Film Sleeve Pages for Contact Proofing?

[F4U]

I was thinking of how to contact proof a roll of 35mm or 120 film. I discounted the idea of finding an old contact frame with foam. Too finicky. Then I remembered they've been making notebook pages for ages. Why not just slip the cut strips of 6-7 frames of 35mm film into them and contact print the whole page in a contact frame? So what if the thin plastic was between the film and the print paper? I'm looking for proper exposure, not perfect sharpness. So I looked up some of those pages to buy some. Then as I read the descriptions, They gave the thickness in mils of the plastic used. Then they gave the thickness of the center layer. CENTER LAYER???. I don't want any center layer. A center layer obviously means you can put 2 strips in the same slot, separated by a center layer. All I want to do is cut my flim, slide it in the slots and put it into my 10x12 frame and contact print it, right in the page. Am I making sense? I don't want a front and a back layer. What am i getting wrong here? Thank you. File this under "dumb questions by advanced amateurs".

 

[MattKing]

PrintFile archival storage pages: https://www.printfile.com/product-c...rage/negative-pages/35mm-negative-preservers/

 

[F4U]

PrintFile archival storage pages: https://www.printfile.com/product-c...rage/negative-pages/35mm-negative-preservers/

Thank you. I've seen those brand, But on another site. they gave thickness measurements for a "center section". I took that to mean there was a front side and a back side to hold 1 negative on the frontside, and another negative on the back side. I don't want any center section, even if I only use the ones on one side. Or am I all screwy on this? Something i'm not getting right here, I'm afraid. I'm not about to buy a used contact frame where i have to fiddle with negative strips. Like one of those frames where they ground angled slots into the glass to slide the film strips into and put your paper in and closed the glass against foam rubber. Or those other frames that had thin metal tabs to hold your film against the glass while you closed it. A lot of good stuff came out of the 70's but those frames were junk.

 

[Pieter12]

I have used Printfile pages for contact proofing for ages. They do fine.

 

[koraks]

PrintFile archival storage pages: https://www.printfile.com/product-c...rage/negative-pages/35mm-negative-preservers/

Yup, that. In Europe, the equivalent would be this: https://www.fotoimpex.com/archival/...dium-format-6x66x76x9-oversized-100-pack.html

I took that to mean there was a front side and a back side to hold 1 negative on the frontside, and another negative on the back side. I don't want any center section, even if I only use the ones on one side.

I doubt this is the case, but even if it's the case, who stops you from loading film strips in only one side?

 

[reddesert]

Thank you. I've seen those brand, But on another site. they gave thickness measurements for a "center section". I took that to mean there was a front side and a back side to hold 1 negative on the frontside, and another negative on the back side. I don't want any center section, even if I only use the ones on one side. Or am I all screwy on this? Something i'm not getting right here, I'm afraid. I'm not about to buy a used contact frame where i have to fiddle with negative strips. Like one of those frames where they ground angled slots into the glass to slide the film strips into and put your paper in and closed the glass against foam rubber. Or those other frames that had thin metal tabs to hold your film against the glass while you closed it. A lot of good stuff came out of the 70's but those frames were junk.

Nobody can tell you what you're doing wrong unless you actually provide the link that talks about the center layer. We can't read minds.

I contact printed negatives in PrintFile sheets as long ago as the 1980s, I think you could still buy Azo paper then. They work fine. No frame needed. I used a flat piece of wood and a thick sheet of plexiglass to hold them down, because that's what my father had.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Likewise, I use Printfile for all my negatives, in 3 different sleeve model and they all work fine.

 

[MTGseattle]

Printfile for me also. 35mm up to 8x10. My only diversions have been a random selection of "clearfile" pages I got as leftovers from a fellow student, and some odd glassine sleeves that have a lower pocket for notes but that make them require a larger sized binder. one can also not print though them.

 

[pentaxuser]

F4U, I have never used negs in files for contact printing but based on the bulk of the replies and what I know of the successful experience of members on another forum called FADU( Film And Darkroom User), the weight of evidence suggests that the clear printfiles mentioned are fine

pentaxuser

 

[F4U]

Thank you for these answers. I notice in he links provided, they make hese pages in 2 weights (thicknesses). Which one is best for the storage and contact printing usage? Are the cheaper ones so flimsy as to fall apart in a few years? Or are they better in that the contact print sharpness is better?

 

[koraks]

Are the cheaper ones so flimsy as to fall apart in a few years?

Longevity of such materials depends more on the polymer used and the amount and nature of the plasticizers than on thickness as such.
In general, thinner sheets will give better results for contact printing, but the difference can to an extent be compensated for by using a more collimated light source.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For years I have been putting PrintFile sheets with 120 and 35mm negative in the print frame for proofing. The only downside is that 8"x10" paper is a bit too small.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you. I've seen those brand, But on another site. they gave thickness measurements for a "center section".

That may be these - which are designed for storing the negatives and the contact proof together: https://www.printfile.com/product/cp35-6hb_25/

 

[Vaughn]

...I'm looking for proper exposure, not perfect sharpness.

What is your definition of 'proper exposure?

Generally, good exposure would be just enough exposure to make the film rebate as black as the area with no film over it. Contrast should low (to be able to see all available shadow detail).

YMMD

 

[Sirius Glass]

proper exposure

What is your definition of 'proper exposure?

Generally, good exposure would be just enough exposure to make the film rebate as black as the area with no film over it. Contrast should low (to be able to see all available shadow detail).

YMMD

I use proofs to search for compositions. Once I select a negative, I start the exposure determination from the beginning.

 

[Vaughn]

I use proofs to search for compositions. Once I select a negative, I start the exposure determination from the beginning.

That is how an advanced/master photographer would primarily use them. They are more sure of their skills.

For an advanced beginner using roll film, my suggestion above also gives them a useful tool to quickly and accurately see what is on the negatives as far as exposure, and shadow/highlight detail. This information can be lost if the contact print is too dark and/or not low contrast.

A light-table is, by far, the best way for this...but one is not always available...especially if one is sitting around the kitchen table just wondering what to work on next.

PS...I have not made contact sheets for decades. In my mind I 'see' (or perhaps, read) my negatives as positives. But I am not saying contact sheets are not needed...I'm not set up for silver gelatin printing and am lazy. And I love looking at my negatives more than my prints. (It's the potential energy they contain.)

 

[K-G]

When I make contact sheets, I take the negatives out of the files and place them directly on the paper. Then I put a thick and heavy sheet of glas on top of it, and I press slightly on it during exposure.
It is a lot more work than just putting the entire negative file on the paper, but I feel it pays off when you can examine all details with a magnifier and check what is in focus and not. That's my way of working.

Karl-Gustaf

 

[Pieter12]

When I make contact sheets, I take the negatives out of the files and place them directly on the paper. Then I put a thick and heavy sheet of glas on top of it, and I press slightly on it during exposure.
It is a lot more work than just putting the entire negative file on the paper, but I feel it pays off when you can examine all details with a magnifier and check what is in focus and not. That's my way of working.

Karl-Gustaf

It is easier to check detail directly on the negative with a loupe and a light table. Contact sheets are more for reference for cropping and to mark negatives to be printed.

 

[Don_ih]

It is easier to check detail directly on the negative with a loupe and a light table. Contact sheets are more for reference for cropping and to mark negatives to be printed.

Plus it's generally easier to see what the photos are if they're positive.

 

[reddesert]

Thank you for these answers. I notice in he links provided, they make hese pages in 2 weights (thicknesses). Which one is best for the storage and contact printing usage? Are the cheaper ones so flimsy as to fall apart in a few years? Or are they better in that the contact print sharpness is better?

I've been putting black and white negatives in PrintFile sheets since the 1980s, and they're still fine. Some of mine are also another brand, I think Vue-All NegSaver, that I believe doesn't exist anymore, but the same idea, polyethylene sleeves. I think the different weights of the current offerings are PE vs polypropylene and mine are probably the lower weight PE. I keep them in 3 ring binders in a cardboard box (neither the binders or the box are technically archival, but at this point the negatives have held up long enough that it is unlikely to matter, since they are only in contact with the sheets.)

IME, the PrintFile sheets are fine for storage and for contact printing for preview/editing. I tried camera scanning to make proof sheets - photographing an entire sheet on a lightbox with a DSLR + macro lens. For that, I got better results by taking the negatives out of the sheets and sandwiching them between the USB-powered lightbox and a piece of frame glass.

 

[ic-racer]

I started using the PrintFile in the 1970s because I could do the proof sheet with the negatives still in the slots in the pages.

However, by the 1980s I realized that :

1) Unless incredible pessure is used, the contact images are not sharp.
2) The contrast and exposure of the images on the 8x10 sheet will be all over the place.
3) I'd have to spend all my time just making proof sheets.

So I got a light table a loupe in '83 and evaluate the negatives that way. I only print the good ones. Some of those are just to 'see how they will look' so those would technically be 'proof prints.'

 

[cliveh]

When I make contact sheets, I take the negatives out of the files and place them directly on the paper. Then I put a thick and heavy sheet of glas on top of it, and I press slightly on it during exposure.
It is a lot more work than just putting the entire negative file on the paper, but I feel it pays off when you can examine all details with a magnifier and check what is in focus and not. That's my way of working.

Karl-Gustaf

I would second this. Also storage in opalescent files attracts less dust than transparent files.

 

[Don_ih]

But the plastic ones are convenient and easy to get. So they're pretty hard to beat. Glassine - you need to take the negatives out to see what they are. So, if you use that, you pretty much need a contact sheet (which I consider a waste of paper).

 

[GregY]

That is how an advanced/master photographer would primarily use them. They are more sure of their skills.

For an advanced beginner using roll film, my suggestion above also gives them a useful tool to quickly and accurately see what is on the negatives as far as exposure, and shadow/highlight detail. This information can be lost if the contact print is too dark and/or not low contrast.

A light-table is, by far, the best way for this...but one is not always available...especially if one is sitting around the kitchen table just wondering what to work on next.

PS...I have not made contact sheets for decades. In my mind I 'see' (or perhaps, read) my negatives as positives. But I am not saying contact sheets are not needed...I'm not set up for silver gelatin printing and am lazy. And I love looking at my negatives more than my prints. (It's the potential energy they contain.)

Vaughn, I haven't made contact sheets in years.... Learning to read a negative is like the moment you can play a piece of music by ear. When it clicks it changes your photographic life.

 

[koraks]

Learning to read a negative is like the moment you can play a piece of music by ear.

I suppose. Although I doubt that (1) everyone is capable of achieving this and (2) whether one should necessarily strive for it.
I've gone without contact sheets for a few years because I figured the same thing you just said. "Oh, I can tell the good ones from the bad ones alright", and sure enough, after having seen (and printed) thousands and thousands of negatives, I can find my way through an inverted world fairly well. But still...in many cases, I overlook nuances that are too subtle in a negative to properly judge and reject images that turn out to work very well as prints, but don't look all that promising as negatives. Why? I really couldn't say, but I think the bleak realization is that there's a clear limit (at least in my case) to my ability to interpret a negative.

I've gone back to making 'contact sheets', but presently make them by scanning the film at a moderate resolution, file it away digitally, and inkjet print a 'contact' sheet which is filed away in the folder with the negative. I find this works very well for me, and I sort of regret my earlier hubris of "oh, I can tell by the negs alright". I acknowledge that (again, in my particular case) it was just an excuse for a lack of discipline.