Contact sheet factory?

clayne · Oct 21, 2009

If I did contact sheets by just laying down sleeves with glass I wouldn't even think about it. But laying down 6-7 strips per sheet, then sliding them all back off is what I find to be the utmost in tedium. I usually sleeve negs AFTER contacting (which occurs after cutting down from the roll). The reason I don't sleeve them first is the amount of crap film usually picks up in sleeves making it more work to clean things before contacting. Usually if I just cut and contact they're fairly low on dry dust.

When I enlarge I always remove dust beforehand after pulling from a poly-sleeve so that part isn't a big deal. I just don't want to do it 6 times in a row for a single contact sheet.

There are times I even test a single strip to make sure exposure issues aren't going to waste my time as well. In general, yes, most tedious part of darkroom work. But as someone who mainly shoots people, cultures, events, etc. I couldn't imagine not having them. Examining a neg for density and sharpness on a light table is nowhere close to having the contact sheet.

They're also stories of their own.

travelingman · Oct 21, 2009

clayne said:
Do you use a sleeve or straight neg on paper with glass? Something tells me you use the sleeved method.

haha yeah sleeve on some photo paper and a piece of glass on it. It seriously doensn't need to be perfect or not in a sleeve because it's dirty. It can be out of focus and look like crap, it's just a reference point so you don't have to pull out a light table and loupe. Just flick the lights on see the picture you like or clarify which neg is better and then you go back to printing...

clayne · Oct 21, 2009

travelingman said:
haha yeah sleeve on some photo paper and a piece of glass on it. It seriously doensn't need to be perfect or not in a sleeve because it's dirty. It can be out of focus and look like crap, it's just a reference point so you don't have to pull out a light table and loupe. Just flick the lights on see the picture you like or clarify which neg is better and then you go back to printing...

Unfortunately it's pretty common for shots at contact size to look in focus and/or sharp when they aren't. Only a loupe confirms if it's proper - and if the contacts weren't done direct to paper then everything has a general light softness to it. This is pretty much why I go through the trouble of glass on naked negs the first time. I expect and want the contact sheets to last a long time.

Aside from individual negatives, the contact sheets can be a chronicle of one's photographic approach, progress, and experiences. Sometimes it isn't even necessary to look at prints - you can look at contact sheet after contact sheet and feel a story or connected theme.

travelingman · Oct 21, 2009

I see where you are coming from and I can see why you would put more effort and time into it in that case. I guess I just consider contact sheet's uses different and less important. Live and let live. = )

jeroldharter · Oct 21, 2009

Contact sheets are an essential point in the path to a fine print. Of course, I gave up on them as well!

I think they are overrated. Perhaps for 35mm they save some eye strain but I don't like making them.

They are tedious and time consuming. I have limited darkroom time anyway.

Even if you use BTZS, you still get negs (4x5) that are +/- 1 stop off from each other. You could eyeball it and try to lump 4 together that are about the same density. I have also made 4x5 matboard cards to mask the thinner negatives part way through the exposure based on my estimate.

I don't like the practice of low contrast contact prints to see the possible detail. A loupe on the negative should reveal that and the low contrast print is uninspiring to look at. I prefer grade 2 contacts so I can see which will need +/- contrast in printing.

I also gave up on tedious naming, labeling, filing of negatives. I file them in roughly chronological order and usually indicate which ones I have printed. For sheet film, I don't generate 1000's of negs so periodically looking through my old negatives is a manageable and worthwhile exercise.

I also don't like the extra handling of the negative required in making contacts sheets. It is just one more risk for scratches and dust.

clayne · Oct 21, 2009

jeroldharter said:
Contact sheets are an essential point in the path to a fine print. Of course, I gave up on them as well!

I think they are overrated. Perhaps for 35mm they save some eye strain but I don't like making them.

They are tedious and time consuming. I have limited darkroom time anyway.

Are you primarily shooting people or still life/landscapes?

jeroldharter · Oct 21, 2009

clayne said:
Are you primarily shooting people or still life/landscapes?

Good point. The latter, in 4x5 and 8x10 with rare 6x7 roll film.

However, this winter I might start going for humans.

Konical · Oct 21, 2009

Good Evening,

This is relevant to a couple of things in the recent posts on this topic.

Consistency--I learned sometime decades ago that contact sheets should always be made exactly the same way: same lens, same enlarger height, same paper, same f-stop, same exposure time, same, developer, etc. regardless of the film or format used. That way, the number of variables is reduced, helping to diagnose possible problems, such as a camera shutter or diaphragm which may be slightly malfunctioning. If the exposure of contact sheets is constantly changed based on the appearance of different sets of negatives, that diagnostic function is at least reduced. Consistently-made contact sheets also make it simple to print from different rolls of film (and different types/brands of film) during one session, since one quickly establishes a kind of base printing exposure and can work from that depending on the appearance of the frame on the sheet. After the first or second negative printed in a session, it doesn't take a lot of experience to be hitting subsequent exposures dead-on the first time that way.

Sharpness--Tedious and time-consuming as it is, I prefer the out-of-sleeve approach. Glass 1/4 inch thick is heavy enough to hold down even slightly curly film so that the image is as sharp as the negative will allow. As others have indicated, it is a real pain, especially with 35mm, but why not do everything as well as possible?

Konical

clayne · Oct 21, 2009

Konical said:
Good Evening,

This is relevant to a couple of things in the recent posts on this topic.

Consistency--I learned sometime decades ago that contact sheets should always be made exactly the same way: same lens, same enlarger height, same paper, same f-stop, same exposure time, same, developer, etc. regardless of the film or format used. That way, the number of variables is reduced, helping to diagnose possible problems, such as a camera shutter or diaphragm which may be slightly malfunctioning. If the exposure of contact sheets is constantly changed based on the appearance of different sets of negatives, that diagnostic function is at least reduced. Consistently-made contact sheets also make it simple to print from different rolls of film (and different types/brands of film) during one session, since one quickly establishes a kind of base printing exposure and can work from that depending on the appearance of the frame on the sheet. After the first or second negative printed in a session, it doesn't take a lot of experience to be hitting subsequent exposures dead-on the first time that way.
Konical

Konical, but some rolls are definitely going to have significantly different density from other rolls such that using the same exposure time is going to result in useless contact sheets. I agree that from a consistency standpoint it's good, but from a usability standpoint it's highly dubious - as contacts are useless if one can't evaluate the actual image.

I find it perfectly acceptable to test-strip/educated-guess a given frame off a roll and then use the adjusted times for other frames in the same roll. Most people will be making test strips more often than not. A hyper-consistent approach to contact sheet exposure settings is not going to save one from this.

polyglot · Oct 21, 2009

My contact sheets are neg-scans on the computer. My rolls are all numbered and the sleeves are filed by this number; I look for the image(s) I want on the computer, dig up the negs by number and go stick them in the enlarger for a session. Then I usually spill something.

Konical · Oct 21, 2009

"Konical, but some rolls are definitely going to have significantly different density from other rolls such that using the same exposure time is going to result in useless contact sheets. I agree that from a consistency standpoint it's good, but from a usability standpoint it's highly dubious - as contacts are useless if one can't evaluate the actual image."

Good Evening, Clayne,

I do understand your point of view and would agree that it does contain some truth. It may be a matter of degree. If the variation is within a reasonable range however, that, in itself, indicates the value of making contact sheets as consistently as possible, since it will clearly indicate how much (or less) exposure and what change in contrast filter will be required to produce an acceptable result; the contact sheet would, therefore, not really be useless because it lead to more efficient printing.

If the contact sheets show extreme density variations (or, similarly, contrast extremes) from frame to frame or from one roll to another, the sheets are probably indicating some very inconsistent or careless camera technique (or mechanical malfunction or processing error) which should be addressed, again proving the value of making contact sheets in as consistent a manner as possible.

I do not suggest that there is an absolute "right" or "wrong" in this matter, merely that I find value in trying to reduce, when possible, the number and extent of variables; it seems to me that aiming for precision and consistency is the best way to achieve this goal.

Konical

Iwagoshi · Oct 22, 2009

Konical said:
I do not suggest that there is an absolute "right" or "wrong" in this matter, merely that I find value in trying to reduce, when possible, the number and extent of variables; it seems to me that aiming for precision and consistency is the best way to achieve this goal.

Konical

I agree that there is no right or wrong but at least I thought your method, and mine as well, was the SOP, to be used as (only) a diagnostic and organizing tool. If the OP and others are making test strips, mini-prints, of their contact sheets I can see how that can be very tedious indeed.

For me, if the image(s) on the contact sheet passes the sharpness and smell test, I'll investigate further via a 24" iMac.

clayne · Oct 22, 2009

Iwagoshi said:
I agree that there is no right or wrong but at least I thought your method, and mine as well, was the SOP, to be used as (only) a diagnostic and organizing tool. If the OP and others are making test strips, mini-prints, of their contact sheets I can see how that can be very tedious indeed.

For me, if the image(s) on the contact sheet passes the sharpness and smell test, I'll investigate further via a 24" iMac.

Sure, but you do realize a lightbox and a loupe is actually faster?

Iwagoshi · Oct 23, 2009

clayne said:
Sure, but you do realize a lightbox and a loupe is actually faster?

But not as fun, imho.

bobherbst · Oct 23, 2009

In an era of ever more expensive silver gelatin paper and dwindling availability, there is a far more convenient and less expensive approach to making contact proof sheets. Several years ago I adopted using a digital camera on a copy stand with a light box. The images are inverted in Photoshop and can be increased in size for evaluation if you use a high enough resolution digital camera. I created solid black masks for each size of negative or pages of negatives. You can make multiple exposures to adapt to poorly exposed frames. The "film" is free once you have bought the memory card, and no chemicals, silver gelatin paper, or darkroom time is required. You can all complain in unison, but for me, this is a case of where digital is invaluable as a tool.

Now that you are all groaning, bear in mind, for final prints, I work only in Pt/Pd, carbon, and silver gelatin (Azo) and haven't had a negative in the enlarger for years. I had to come up with a method of proofing my 12x20 and other negatives without burning through several hundred dollars of Azo paper and endless hours in the darkroom. It became even more necessary when Azo was discontinued and I needed to preserve my stash in the freezer. I have adapted this approach to 6x6, 4x5, 8x10 and 12x20 negatives. I haven't shot 35mm in 15-20 years.

waileong said:
Does anybody here feel like a contact sheet factory?

Every time I get in a darkroom, there's always tons of negs waiting to be printed, so more than 3/4 of the session is just printing contacts!

And if I don't print the contacts, there's a good chance I'll never see the picture-- because it takes so much time to get one good print out of 12 negs (6x6) or one good print out of 36 (35 mm)!

I really need to retire, so I can do darkroom all day!

BobNewYork · Oct 23, 2009

Boring as it is I always make contact sheets. I've never developed (pardon the pun !) the ability to read negatives - other than in a very sense, and I find that the contact sheets lead me to the negs worth exploring further.

The other reason I contact is to tell me if there's anything changed in the materials or in my technique. Negs that don't print well at the contact stage are usually not worth pursuing further and also highlight for me any problems in my metering for a particular situation. In many respects the contact sheet is like a control strip for the entire process.

Bob H

clayne · Oct 23, 2009

Iwagoshi said:
But not as fun, imho.

IMO, the lightbox and loupe with a contact sheet are like a little miniature world where you follow the storyline of the roll... Scanning and looking at it on a monitor, no thanks, personally.

bobherbst · Oct 23, 2009

If you want to evaluate a negative, use an eye loupe. If you want to evaluate an IMAGE, you need to see it as a positive. That's what a contact sheet/proof is all about.

clayne said:
IMO, the lightbox and loupe with a contact sheet are like a little miniature world where you follow the storyline of the roll... Scanning and looking at it on a monitor, no thanks, personally.

DLawson · Oct 23, 2009

bobherbst said:
If you want to evaluate a negative, use an eye loupe. If you want to evaluate an IMAGE, you need to see it as a positive. That's what a contact sheet/proof is all about.

Well, for you (and me too, admittedly), sure that's true. But this sounds like telling large format people that they can't judge an image upside down.

Once upon a time, I recall being pretty good at judging image content (at a news/yearbook level) pretty well from a negative. So I'm inclined to believe (with envy) those who say they can read the full image by viewing the negative.

Still, I'll be making contact sheets this weekend, and probably for a very long time to come.

clayne · Oct 23, 2009

bobherbst said:
If you want to evaluate a negative, use an eye loupe. If you want to evaluate an IMAGE, you need to see it as a positive. That's what a contact sheet/proof is all about.

Bob, yes - I agree. That's what I was pointing out about rationale behind contacts rather than judging negatives. I don't look at negatives under a loupe, I look at contacts. Occasionally I look at negatives for damage and other obvious issues - but not for evaluation of content.

WarEaglemtn · Oct 24, 2009

Shoot 5x7 or larger and the contact sheet, done well, can be your final image. Whether you use Michael A. Smiths Lodima, a normal silver printing paper or Alt Processes you have the size figured out and printing is the next natural step. Then mount, mat and you are through.

dfoo · Oct 26, 2009

I love my contacts, but they're a pain in the ass to create Lately I've been doing nothing but print contact sheets, but now I have a nice set to examine, and show my friends and relatives. The sheets quite often tell a real story... much better than showing a negative to my sister. "Looks great! (not)".

mcfactor · Oct 28, 2009

Yeah, i felt like a contact sheet factory on Monday when I made over 50 contact sheets in a 2 hour period. I was doing 4 sheets at a time. I had been traveling a lot this fall and had a ridiculous amount of film that I am almost finished developing.

Although they are tedious and time-consuming, i often notice things on contact sheets that I miss when viewing the negative. Things also look different in positive form, so things that might not look great in negative do in positive and vise-versa. They also help me to view all the work I have done in a timely manner; I don't have to spend time trying to imagine what it will look like as a positive.

perkeleellinen · Oct 28, 2009

50 contact sheets in 2 hours is good going! That's like mass production.

mcfactor · Oct 28, 2009

yeah, the only problem was I had to dry them in shifts, I only have enough space for about 30 prints

Contact sheet factory?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency