Contact proof prints from 120 - do you make them? :)

[dianna]

I make contact prints on cheap RC paper and store the negatives and contact print together. Sometimes months can go by before I get a chance to print, so it's nice to have the contact prints to look through. Scanning takes too much time, and I'm always worried about scratching the negatives or picking up dust - I'd rather keep them in the printfile until I'm ready to make a print.

Dianna

 

[j4425]

I make contact prints on cheap RC paper and store the negatives and contact print together. Sometimes months can go by before I get a chance to print, so it's nice to have the contact prints to look through.

Dianna

Yep. That's what I do..

 

[Andy K]

Lots of cobwebs in here!

I contact proof my 120 also. It is quicker and easier than scanning the negs.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I contact print as well, because it saves me the hassle of printing

Seriously, though, it's a big helper to get a sense of a photo's tone and composition, and it gives basic indications on printing time when your setup is relatively standardized.

 

[Iwagoshi]

Lots of cobwebs in here!

Andy,
I am amazed at the stuff I'm finding in APUG's dusty attic.

Terry

 

[Mark Burley]

I contact print onto Ilford Warmtone (grade2.5) as that is the main paper I use. But I use the RC for contacts and Fibre for work and final prints. I use a Paterson 10x8 proofer and write in detail later. Mainly record exposure and print detail in my separate bible later. Like Bob I should have the correct exposure rating to get a reasonable proof each time. I wish... Having said that - the last three were not too bad.

Although I prefer to print split 0 and 5, I found that doing a straight 2.5 grade proof sometimes leads me into a straight grade print if I have correct exposure levels. I also find that some of the more difficult prints are easier this way. Although I suspect that's because I am not as experienced at printing as most of you are...

Mark

 

[Bob F.]

In:

Evaluating: if I got exposure and development right, I should have Zones III to VII where I expected them, if not, I can see where I went wrong.

I should stress that the first "if" should be in a giant size bold font in flashing red and yellow with little starburst rockets flying out of it. Oddly, I couldn't find that font in the APUG post editor...

Akcherly, since that post I no longer use the Paterson holder and just use a sheet of glass over the negatives in their binder sheets.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Resoman]

I store my 35mm and 120 film in Print File pages, and contact print them under a piece of heavy plate glass onto 8 1/2 x 11 RC VC paper. I prefer the pearl surface (no fingerprints), but could only find glossy the last time I ordered some. The 8 1/2 x 11 size has enough room for me to punch holes at the edge and file the proof sheet in a three ring binder, along with the Print File page itself.

I proof with a grade 2 setting, and use an exposure where the clear film prints slightly less than maximum black.

I remember the frustration others have mentioned of trying to proof 6x7 film on one sheet of paper. I guess that was one more reason that 6x7 is my least favorite roll film format.

Regards,

Gary,
East Snook, TX

 

[Iwagoshi]

As 35 and 6x6 contact sheet is pretty easy and straightforward, just put stripes into contact printer(s), nothing to tell about that.

haris,
For me, a noob, it wasn't so straight forward. I was stressing out over how I was going to make 3 or 4 loose strips of curly 120 film behave while I plop the glass on top. Do I tape the negatives to the glass? As suggested by you kind folks, printing through the Print-File page certainly solves that problem, one of those slap-on-the-forehead moments. And exposure, how long to make a good (objective) proof print? Again not so obvious for me, but somewhere I read to expose the minimum time to get maximum black on the frames (the space between each exposure). It may take a couple sets of test strips but once your source/paper is dialed in, you're set.

Anyway, I now believe--I didn't before--that contact proofing is the only way to tell me if I am developing (and exposing) my film properly. Scanning-inverting-digitally futsing will not tell me anything.

Terry

 

[patricia de roeck]

What a great thread, lots of good ideas - when I first printed with 120 I bought a very expensive Paterson thingy which seemed to have been designed by a mad person so searched this forum and found the perfect answer with the piece of foam/sheet of glass idea - works wonderfully and means less handling of the negs. I also print the proofs on RC and leave an area on the 10 x 8 paper for note-making - the proof sheet is then filed in a plastic sheet alongside the negs in a ring-folder. I always store the negs in the same order in their sleeves as the proof print - that becomes my individual neg identifying number system - the top row is 1, second row is 2 etc. then I count the negs from left to right - 1 to 5 so if the file number is No.9 and I choose the 3rd. neg from the left in row 2 then that neg is number 9/2/3 . Very handy when you end up with a row of negs with only a slight variation in exposure - especially useful as the numbers on the film never seem to line up with the negs themselves. Oh forgot - I always print them on Gr.2 at F11 and always have the enlarger head at the same mark on the column so the exposures are usually always the same.
Patricia

 

[erdeklodo]

I do the contact print the same way as Ole does , and I always find pictures now , which didn't worked 2 or for years ago , but now I can use them with another labor technic
(

I proof my negatives on 24x30cm (9.5x12") Multigrade RC, with 040Y filtration. The contact print is put in an album with negative sheet on the right, contact print on the left. Then I can see which negatives are worth working on, and find the right negative immediately.

Since I use transparent negative sheets, I just contact the whole sheet under a sheet of glass to keep it flat. So everything is just as in the album.

Scanning takes a lot loonger time, and is more difficult to fit in a filing system

 

[dfoo]

The biggest difficulty I've had in printing contact sheets is that even with my enlarger head all the way up and stopping the lens to f8 I still don't have consistent lighting on the paper. Its very frustrating. I need to throw that damn enlarger out and get a better one!

 

[hywel]

Am I the only one who keeps his contact sheets decidedly separate from his negatives? The negatives are irreplaceable, they go in a nice ring binder box thing in a safe place away from the heat and the light and all that. The contact sheets are things I want to look at, hold in my grubby hand, peruse, mull over. I have piles of them lying around until I've decided what to print and after that they go into a separate folder, that lives to hand, to encourage me to pick it up and look over the sheets again. Without any worry that I might damage the negatives.

 

[haris]

The biggest difficulty I've had in printing contact sheets is that even with my enlarger head all the way up and stopping the lens to f8 I still don't have consistent lighting on the paper. Its very frustrating. I need to throw that damn enlarger out and get a better one!

Before throwing your enlarger away, try next:

1. check if you use appropriate condensors or mixing chamber for your lens.

2. try to turn lens ring (that ring into which you screw your enlarger lens and put it into enlarger) 180 degrees. For example, Opemus 5 enlarger require for 80mm lens (for working with 6x6 negatives) that ring is in concave position (lens is "out" of enlarger) and for 50mm lens (for working with 35mm negatives) ring needs to be in convex position (lens is "in" enlarger). If that is not done, for example if ring with 50mm lens is in concave position, max print size is about 5x7/13x18cm (with 35mm film), and when ring is in convex position, max print size is 12x16/30x40cm.

O, and don't get lens really in enlarger, just turn ring, lens is screwed outside of enlarger. I mean, you need to change aperture, and you can't do that if lens is in enlarger

 

[Simplicius]

Great Information and it has closed an issue for a newbie like me, I was thinking that a scanner is my best option, since i never get time enough in the local darkroom to print all my negs. Also thought it might be handy for pre making contact sheets at home. So i hit the ground running with my lab time.

So i'll save my money and forget the scanner and concentrate on learning to print more and finalise that home darkroom. !

thanks to the original poster for answering my question as well, albeit inadvertently.

Simplicius

 

[dfoo]

BTW, the last time I printed a contact sheet I got a much more evenly exposed sheet. Here is what I did:
- Use a 50mm lens instead of a 75mm lens.
- Used f8.
- Put the head all the way to the top.
- Turned the focus billows all the way up.

This combination led to a very big light circle. The light in the center was reasonably consistent, and my contact sheet looked quite good!

 

[2F/2F]

Hello,

Some folks proof simply to have a nice proofsheet, while others might proof as a precursor to printing. The nice proofsheet is fun to look at and fun to show to others, while the other type is simply a tool for the printer.

I am of the school who prints contact sheets at a predetermined time and aperture, no matter how good or bad it looks, in order to get a jump on the printing.

Anyhow, I consider my "normal" paper grade to be a grade three. That way, with today's limited selection of grades, I have one grade above normal and one grade below it. So, all of my proofsheets go on grade three paper, and if I have the time, I do them in a contact frame instead of through the film sleeves. (This also means that my "good" negs are flatter than most people's, who aim for a grade two paper.)

Also, I never need to do test strips, because I know what my "normal" time and aperture are (at a certain enlarger height that I use for contact sheets) that will make a black black, a middle grey middle grey, and a white white for the particular paper I am using.

So, the proofsheet gives me a good idea of where to start when printing. Additionally, since I do them with a contact frame instead of through the sleeves, I know what is tack sharp and what is not without having to look at the film.

I also have noticed that the higher you raise the enlarger, the more contrast is lost between neg. and print, so for a standard sized print, which I consider to 11x14 for all my initial calibration of film, developer, and printing, the contrast on the neg. might be fine, but will look slightly contrasty on the proofsheet; perhaps 1/2 grade more so.

I don't think scanning would be very time effective or helpful to the analog printing process, but probably would be if you print electronically. Scanning an analog proofsheet might make things easier if you plan on printing analog, but have to send a proofsheet to someone electronically.

Also, this of course means that I always contact onto the paper onto which I will be printing, and very often will make the contacts onto a few different papers. I use a handful of papers for most of my printing, and have a bunch of really old paper (some expired in 1949) that I use for more experimental stuff. My normal papers are: Oriental graded for neutral tone, Fotokemika Emaks graded for warm tone, Ilford MG FB Warmtone glossy for a warm-tone VC paper that looks very different than Emaks, and is just beautiful for certain things (although WAY overpriced), and Ilford MG RC pearl for when I want that RC look, which I very much like sometimes.

 

[MarcoGiardini]

I contact print all of my 120 and 35mm negs on Ilford Perl RC paper with 50Y filtration. Height and diaphragm are fixed while time depends on film density. I use the print backside to note all the data for the printing (chemical, paper, time, height, diaphragm, burn and dodge zones and so on.)
I find it very usefull!

Marco

 

[xtolsniffer]

I also always do a proof sheet, usually at grade 3 onto Ilford RC glossy. The problem I've always had with 6x7 negs is that I can get nine on one sheet of 10x8, then have to put the last one on a small scrap of paper. I find they help when filed with the negatives to locate that negative you want to print!

 

[wazza]

Contacting 120

I have found scanning my negatives invaluable also, it has helped save me a lot of FB paper as I can work on better crop options if required and preview toning variations digitally before making the print. I do not do this all the time but it really helps with "challenging" negatives.
Regards
Wazza

 

[Iwagoshi]

I contact print all of my 120 and 35mm negs on Ilford Perl RC paper with 50Y filtration. Height and diaphragm are fixed while time depends on film density.

Marco

Marco,

Varying time wrt density, doesn't that defeat the purpose of getting an objective check of your negatives? Let's say you screwed up the development and changed the proof time to compensate, I don't the advantage over scannning.

Terry

 

[haris]

I also always do a proof sheet, usually at grade 3 onto Ilford RC glossy. The problem I've always had with 6x7 negs is that I can get nine on one sheet of 10x8, then have to put the last one on a small scrap of paper. I find they help when filed with the negatives to locate that negative you want to print!

Well, use 24x30cm paper, that is what I do

Or, when use 20x25cm (8x10) paper, I make strips with 2 frames, 4 strips to one sheet of 20x25cm and tear one strip from other sheet of paper to put last 2 frames. Rest of teared paper is kept in box (specially dedicated for those strips ) for next contact sheet. On every 4 films one sheet of 20x25cm paper is used for tear 4 strips for those "leftover" 2 frames.

 

[Iwagoshi]

Well gang I got it done, after a few false starts I finally printed up my very first set of contact proofs, nine total. I ended up using Kodak Polycontrast III RC, Print File sleeves, and a Print File contact proof printer. The resulting proofs do not show any glaring developer/developing errors, and the 10 year old paper seems to be okay. The only glitch was a maladjusted hole punch. So it looks like I'm good to go another round.

Thank you all for your comments and very helpful recommendations. As someone else mentioned...APUG Rocks!

Terry

 

[Bob F.]

Looking good Terry! Now you just have to decide is which ones to print large

Have fun, Bob.

 

[Iwagoshi]

Looking good Terry! Now you just have to decide is which ones to print large

Have fun, Bob.

What? You don't print them all??