How do you print multiple exposures?

I was printing multiple exposures today: combining 2 negatives into one print. I succeeded but it was quite some trouble. I'm wondering whether any of you might know of a better way of doing this!

The way I did it:
Take a piece of plain paper, draw the silhouette of the essential image elements of both images (negatives) on it.
Put negative #1 in the enlarger, set it to the right enlargement factor, position the easel to the silhouette drawing; set the timer; expose the paper.
Take negative #1 out, insert negative #2, adjust the enlarger to the right enlargement factor, reposition the easel using the silhouette drawing; reset the timer; expose the paper.

It worked, but the process is very cumbersome and critical. I'm thinking of a different approach:

Use 2 enlargers,
Set enlarger 1 up with negative 1,
Set enlarger 2 up with negative 2,
Use 2 timers, each pre-set for the 2 negatives,
Create markings or fixtures for the easel to be correctly positioned on each of the 2 enlargers,
Make exposure 1, move the easel to enlarger 2; then make exposure 2.

Do you have any suggestion or feedback?

You'd be in good company to use multiple enlargers:

Thank you, ic-racer! That video is very helpful. So I did it with 2 enlargers today and this works indeed much better and easier!
I started using 2 easels, just like Jerry Uelsmann is doing but then I found that the 2 larger easels I have are not 100% square. This resulted in a double edge on one side. Also, when putting the paper in the easel, the slightest misalignment will also give double edges.
So I switched to using 1 easel that I move from one enlarger to the other. To properly position them I mounted 2 metal profiles on the enlarger boards, using duct-tape.
This way I was able to perfectly align the 2 images and get sharp edges.

Maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) how about putting both negatives in one enlarger at the same time ("sandwich")?

Ron789 said:

This resulted in a double edge on one side. Also, when putting the paper in the easel, the slightest misalignment will also give double edges.
S

Click to expand...

It's hard to see in the video, but it looks like Jerry has preset masks for exposures subsequent to the first (what I would call his "background image"). This would prevent the possibility of a double edge.

tedr1 said:

Maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time) how about putting both negatives in one enlarger at the same time ("sandwich")?

Click to expand...

No that won't work: the 2 images require different positioning, exposure times and grade filters.

The serious way to do it is with registration gear. Even registered 35mm cameras were once made. But in terms of post-registration, after the fact,
you have a film punch mounted to a light box, so that the different shots are punched together, taped to one another. Then you use a matching pin
register enlarging easel. Of course, if just two separate images are involved, you could simply leave them taped together without punching them, provided you kept the sandwich free of dust. What Uelsmann did was somewhat different, because he'd dodge and burn the images separately, thus
requiring multiple enlarging stations, each set up in advance in relation to his first work print. There are all kinds of potential tricks. This kind of thing
was routine prior to Photoshop. Find some kind of old graphics arts manual per photocomping. It was an entire profession at one time, but is better
researched under the pre-press field than regular photographic darkroom applications.

I should add that everything Uelsman did could be pre-masked or controlled with contrast dye (neocreosin red) or even smudge pencil on diffusion
sheets, then printed all at once on a single enlarger. That involves a lot of extra film, but makes repeatability almost automatic. But if some of you
have never seen Uelsmann's actual prints, they are utterly seamless in a manner none of the Fauxtoshop concoctions ever seem to be. Same goes
for people who comp mechancially, then rephotograph the result for a master neg. Their hand always shows. Uelsmann's doesn't. These look like
real photographs, but obviously aren't, subject-wise. Most digi work in this fashion just plain looks corny. That kind of thing might be fine for a Sat
afternoon action flick geared to thirteen-year-olds, but it gets pretty monotonous in a static image. Uelsmann had more going for him than a whimsical mind; he was a master craftsman.

Thank you all for this interesting feedback.
My challenge is that the 2 negatives require different exposure times, different magnification, different dodging and burning and different grade filters. So they can never be printed in one exposure. That's why I must use 2 exposures, like Uelsmann is doing. Working with 2 enlargers solves this well, and the DIY construction I made with metal profiles fixed to the base boards with duct tape ensures correct alignment of the one easel on each enlarger. This is the most labor intensive and critical part, like Uelsmann is saying: setting it up takes quite a bit of time and must be done precise to the millimeter.