Contact printing Weston Style (aka w/ a lightbulb)

[domaz]

I would try to find a 4x5 contact frame for contact printing. I have an old 4x5 frame and an 8x10 one. The 4x5 is much easier to use. There is not so much worry of your negative being printed a little sideways with a 4x5 frame. It's hard to get the alignment right with so much play. Does anyone make new 4x5 contact frames anymore, or am I stuck using my grandmothers from the 1930s (which is fine but it has a broken spring)?

 

[michaelbsc]

...but sometimes TV gets really boring at home after a while...

Hey, this guy is going to fit in here really well.

When I was a kid I'd get bored with TV, and everyone thought I was weird. I haven't owned a TV since 1974, although I did agree a few decades ago that when high definition got here I'd give in. We may be at that point now.

 

[DanielStone]

Hey, this guy is going to fit in here really well.

When I was a kid I'd get bored with TV, and everyone thought I was weird. I haven't owned a TV since 1974, although I did agree a few decades ago that when high definition got here I'd give in. We may be at that point now.

I hope that I can ...

No, I, nor my parents own an hdtv, and frankly, from what I've seen at people's houses, they seem to lag really badly, and the colors all seem too "velvia 50ish" for me. Its like "this field is a nice shade of forest green, but lets give it to em like a fuji green"!

I like some shows on the boob tube, anthony bourdain on the travel channel is very intersting, and who cannot watch Law and Order? c'mon, if you have cable, you have to watch LaO.

but Michael, in answer to fitting in, I plan on staying here for a long, long time .

-Dan

 

[Trevor Crone]

any recommendations for a proper light bulb for the exposing lamp? frosted or clear? what wattage to start? ge, phillips, other?

right now the films and papers I'll be using will be tmy-2 and acros in 4x5. Nothing yet in 8x10 , I don't have the camera yet . I'll be using ilford matte fb paper, as well as slavich single weight, and EMAKS G3.

please advise

thanks

Dan

Dan, as already mentioned, for the faster projection papers you are using I would start with something like a frosted 7.5 watt or 15 watt bulb. You can always play around with the height that the bulb is from the paper to achieve an exposure suitable to allow any manipulation that may be required. I would recommend a frosted bulb because it should give more even illumination then a clear bulb. If these wattage ratings are giving you too long an exposure at a convenient lamp distance then step up to 25, 40, etc.

 

[DanielStone]

ok, well the "talking to the father" has been done. I talked to my dad yesterday, and I showed him some of the threads on here going into the "being able to put chemistry down the drain" topics, which is his main concern.

so far, not a definitive answer, but I think that he might give me a chance to show him what I've been wanting to do.

keep praying that I can actually do this, cause I really want to!

trevor, thanks, I still need to get my clamp lights for my safelight and 7.5 watt bulbs.

-Dan

 

[DanielStone]

this thread has garnered so many views, I never knew I could start something that would grow so big so fast !

 

[henrysamson]

any recommendations for a proper light bulb for the exposing lamp? frosted or clear? what wattage to start? ge, phillips, other?

right now the films and papers I'll be using will be tmy-2 and acros in 4x5. Nothing yet in 8x10 , I don't have the camera yet . I'll be using ilford matte fb paper, as well as slavich single weight, and EMAKS G3.

please advise

thanks

Dan

If you are going to use enlarging paper then a 7.5 - 15 watt bulb is fine. When I attended a workshop taught by Cole Weston I saw something you might be interested in. He had built a little "box" to hold the low wattage frosted bulb. The box was open at the bottom so the light can project onto the paper. The box had a shelf at the bottom that held kodak polycontrast filters so he could easily use variable contrast paper by just sliding a filter in. The box was mounted on an arm that extended from the wall. An yes, he used it to print from Edward's negatives as he was using enlarging paper at the time. The small bulb needed for enlarging paper can be enclosed this way as they don't give off much heat.

I use a 150 watt frosted reflector flood for Azo and Lodima and my enlarger for contact printing on enlarging paper.

Henry

 

[John Koehrer]

Hey, this guy is going to fit in here really well.

When I was a kid I'd get bored with TV, and everyone thought I was weird. I haven't owned a TV since 1974, although I did agree a few decades ago that when high definition got here I'd give in. We may be at that point now.

I didn't have a tv when I got out of the service('68) until my girlfriend moved in with me '73ish. I still don't turn it on until after 6pm.

Ummm...... Crap in Hi-Def is still crap.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I use a type "S-11" bulb for contact printing onto enlarging paper. 7.5 watts, frosted white, miniature round globe on a standard sized socket.

Totally off-subject, but the main reason I haven't "bit the bullet" for a new TV is that I can't stand to look at 4:3 program material stretched horizontally on a 16:9 screen. Despite the US having passed the date of the shutdown of NTSC (except for some low-power stations) most live broadcasts, including live sports, are still broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. And most legacy programs (with the exception of network prime time shows from the last few years) are also 4:3. As is most local programming. But I can't find a 4:3 flat screen TV larger than about 20" in size. I know most 16:9 sets permit displaying "shrunken" at 4:3, but then the image isn't much larger than my current CRT set. So I don't see the point, except for perhaps watching DVDs.

Oh well; gonna keep the CRT running a few more years, I guess.

~Joe

 

[avandesande]

You don't need a fancy contact printing frame just get a piece of 1/4 inch glass from a glass store- it will only cost a few bucks.

 

[removed account4]

make yourself a dimmer switch

 

[doughowk]

A dimmer switch sounds like agood idea; but does add a level of complexity that may not be repeatable. If you could do it in increments like f stops with assurance of accuracy, may be worth pursueing.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

The problem with dimmer switches is that as you reduce the voltage to an incandescent filament lamp the color temperature goes down, toward the red, making control of contrast much more problematic. Plus, the added complexity of a dimmer switch is just over-engineering what's really a simple solution. Go to the big-box hardware store, the specialty lamp section, and get an S-11 frosted white bulb. The globe is about the size and color of a table tennis (ping pong for use oldsters) ball. Will fit in any standard 110vac lamp socket. 7.5 watts. Suspend it a fixed distance above the darkroom table. Calibrate, etc.

Okay, in all fairness to those who like to over-engineer things, the right way to over-engineer this is 1) use a constant voltage transformer or, better yet, a high-end power conditioner intended for use on computers. This will obviate any voltage fluctuation caused by when the electric clothes drier kicks on, for instance. Then, 2) use a duty-cycle chopping motor speed controller, of the type using a power MOSFET. These operate by keeping the peak voltage constant, and instead chopping (or shortening) the duty cycle of the sine wave. No more color temperature changes with intensity adjustments. And 3) a Chinese-made diesel powered electrical generator, planted on its own concrete pad out in the backyard, is also an attractive option, lending one the ability to contact print "off the grid", enabling the continuation of traditional photography during power blackouts, when those undergoing the Digital Way are smacking the sides of their blackened monitor screens. Diesel is especially good because the large fuel tank stores safely, no flammable vapors. You may have a problem when contact printing early in the morning or late at night, unless you install the optional "Emperor Kung Pao" muffler system, available now at dealers everywhere, don't delay call now.

The problem is, this ain't how EW would have done it, now is it?

~Joe

 

[DanielStone]

Well guys,

still no answer from my dad on whether I can actually go ahead with this or not, but I've been amassing materials to get started !

went to wal-mart the other night and picked up two of the 6.95 clamp lights, 150w max, and a 2.98 GE 7.5 watt bulb(frosted of course).

I've got trays from a generous person who donated their darkroom materials to me many moons ago, so I've also got a timer that I can plug the light into.

otherwise, the only thing I guess I'm missing would either be the piece of heavy glass, or the contact frame. that I can wait on, otherwise I'm ready.

thanks for all the help, please leave a message or a reply if something else piques your brain on this subject

blessings,

Dan

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Totally off-subject, but the main reason I haven't "bit the bullet" for a new TV is that I can't stand to look at 4:3 program material stretched horizontally on a 16:9 screen. Despite the US having passed the date of the shutdown of NTSC (except for some low-power stations) most live broadcasts, including live sports, are still broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. And most legacy programs (with the exception of network prime time shows from the last few years) are also 4:3. As is most local programming. But I can't find a 4:3 flat screen TV larger than about 20" in size. I know most 16:9 sets permit displaying "shrunken" at 4:3, but then the image isn't much larger than my current CRT set. So I don't see the point, except for perhaps watching DVDs.

Oh well; gonna keep the CRT running a few more years, I guess.

~Joe

The HiDef TV's you have seen are owned by lazy people, who either don't care or don't know that the TV's have a display mode to view 4:3 programs in correct aspect ratio. You will probably not even see this in the stores, because they want to "fill" the screen with the picture, no matter what program is on view. Trust me, you do not have to view 4:3 flat screen material in "stretch" mode. You can view it "windowboxed" in correct porportions.

 

[df cardwell]

I'll second Phil and recommend you review the www.michaelandpaula.com site. It is a wealth of information for contact printing.!

Some may find the Michael&Paula thing a bit more of a cult than straightforward picture making. Weston was all about simplicity.

You'll be able to make great art for years without ever getting exotic.

 

[Dinesh]

Some may find the Michael&Paula thing a bit more of a cult than straightforward picture making. Weston was all about simplicity.

Must..................buy......................Lodima!

 

[BradS]

Some may find the Michael&Paula thing a bit more of a cult than straightforward picture making. Weston was all about simplicity.

You'll be able to make great art for years without ever getting exotic.

I completely agree! Thanks df for putting it so perfectly.

 

[jgjbowen]

Weston was all about simplicity.

You mean like silver chloride papers, amidol and a bare bulb :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, let's not forget the pyro film developers...

 

[df cardwell]

When Edw went to photo school, he learned a simple way to make pictures, and he stuck with it.
Yes, pyro, because that's what you used in 1900 and something.
And, in time, he rejected all the fancy, pictorialist papers in favor of the cheap, dirt-common commercial paper (Convira), and caught hell for it. He was no longer a real photographer because he didn't use the right papers, that all the cool kids used.

So, yes. He cut through all the BS associated with 'How To Be An Artiste',
walked away from a thriving portrait business in LA and went off to the back of beyond to
take pictures of rocks. And make contact prints with a light bulb.

Today, we have no clue what that means because any one of us can go out and buy off Ebay a better camera outfit than Weston ever owned. We can use 14 kinds of Pyro developers, use densitometers to make perfect negatives of nothing in particular, and whine because we don't have the right paper to make art. And if we don't sell a shit load of pictures, we eat anyhow.

Gosh, if Edward Weston didn't run the Art Photographers' Fantasy Camp back in the '30s, he'd have probably starved and we'd have never heard of him.

 

[Gim]

Don, I just printed that and will put it in my favorite Weston book and use it for a bookmark.

Best,
Jim

 

[Michael A. Smith]

From df Cardwell: "Some may find the Michael&Paula thing a bit more of a cult than straightforward picture making. Weston was all about simplicity."

I am tired of comments like the above by people who have not a clue what they are talking about. Or they are simply envious.

I don't get it. Cult??? Sorry. It is just straightforward picture making--in fact--EXACTLY like Weston did it.

Negatives developed in ABC Pyro.
Prints made on silver chloride paper developed in Amidol. Paper exposed with a bare bulb. Paper developed for one minute.

Same as Weston. Nothing could be more simple--nor less "technical." The emphasis always is on vision, and of course, making fine prints.

But get this straight: There is no way of making prints more simply than making silver chloride contact prints. If you, or anyone else, can tell me about an easier, less complicated, and faster way to make comparable silver prints, I will try it. And I will apologize. But if you cannot, then you should apologize. Got it?: Easier, less complicated, and faster. Needs all three.

For the doubters: Silver chloride prints need only about 20% of the dodging and burning that prints on enlarging paper need--for the same, or better, results. That is because silver chloride paper has a short toe and a short shoulder. The curve is more "straight line.". That alone make it easier, less complicated, and faster. The paper develops in one minute. Try that with enlarging paper and you will not get a deep black. Enlarging paper needs two to three minutes developing time. No enlarger or fancy equipment is ever needed. No masking is ever necessary.

In short, I cannot imagine the slightest shred of anything in my way of making photographs that is not TOTAL simplicity. Since I am not, by nature, the slightest bit technically oriented, it had to be that way for me.

What could be the motivation be for this person's ignorant comments? Envy? Or is it hatred for someone they do not know and whose prints, in all likelihood they have never seen, at least not seen in quantity.

Hey, if anyone doesn't want the paper we are having made, don't order it. But anyone who makes comments on it, without having given it a serious try, makes meaningless comments.

There are a lot of good things in this, and other forums. But there are a lot of misinformation, too. I hope most readers know how to tell the difference.

Michael A. Smith

 

[jd callow]

Michael maybe you missed the point. In this instance the comment was directed at the acolytes as much or more than at the man who claims one paper and one process is the end all. I can't speak for DF, but I'm suspecting it is neither envy nor hatred, but possibly fatigue that so much could be put upon so little again and again.

<edit>
In rereading it he isn't directing anything at you and placing his entire point on the virtue of a simple process. By extension he is supporting much of what you say you do.

On the flip side the fatigue thing that was all me.
</edit>

 

[Lee L]

For me df's posts are about what to do when you meet the buddha on the road, not actually about Michael or Paula per se. Taking his comments personally is optional.

Lee

P.S. This post does not imply that df is a buddhist or not a buddhist. Neither does it imply that df is a murderer or advocates murder. It does imply that I'm with jd on this one.

 

[mhanc]

For what it is worth, I have seen a MAS Azo/Amidol contact print. The qualities of that print are extraordinary.

Similarly, the prints posted here in the gallery that have used Lodima/Amidol are some of the very best and I imagine the actual prints are even more beuatiful.

Perhaps it is these photographers' skills, their process' or the paper/developer they use. Perhaps it is all three -- but the one thing they have in common is contact printing on silver chloride paper developed in Amidol.

This is, of course, my subjective opinion. However, for me the empirical evidence is that this straightforward process can yield a quite beautiful photograph. At the point I contact print LF negatives, I will give this process a try.

There are also photographs made in other ways that I like equally as well. Mr Callow's cross-processed color work, for example, is striking.

Cult or not, everyone's work speaks for itself - period.