Contact Printing History?

[analog65]

Hi, looking to the group here for some input and direction.

I am developing a paper on large format (LF) contact printing.

Can you help point me to some of the most notable LF contact printers? e.g., Edward Weston, Fred Picker?

I am also trying to quantify "why" LF contact prints are considered so special. Thoughts on this and any pointers to literature?

Looking forward to learning more about this.

Thanks!

 

[darkosaric]

I would say your question is also connected with history of enlargers. Before small formats everything was contact printed.

Take a look on:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110714081658/http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/enlargers.htm

 

[BrianShaw]

Are you focusing on any particular type of contact print - traditional silver-gelatin vs alternative processes?

 

[analog65]

Brian, ideally I would like to cover both historic (e.g, Salt, and the other POP prints) and the more modern AZO and gelatin silver contact prints. It can be tricky because the relationship between the medium and process can be intertwined.

My goal is to first identify notable photographers in history that were advocates and/or contact printed exclusively. I want to go view their prints in person at museums. I haven't done the research yet, but I think Edward Weston would be a possible example of a large format contact printer. I understand that photographers that were working prior to enlargements would have been contact printers, however, I would still want to know about any that are critically acclaimed.

The second part of my research I want to try and capture with words, if possible, why some people, possibly even collectors and/or curators hold contact prints in high regard. What makes them unique, magical, special, etc. I want to try and quantify to the best of my ability in words the unique characteristics.

Thank you.

 

[analog65]

Hi, yes, I agree. I think that in itself is a clue on the timeline of contact printing photographers. In my mind, I was making a distinction between contact prints via any medium (glass, paper, film) and enlargements as we know them today via film and contemporary enlargers. This can be very tricky as pointed out in your link that you shared. I think it is best that I am very clear about the distinction noted above. Thanks for making me think about this more deeply.

I would say your question is also connected with history of enlargers. Before small formats everything was contact printed.

Take a look on:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110714081658/http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/enlargers.htm

 

[BrianShaw]

You're embarking on a sizable task. Any book on the history of photography would get you started. As mentioned earlier, prior to the advent of enlargers contract printing was the primary method. And if they are in the history book you can safely assume that they are "notable". After that era you need to discern between contact printing and projection printing. I'm glad to hear that you interested in museum viewing... that is very, very instructive.

 

[dpurdy]

My Grandmother born in 1894 got a job as a girl in a photo lab. I have her contact printing frame. It is a beautiful wooden frame with approx 5x5 window for the print. The glass is broken in the window but it is from a day when all prints were contacted.

 

[analog65]

Indeed the task is bigger than myself... your comments and feedback and very helpful. Thanks.

 

[analog65]

That is an impressive family piece of history to have. Really love to hear things like this. Thanks for sharing.

My Grandmother born in 1894 got a job as a girl in a photo lab. I have her contact printing frame. It is a beautiful wooden frame with approx 5x5 window for the print. The glass is broken in the window but it is from a day when all prints were contacted.

 

[cliveh]

Eugene Atget.

 

[analog65]

Here is a link from the Eastman House on "Enlarging" that I found helpful - Dead Link Removed

The history based on google searches is unclear, at least to me, when modern film-based diffuser and condenser enlargers were invented and in general use. I am making an assumption it may have been in the 1950's based on the history of the Beseler Photo company. Anyone have reliable information?

I am attempting to create a rough timeline of when large format contact prints started (i.e. Talbot in approx. 1840 with paper negatives before the evolution of collodion glass plate negatives, gelatin dry plates, and then celluloid-based film at the turn of the 20th century) and the modern film based enlargers for creating gelatin silver darkroom prints.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

For all intents and purposes, it's a distinction without meaning for photographers before 1900. As others have noted, virtually everything printed in the first 50-60 years of photography was a contact print. Early on there were solar enlargers, but they were far from common because they lacked a repeatable, reliable light source that was not prone to igniting the prints. With the advent of electricity and the electric light bulb is when you start to see enlarging being done on a regular basis. To make a meaningful comparison, you'd probably best focus on 20th century practitioners of contact-printing, as they had a choice of method. Andre Kertesz is a good one to look at, as he made most of his early work as contact prints, then grew his print sizes in middle age, and returned to contact printing and Polaroids in his last years.

 

[analog65]

valuable input and information - thank you.

For all intents and purposes, it's a distinction without meaning for photographers before 1900. As others have noted, virtually everything printed in the first 50-60 years of photography was a contact print. Early on there were solar enlargers, but they were far from common because they lacked a repeatable, reliable light source that was not prone to igniting the prints. With the advent of electricity and the electric light bulb is when you start to see enlarging being done on a regular basis. To make a meaningful comparison, you'd probably best focus on 20th century practitioners of contact-printing, as they had a choice of method. Andre Kertesz is a good one to look at, as he made most of his early work as contact prints, then grew his print sizes in middle age, and returned to contact printing and Polaroids in his last years.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Kertesz is amazing because most of his early work was done with small-ish format cameras ( 6x9cm was a large negative for him ) and contact printed out of economic necessity. To see his original prints in comparison to how we are used to seeing them in books, posters and online is a revelation because we're used to seeing them much larger than they were made originally.

 

[ic-racer]

Can you help point me to some of the most notable LF contact printers? e.g., Edward Weston, Fred Picker?

I am also trying to quantify "why" LF contact prints are considered so special.

If you recall the early days of photography, the Daguerrotype vs Calotype (Daguerre vs Talbot), you would remember that contract printing started way back then and because of that, I would say Talbot would be the most notable contact printer. Of course 'Format' as in 'Large Format' was not applied to the process at that time.

Contact prints are special because they are a positive image and many can be made from the same negative. However, the contact print was at a far disadvantage to the Daguerrotype in terms of sharpness and detail. In fact the Calotype images were described by Talbot himself as "Rembrantish."

Here is an example
"The Open Door" by Talbot, 1843, Salted paper contact print from Calotype negative.

 

[analog65]

Thanks for the info and for the image post.

It is rather interesting when I stop to think about the incredible sharpness and detail of the Daguerrotype (only seen one in person) in contrast to the Pictorialism era where the photographers purposely used soft focus lenses and were struggling to promote their work as "art" to the broader art community. This is relevant because I often hear people position sharpness and detail as an advantage. I suppose I see that example as a creative choice and not as an advantage.

I am looking forward to more comments and input on peoples perspective on what contact prints today are special, valuable, etc.

Thanks

If you recall the early days of photography, the Daguerrotype vs Calotype (Daguerre vs Talbot), you would remember that contract printing started way back then and because of that, I would say Talbot would be the most notable contact printer. Of course 'Format' as in 'Large Format' was not applied to the process at that time.

Contact prints are special because they are a positive image and many can be made from the same negative. However, the contact print was at a far disadvantage to the Daguerrotype in terms of sharpness and detail. In fact the Calotype images were described by Talbot himself as "Rembrantish."

Here is an example
"The Open Door" by Talbot, 1843, Salted paper contact print from Calotype negative.

 

[NedL]

Over time calotypes were refined and some were surprisingly sharp. Baldus used gelatin in his calotype process and produced some amazing salt prints.

 

[analog65]

Thanks for including the link to Baldus. Amazing work and the quote at the top of the article was really inspiring and amazing. Makes me want to create some calotype's. Thanks!

Over time calotypes were refined and some were surprisingly sharp. Baldus used gelatin in his calotype process and produced some amazing salt prints.

 

[MartinP]

Those relatively tiny prints, in the photo-albums of ordinary people, from between the wars were almost all contact prints weren't they? Often using 127 or 1/620 rollfilm. That might suggest that there is also some sort of division of purpose that you could make between "happy-snaps" (bad word, but you know what I mean) and more formal or artistic work. A family portrait might well be made via a large plate in a local studio, but the personal pictures would be smaller format roll-film.