negatives. I have stopped using contact sheets as anything except something occasionally useful for filing or showing the wife. Now I judge negatives by looking at them, rather than looking at some lossy copy, and I make lossy copies in the form of prints.

I do agree that contact sheets aren't the only tool we should use to judge negatives. You are quite correct that there are other things we need to look at and consider.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I do agree that contact sheets aren't the only tool we should use to judge negatives. You are quite correct that there are other things we need to look at and consider.

I'll agree with Mark here. Things like sharpness would have to be examined with other methods.

I start with the contact sheet. If the negative looks promising I will put it in the scanner and scan it. If sharpness is fine I will mark it to bring to the darkroom some day. But usually the pictures I print are sharp since I am on a tripod a lot.

 

[Bill Burk]

I also agree that a prior experience can make it seem so easy, and can suggest shortcuts to experienced printers that "beginners" can't take.

It would take a little time and a few questions and answers. Perhaps the learning can take place here on a thread on APUG. You can learn how to read a negative. You can look at a negative under a magnifying glass and outright rule out printing due to unsharpness - or decide the strength of the image overrides the technical imperfection.

You can tell from either general description (can you barely read a newspaper through it) or specific instructions (use a scanner driver software to measure density and aim for 1.10 density range from shadow to highlight)... if a negative has the right density range.

But a contact print is such a simple and direct validation that the negative is suited for printing on photographic printing paper... that I wholeheartedly encourage you to try it if there is any way you can do it. Because you will learn more, and learn it faster.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I'll agree with Mark here. Things like sharpness would have to be examined with other methods.

I start with the contact sheet. If the negative looks promising I will put it in the scanner and scan it. If sharpness is fine I will mark it to bring to the darkroom some day.

Actually, I don't agree with this one. The scanner raises the questions of whether the scanner is focused properly, whether the negative is flat, and what sort of sharpening is being applied (some of which may be in the scanner's or software's processing algorithm aside from any additional sharpening controlled by the user). A contact print made emulsion-to-emulsion, inspected with a loupe, is a more reliable indicator of sharpness in my opinion than a scan. Of course you can also inspect the negative directly.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Contacts are useful but not necessary when you are using a scanner.

It's fast work to check the frames with previews or batch scanning.

I use my window-shot contacts more as a memory tool.

And how often do we actually get blurred exposures?

Only with accidental triggers, I think...

 

[markbarendt]

And how often do we actually get blurred exposures?

Well, at 1/400th max shutter speed in medium and large format, or at 1/100th with toy cameras like Holgas and disposables, or in low light shooting, or when shooting for long DOF is required, or when it's windy, or ... ; regularly.

I have found that when I'm not having failures, I'm typically not taking many risks, nor learning much, nor making interesting photos.

Blur isn't the only issue either; poor focus and flare are two others.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Actually, I don't agree with this one. The scanner raises the questions of whether the scanner is focused properly, whether the negative is flat, and what sort of sharpening is being applied (some of which may be in the scanner's or software's processing algorithm aside from any additional sharpening controlled by the user). A contact print made emulsion-to-emulsion, inspected with a loupe, is a more reliable indicator of sharpness in my opinion than a scan. Of course you can also inspect the negative directly.

Works for me, is all I can say. If it's sharp in the scan, it's sharp in the print.
If your scan isn't sharp, but your print is, you need to learn how to scan more reliably.

 

[BetterSense]

And how often do we actually get blurred exposures?

Lately I've been tossing about half my 35mm negatives for being blurry. Half of the rest get tossed for focus and half the rest get tossed for composition. I've been shooting in available darkness, where you get to gamble between dof, motion blur, or zero exposure. I can't stand oof pictures, and you have to have SOME exposure, whereas a small amount of motion blur can sometimes be acceptable. If I get 1 good frame out of a roll of film, it's still cheaper than 8x10.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

Lately I've been tossing about half my 35mm negatives for being blurry. Half of the rest get tossed for focus and half the rest get tossed for composition. I've been shooting in available darkness, where you get to gamble between dof, motion blur, or zero exposure. I can't stand oof pictures, and you have to have SOME exposure, whereas a small amount of motion blur can sometimes be acceptable. If I get 1 good frame out of a roll of film, it's still cheaper than 8x10.

Oh, OK.

I get some exposures that aren't sharp when I shoot street. Otherwise, I push the trigger accidentally once in a while and get a blurry shot of the ground or something.

On the other hand, I usually get disgusted with my compostions, or lack thereof. So, that's where I waste film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Works for me, is all I can say. If it's sharp in the scan, it's sharp in the print.
If your scan isn't sharp, but your print is, you need to learn how to scan more reliably.

If you can calibrate your own scanning process, you can make it work for you, but a contact sheet takes out all the variables of scanner focus and unwanted sharpening.

Where I discovered this problem was when I took my color neg film to Duggal a few years ago (otherwise a first-rate New York lab), and ordered contact sheets only to discover that they had switched to making digital proof sheets scanned in the sleeves and obviously sharpened, because there is no way to make a really sharp scan or contact print from a negative in a sleeve, and once any kind of digital sharpening is introduced, there is no way to tell if the original neg is sharp without inspecting it directly.

 

[RowanBloemhof]

Call me nuts. But what i do atm with my negs is digitizing with my dslr. I simply took an old meopta enlarger. Put the head on backwards so the opening points up. I basicly project the negs onto a bigger matt glass(frosted glass). And i take a picture of it. This way you get pretty nice resolution pictures. A big pro as well is that you dont have much issues with DOF on your dslr. Something that definitely plays its part when taking a close up of the neg itself.

I find that it works better then using a scanner. And when using RAW images you will be amazed about the detail you can pull out, but keeping the awesome contract and tonality. The main i have found, is finding a piece of frosted glass that is sufficiently "fine grained". A little example of an early result(note that the grain in the picture is of the neg itself, not the matt glass).