Digital Contact Proof Sheets

[Shawn Dougherty]

I understand, Bob. You're running a business and it only makes sense. I'm speaking, as you said, from the perspective of having a darkroom in my home. Plus doing the work personally, I ascribe a value to all things handmade that can't be measured in $. Best. Shawn

Though both of you are indeed right, if you have a darkroom set up in your home and you are comfortable with making silver prints making rc contacts is a good route to go .
If you are not so inclined , scan inkjet is another very good way to solve the problem. I do not think the reasons for doing this is lack of commitment and time to work in a darkroom but that of convienience and practicality of ones workflow with large volumes of roll film.
I think part of the loss of contacting my company has seen is related to the $8.50 a sheet cost we charge for contacts. For a commercial job this is built into the photographers quote, but for personal work it can get pricey.
I too enjoy silver but choose methods of proofing my personal work based on the best method for my current workflow with a paticular project.

 

[copake_ham]

I understand, Bob. You're running a business and it only makes sense. I'm speaking, as you said, from the perspective of having a darkroom in my home. Plus doing the work personally, I ascribe a value to all things handmade that can't be measured in $. Best. Shawn

Shawn,

I think it is imperative to keep in mind that what we are talking about is an intermediate step in the workflow process.

As I stated earlier, I fail to see what is achieved in making a low-res contact scan. I do see what is achieved in either making a traditional contact sheet (a'la David) or using a hi-res scan (as per Bob - or, much more humbly, myself).

Either method is relatively quick and provides you with an intermediate product that will inform you as to which negs are "worth" printing. However, Sandy's low-res scan contact sheet will not provide the level of detail necessary (whether viewed on a monitor or printed out) to make that decision.

If you take particularly pride in hand-made contact sheets - and that is certainly a reasonable position, all well and good. But, within the "spirit" of traditional photography, I don't see anything "wrong" with using hi-res scanning to produce a "contact" sheet in order to quickly inform the decision of whether or not to print a given negative.

 

[sanking]

As I stated earlier, I fail to see what is achieved in making a low-res contact scan. I do see what is achieved in either making a traditional contact sheet (a'la David) or using a hi-res scan (as per Bob - or, much more humbly, myself).

I did not see any further reason to comment on this thread. Either use the procedure or don't. No skin off my back either way.

However, your assertion that one can can achieve more with a traditional contact sheet is simply not accurate IMO, and I have done it it both ways, which apparently you have not. A scan of a sheet of negatives at 300-600 dpi will provide as much visual information for making judgments about which frame to enlarge as will a traditional contact sheet. In either case the contact sheet serves primarily to identify the composition(s) on a particular roll of negatives that may merit further consideration, in which case one will usually actually examine the negative(s) before electing to make a larger print.

And if the resolution of 300-600 dpi is too low for your needs, increase it, and/or take the negatives out of the plastic. Point is, you can get what you need with the digital contact print. I don't know what you need, but if you need more resolution it is easy to get. But a scan at 600 dpi gives as much detail as the human eye can see, and more than the paper can capture, on a same size contact print made with an inkjet printer.

I don't argue with the assertion that one could make a B&W contact sheet about as quickly by wet processing a sheet of RC paper as by scanning and printing. But many people work with alternative processes and have no interest in processing silver, or they may expose primarily color negative or color transparency film in 35mm and/or medium format. I fit into both these categories, and while I could easily set up to make traditional B&W contact sheets if that served my needs better than the digital contact sheet I see no reason to do so, and doing so in color would be out the question for me. But believe me, if there is anybody who so values a hand-made contact sheet that they want to process C41 in their darkroom, don't let me stop you.

Sandy King

 

[RobertP]

Sandy, As an alternative printer, working in ULF and just starting to look at hybrid work flow, I think it makes perfect sense. The enlarged digital negatives I've seen lately seem to be getting better and better. Am I allowed to say that here?

 

[copake_ham]

Sandy, As an alternative printer, working in ULF and just starting to look at hybrid work flow, I think it makes perfect sense. The enlarged digital negatives I've seen lately seem to be getting better and better. Am I allowed to say that here?

IOW, the scans are getting more and more hi-res vs. low-res? The issue isn't whether to scan - it's at what level of resolution.

 

[Colin Graham]

I like it. I may start shooting trannies again. Plus I'm so sick of rooting through old paper boxes to find contact sheets, not to mention the fact that I dont have much in the way of silver paper around since I started alt printing. I shoot a lot of film and it sounds like a great way to stay on top of it. Thanks for the idea.

 

[Peter De Smidt]

Sandy, this a great idea. I'm off to give it a try. Thanks! (I want to maximize my real print-making time when I'm in the darkroom. Making contact sheets takes away from this.)

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sandy, I really like your idea. Having used traditional contact sheets for years now, I could definitely see the value in not wasting my time in the darkroom on mondane contact sheets, but save my precious seconds and minutes for the real prints.
The cool thing about this is that on a computer you're not tied to doing one thing exclusively, but you can actually create and scan those sheets while checking email, doing online banking, or whatever. Saves time.
With that said, I wish I had more time to dedicate to my darkroom. Especially with color it makes sense in my opinion.

Re: Copake-ham. I don't understand why you're arguing this quality aspect. It's clear to me that if you want higher quality and perhaps enlarge those contact sheets, you are free to do so. But compared to a standard contact sheet, which serves the purpose of determining which negatives to pay special attention, a 300-600 dpi scan and print will do exactly the same. Really. Sandy just found an alternative way of producing a comparable product, an alternative that may just suit a few people better than making a wet print contact sheet. You're kinda beating a dead horse here.

- Thomas

 

[Donald Miller]

Sandy, Thanks for providing a good alternative.

 

[sanking]

I appreciate the comments of those who have found some potential use for the digital contact sheet. My needs are not that different from that of other serious photographers who make a lot of film negatives in different formats and need a simple and efficient system of making, filing and archiving contact sheets. This procedure has been very helpful to me in organizing my negative collection and I figure that if it helps me it might also help others like me with similar working habits. However, the idea certainly not new. As Bob Carnie has pointed out, it has become the practice of many working photographers, so I can only take credit for bringing up the idea on this forum, not inventing it.

In my opinion the requirements for a contact sheet are quite different from the requirements of a high resolution scan for final output, both in terms of file size, computer RAM requirements, and time needed to produce, and also ideologically, since the later would get us talking about things that would be better discussed on the hybrid site. If anyone wants to continue that type of discussion I will be happy to discuss it over there.

Sandy King

 

[gr82bart]

Basically, if you have exposed a roll of film and store the negatives in clear proof sheets, say Print File sheets or equivalent, you can make good contact proof sheets by simply scanning the sheets, assuming your scanner allows scans up to 8X10.

If you simply lay the plastic sheets on the scanner you may get artifacts from uneven contact of the plastic and glass. What I propose is that you have a sheet of anti-glare glass cut to fit over the scanner bed and position the proof sheet on the anti-glare side of the glass, and then flip and place on the scanner bed. The glass will apply pressure on the contact sheet, and the anti-glare side, which is like anti-newton glass, will reduce or eliminate newton rings.

I do a variation of this. I lay the film strips (the ones that aren't curled that is) down on my flatbed without the plastic sheet and place the glass over top. I use to use Saran wrap! With curled strips, I just use the plastic sheet anyway and the glass to keep the sheet flat.

I didn't know this was 'revolutionary' either! I've been using this method since I bought my flatbed scanner more than 5 years ago an assumed that's what everybody did.

Regards, Art.