"enlarged contact prints"

[AgX]

As you know I am into old textbooks, this stuffy endeavour...

But sometimes they leave me puzzled. Here an advice out of a textbook, lying for weeks at my desk with this sentence marked by me:



Weddings
....
After the event have enlarged (20"x16") contacts made (colour and b/w) from which to chose the final print.


(Calder/Garret , "The 35mm Photographer's Handbook" , 1979)



We all know how a contact print of a 35mm roll looks like. But I wonder how an "enlarged contact" would be achieved.

-) make a contact print of a roll in a common filmstrip-contact-easel, process it, put it at a repro-stage, make a copy on 35mm film, process it and from this make an enlarged print of the original contact, for better viewing.
What a hassle.

-) make an contact-like enlargement of the film-strips
But this necessitates at least a 8x10" enlarger. Which wedding photographer had such, let alone a 35mm photograhper, addressed here?
In addition laying 35mm film strips in a plain 2-panes hinged negative holder is a hassle and I do not know of 8x10 35mm-film-strips negative holder.

I got the the german edition of this book too. The translator is a experienced author, but he erroneously translated it as advice to the 35mm photographer doing it himself, and even leaving out the size of the print.
I read this version first which got me puzzled.


So, what workflow could be meant here?
Were there commercial labs doing such pseudo contact prints in a let's say 10x10 enlarger with a negative stage dedicated to 35mm strips?

 

[John Salim]

A lab I worked for offered 20"x16" enlarged 'contact' prints.
We used a DeVere 5108 10"x8" enlarger ( with a glass carrier ).
Basically any negs that could be conventionally laid out for contact printing onto a 10"x8" sheet of paper could be enlarged to 20"x16".
The results were very nice indeed. A 35mm frame measured 70mm x 45mm.

John S

 

[Nitroplait]

A lab I worked for offered 20"x16" enlarged 'contact' prints.
We used a DeVere 5108 10"x8" enlarger ( with a glass carrier ).
Basically any negs that could be conventionally laid out for contact printing onto a 10"x8" sheet of paper could be enlarged to 20"x16".
The results were very nice indeed. A 35mm frame measured 70mm x 45mm.

John S

Thats cool. Now I want a 8x10 enlarger ;-)

 

[AgX]

Thank you, John!

Looking at my 35mm-strips Paterson contact-copy easel a 10x10 enlarger would be needed.

Had your enlarger dedicated guides or clips to make the lay-out of those strips less a hassle?



I had practically no contact... with portrait/wedding studios back then, moreover they all used at least medium format.

But now I wonder if doing such enlarged contacts was typical at commercial labs.
Yes, I wonder too about my ignorance.

 

[Rick A]

Basically it can be done with any enlarger that can get to that size. Copy the negative onto another piece of film to make an inter positive, then enlarge that onto whatever size film you want making it a negative and contact print that.

 

[AgX]

I described something like this above, but it would be hassle. The same time one could do standard-setting postcard enlargements of all photos on the roll.

 

[Lachlan Young]

8x10/10x10 enlarger, and plenty of people got/ get 120 enlarged contacts too. The 5108 carrier can take 35x frames of 135 negs if they're cut into 7 strips of 5.

 

[AgX]

Maybe this was just a british thing. Had this been usual here the experienced translator may have not made this error of advising such for doing oneself.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It was a pretty standard custom lab offering in the UK, USA, Germany etc - they were pretty popular for commercial/ fashion etc - i.e. those with a budget & an art director to impress.

 

[AgX]

Thank you. I just checked at all my sources: not the slightest hint.

 

[markbau]

A lab I worked for offered 20"x16" enlarged 'contact' prints.
We used a DeVere 5108 10"x8" enlarger ( with a glass carrier ).
Basically any negs that could be conventionally laid out for contact printing onto a 10"x8" sheet of paper could be enlarged to 20"x16".
The results were very nice indeed. A 35mm frame measured 70mm x 45mm.

John S

Yep, that's it, pretty simple as long as you have an 8 x 10 enlarger. They were very popular at the lab I worked for in the 90's. I used to use very thin strips of tape to take the 35mm and 120 film onto the glass carrier. I think Durst even had a carrier made specifically for this.

 

[ic-racer]

It is a real pain if the film curls, but otherwise as simple as laying the film strips in rows on a 8x10 or 10x10 glass carrier.

 

[pentaxuser]

So every contact print involves a big enlarger so part of the process isn't in fact contact printing at all?

What's the advantage of the 20 x 16 contact print made from a 35mm neg involving an enlarger that isn't there if you simply enlarge the 35mm neg to make a 20x16 print?

pentaxuser

 

[John Salim]

Thank you, John!
Looking at my 35mm-strips Paterson contact-copy easel a 10x10 enlarger would be needed.
Had your enlarger dedicated guides or clips to make the lay-out of those strips less a hassle?

I had practically no contact... with portrait/wedding studios back then, moreover they all used at least medium format.
But now I wonder if doing such enlarged contacts was typical at commercial labs.
Yes, I wonder too about my ignorance.

------------------

We simply taped the negs down using ( crystal clear ) motion picture splicing tape.
35mm negs had to be slightly overlapped ( at the perfs ) to fit them onto the carrier.

I don't think it was a British thing, but I know we didn't produce that many !

John S

 

[John Salim]

What's the advantage of the 20 x 16 contact print made from a 35mm neg involving an enlarger that isn't there if you simply enlarge the 35mm neg to make a 20x16 print?

-----------------

Probably more impressive showing to clients ?

John S

 

[AgX]

So every contact print involves a big enlarger so part of the process isn't in fact contact printing at all?

What's the advantage of the 20 x 16 contact print made from a 35mm neg involving an enlarger that isn't there if you simply enlarge the 35mm neg to make a 20x16 print?

pentaxuser

That is why I also called them "pseudo-contacts".

The idea with a classic contact print is to have all photos taken on a roll of film to be printed on one sheet of paper, at best in the original sequence. In 1/1 scale
The latter also is its disadvantage.

By enlarging, and not contact printing, such film-strip assembly this disadvantage is coped with, and an assembly of pleasing to view small photos yielded.

 

[AgX]

From the reports above I may have overestimated the issue of getting such strips assembly neatly into a plain carrier.

But seen the streamlined workflow in a commercial lab processing and enlarging wedding photos and such I expected a dedicated carrier or even several of such.

 

[Oren Grad]

Praus Productions in Rochester (https://www.4photolab.com/) is a lab that still offers enlarged whole-roll proof prints.

 

[AgX]

Praus:

We specialize in making enlarged contact sheets for easier evaluation.
Your clients will love these giant contacts!

from 8.5"x11" up to 20"x24"

 

[NB23]

The modern way: Scan a contact sheet and then inkjet to any size you want.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thank you, John!

Looking at my 35mm-strips Paterson contact-copy easel a 10x10 enlarger would be needed.

Had your enlarger dedicated guides or clips to make the lay-out of those strips less a hassle?



I had practically no contact... with portrait/wedding studios back then, moreover they all used at least medium format.

But now I wonder if doing such enlarged contacts was typical at commercial labs.
Yes, I wonder too about my ignorance.

That’s because Paterson liked you to cut the strips into sixes to fit their special notebook pages.

They’re my favorites but contact prints are harder with strips of six.

 

[MattKing]

So every contact print involves a big enlarger so part of the process isn't in fact contact printing at all?

What's the advantage of the 20 x 16 contact print made from a 35mm neg involving an enlarger that isn't there if you simply enlarge the 35mm neg to make a 20x16 print?

pentaxuser

In this context, "contact" is just a short way of referring to a "contact proof sheet" - something many people are familiar with.
So the item is just an enlarged version of same.

 

[John Salim]

That’s because Paterson liked you to cut the strips into sixes to fit their special notebook pages.
They’re my favorites but contact prints are harder with strips of six.

-------------

We've cut 35mm negatives into 6 frames forever.

Negs are so much more easier to handle and file ( and contact ), but to be consistent they ( all exposure lengths ) should be cut from the tail end.
That way you always have a good length of 'handling leader' at the first frame(s) - which are never usually in the same position when films come in from outside.

There's nothing worse than having films ( in 4's or 5's ) cut from the first frame, to end up with a single frame ( no 36 or 37 ) because of no extra tail footage to play with.

John S

 

[pentaxuser]

In this context, "contact" is just a short way of referring to a "contact proof sheet" - something many people are familiar with.
So the item is just an enlarged version of same.

Thanks Matt I had got an inkling that this was going to be the case from a couple of others that replied but you've covered it precisely in a way that makes it really clear. So it could still be done with a 4x5 enlarger but would require several sheets of "contact sheets" to cover all 36 frames so lack the impact of getting slightly enlarged prints of all 36 frames on one sheet

It's the opposite of scanning all 35 frames onto a post card or 7x5 sheet and getting miniscule pics that are so small as to be neither use nor ornament as they say

pentaxuser

 

[Lachlan Young]

So it could still be done with a 4x5 enlarger but would require several sheets of "contact sheets" to cover all 36 frames so lack the impact of getting slightly enlarged prints of all 36 frames on one sheet

You can make enlarged whole film proofs in different ways, but it's considerably easier to do it either via an 8x10/ 10x10 enlarger than in smaller pieces. And getting everything at 2-2.4x enlargement on one sheet is easier to store than stacks of machine prints - and makes it easier to rapidly assess the entire roll at a glance (or 4 sheets of 4x5 etc) - this matters more if there's real money riding on it, they're not for people who clog threads with film price hand-wringing.


A better quality flatbed scanner (easier if A3 & with meaningful focus) can be used to deliver something similar - and you can print that file if you need to.