Judging B&W negatives without contact printing or scanning

[Pieter12]

And maybe some negatives. Oh, and some light-sensitive paper.

He has the negatives he just doesn’t want to print them.

 

[250swb]

What exactly would I learn from a contact sheet that the negative itself couldn't tell me?

If anything, a contact introduces lots of variables that are not present on the negative, such as contrast and exposure. I might reject a image from a contact on the basis of being too dense, when in reality it's the contact sheet that is poorly exposed.

For any film that is more than one image on a contact, the exposure and contrast always has to be a compromise between all the images and correct for none. Same with contrast.

With experience knowing how a negative will print, I have found no need for contact sheets, especially as the format size increases. The one exception is where a contact print is the final print, such as with 8x10 or larger formats.

Even basic photo school teaches you to understand your negative .

But perhaps your reply reveals a greater truth about process. If we assume we are talking about 35mm photography I like many people who attended school and went on to be professionals or teachers were taught to 'work the subject' to ensure the very best photograph can be made from an occasion. In the book I previously recommended 'Magnum Contact Sheets' this is demonstrated in abundance, and if ever there was something to learn it's that this is how the worlds best 35mm photographs are made, by not resting on your laurels after making what you may know to be a good photograph, but to carry on working until you've truly run out of alternative opportunities.

It seems like a cliché when you see it in documentary's or feature films when a photographer is 'working the subject' like in the film 'Blow Up', but it's just as relevant for a portrait session as for a landscape. But I now realise that this isn't what many people in this thread are doing, even mildly. Making lone photographs they automatically become a #1 candidate for printing because there are no others to choose from. And yes if that's all there is then don't bother with a contact sheet. But why it's all there is becomes another matter. Nobody comes across 36 unique opportunities that can only be represented by one shot, so do ideas evaporate out after one shot, is the price of film a barrier, or is just going through the process enough and any result is a triumph and justification of our collective hobby? One of my mentors at school was the landscape photographer Thomas Joshua Cooper and he would take only one sheet of half plate film with him on a days expedition. But his 'working the subject' was to exhaust all the possibilities in his minds eye before making the one exposure. I think that is a different level of rigor than being able to identify lone photographs in a roll of 36 simply because no other alternative ideas popped up.

 

[koraks]

But I now realise that this isn't what many people in this thread are doing, even mildly.

Most people on this forum likely don't aspire to become the next Edward Weston. They are probably just fine estimating how much trouble they'll encounter making a straight print from any given negative.

Let's not forget that optimizing is a necessity only for a handful; the rest of us get by just fine merely satisficing.

 

[MARTIE]

Biologically, no one can look at anything and see it, as black and white film see's it, or infrared or orthochromatic.
No on can see in long exposure, multiple exposure or as in the effect of contrast filters.
No one can see in wide-angle, in telephoto, or macro.

And try as hard as we might, no one can see from negative to positive or vise versa.

I want to see what my negatives look like, not just imagine. Therefore, I make contact prints. It bothers me, if any of my negs don't get to see the light of being made positive, by silver.
And I can't speak for anyone else, but I actually enjoy looking at my contact prints, in a way that looking at a sheet of negatives, can't and never will fulfill.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I keep a binder of my most recent 50 or so "contact pages" on my coffee table. I like to look through it for ideas for follow up photos and to reconsider printing images that I passed over when they were first developed.

(I put "contact pages" in double quotes because I shoot 12+ frame rolls of 35mm and print the 12, or sometimes 13 or even 14, scans to fill an 8.5" by 11" page. The only editing I do on the individual images is to invert them and set the black and white points to the respective ends of the histogram.)

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

#3 paper tends to be used with negatives that are slightly lower contrast than average.

I suppose that makes sense because you can always add contrast after the scan when editing. However, since I don't know enough about the whole process, I shoot normal and have the lab develop normally.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Biologically, no one can look at anything and see it, as black and white film see's it, or infrared or orthochromatic.
No on can see in long exposure, multiple exposure or as in the effect of contrast filters.
No one can see in wide-angle, in telephoto, or macro.

And try as hard as we might, no one can see from negative to positive or vise versa.

I want to see what my negatives look like, not just imagine. Therefore, I make contact prints. It bothers me, if any of my negs don't get to see the light of being made positive, by silver.
And I can't speak for anyone else, but I actually enjoy looking at my contact prints, in a way that looking at a sheet of negatives, can't and never will fulfill.

I develop in a lab that now charges $15 for a 10-12" contact print. When I shoot ten 6x7 medium format, and I bracket, I sometimes do a contact sheet to compare the bracketed shots especially. One problem is they're not consistent with how they do the contact sheet. So, I don't think I'm gaining much doing it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I keep a binder of my most recent 50 or so "contact pages" on my coffee table. I like to look through it for ideas for follow up photos and to reconsider printing images that I passed over when they were first developed.

(I put "contact pages" in double quotes because I shoot 12+ frame rolls of 35mm and print the 12, or sometimes 13 or even 14, scans to fill an 8.5" by 11" page. The only editing I do on the individual images is to set the black and white points to the respective ends of the histogram.)

When you scan, do you set the histogram ends (black and white points or levels) for the scan or scan flat and do levels in your editing program? Have you noticed any difference?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I develop in a lab that now charges $15 for a 10-12" contact print. When I shoot ten 6x7 medium format, and I bracket, I sometimes do a contact sheet to compare the bracketed shots especially. One problem is they're not consistent with how they do the contact sheet. So, I don't think I'm gaining much doing it.

So far, that seems to be your only option. Another lab might to a better job. Look around and see if you can find a better one. Is a contact sheet that much cheaper than getting print of every photograph?

 

[GregY]

"No on can see in long exposure, multiple exposure or as in the effect of contrast filters.
No one can see in wide-angle, in telephoto, or macro."
Marte.....neither can a contact sheet.

"But his 'working the subject' was to exhaust all the possibilities in his minds eye before making the one exposure. I think that is a different level of rigor than being able to identify lone photographs in a roll of 36 simply because no other alternative ideas popped up."
250, You're making some big assumptions about how people work when taking photos. There are any number of reasons to take only one or two photos which i won't elaborate on in depth....but might include a change in light. Each individual chooses his modus operandi when photographing as well as (if) when printing. While your choices may be ideal for you, others are ideal for them and there is no gain in hammering one as superior to another.

This has been a wide sidetrack from the OP's original question. I'd hate to ask for simple directions in a foreign city.....

 

[JerseyDoug]

When you scan, do you set the histogram ends (black and white points or levels) for the scan or scan flat and do levels in your editing program? Have you noticed any difference?

These days I scan with an X-trans digital camera, producing both a JPG and a RAW file for each image. The camera's JPG algorithm goes at least part of the way towards moving the black and white points towards the ends of the histogram curve but it does so unpredictably. So I use the RAW files and use Affinity Photo to invert the image and set the black and white points. It takes less than a minute per image. I find these files better predict what I will be able to do with the images than simply inverting the JPG's.

When I was scanning with an Epson V700 and then with a Plustek 8001, both using Vuescan, I set the black and white points for the scan. I don't see any significant difference between these older images and my newer edited camera RAW images.

 

[Craig]

I generally shoot 4x5 and my preferred subject matter is trains. Typically it is one shot per scene, as the train is moving. I either achieved a shot without motion blur or I didn’t. I can tell that from the negative.

Even if I’m using 35mm, I approach it the same way as if I was using LF. I frame carefully and thoughtfully before making an exposure, and then when the train is in the right spot make an exposure. Then I either wait for the next train or move to a new location. I don’t machine gun the motor drive hoping to get a good shot as the train passes by.

So for me, a 36 exposure roll could very well be 36 different scenes. Thus a contact isn’t very useful, as exposures will vary between frames depending on the location (snow, rocks, backlit, front lit, etc) and each frame is unique. I “work the scene” while I’m there, not after I’ve gone home.

 

[GregY]

I generally shoot 4x5 and my preferred subject matter is trains. Typically it is one shot per scene, as the train is moving. I either achieved a shot without motion blur or I didn’t. I can tell that from the negative.

Even if I’m using 35mm, I approach it the same way as if I was using LF. I frame carefully and thoughtfully before making an exposure, and then when the train is in the right spot make an exposure. Then I either wait for the next train or move to a new location. I don’t machine gun the motor drive hoping to get a good shot as the train passes by.

So for me, a 36 exposure roll could very well be 36 different scenes. Thus a contact isn’t very useful, as exposures will vary between frames depending on the location (snow, rocks, backlit, front lit, etc) and each frame is unique. I “work the scene” while I’m there, not after I’ve gone home.

Nicely stated Craig.

 

[Pieter12]

So for me, a 36 exposure roll could very well be 36 different scenes. Thus a contact isn’t very useful, as exposures will vary between frames depending on the location (snow, rocks, backlit, front lit, etc) and each frame is unique.

Obviously the exposures vary, but they should ideally all be captured on film in a similar manner, with shadow and highlight detail. So a contact sheet would allow for proper evaluation of each scene although different in nature. One of the advantages of a contact sheet is it can be annotated and viewed without a light table or other diffused light source at one's leisure. Multiple contact sheets can be set side by side for editing, comparison and continuity. Critical examination for focus and detail can be left for the light table and loupe. It is also easier to catalog and go back to to find a particular scene without needing a time-consuming system or database.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

These days I scan with an X-trans digital camera, producing both a JPG and a RAW file for each image. The camera's JPG algorithm goes at least part of the way towards moving the black and white points towards the ends of the histogram curve but it does so unpredictably. So I use the RAW files and use Affinity Photo to invert the image and set the black and white points. It takes less than a minute per image. I find these files better predict what I will be able to do with the images than simply inverting the JPG's.

When I was scanning with an Epson V700 and then with a Plustek 8001, both using Vuescan, I set the black and white points for the scan. I don't see any significant difference between these older images and my newer edited camera RAW images.

Thanks for the info. Is that for 35mm film? 120? Which film?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I generally shoot 4x5 and my preferred subject matter is trains. Typically it is one shot per scene, as the train is moving. I either achieved a shot without motion blur or I didn’t. I can tell that from the negative.

Even if I’m using 35mm, I approach it the same way as if I was using LF. I frame carefully and thoughtfully before making an exposure, and then when the train is in the right spot make an exposure. Then I either wait for the next train or move to a new location. I don’t machine gun the motor drive hoping to get a good shot as the train passes by.

So for me, a 36 exposure roll could very well be 36 different scenes. Thus a contact isn’t very useful, as exposures will vary between frames depending on the location (snow, rocks, backlit, front lit, etc) and each frame is unique. I “work the scene” while I’m there, not after I’ve gone home.

I still have one of those large light panels around 20x30" with a 35mm slide holder that lays on top for examining and sorting slides. I haven't used it in years. I wonder if it's worth anything to anyone?

 

[Bill Burk]

I’ve intentionally become care-free about exposure. I routinely overexpose. My contact sheets would look awful and have caused me to overlook good pictures.

I stopped making contact prints.

 

[JerseyDoug]

Thanks for the info. Is that for 35mm film? 120? Which film?

I am shooting mostly 35mm these days, but occasionally 120 too. Always B&W, always ISO 400 and always cubic grain, but a variety of emulsions within those restrictions.

 

[ic-racer]

 

[albireo]

View attachment 352497

Very small film or very big loupe?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Very small film or very big loupe?

This has to be very small film. I don't see any perforations

 

[GregY]

View attachment 352497 View attachment 352496

Very nice!

 

[GregY]

View attachment 352497 View attachment 352496

ic-racer, I think the contact sheet police will be knocking on your door, as soon as they're finished looking for evidence in my darkroom...

 

[snusmumriken]

Very small film or very big loupe?

FWIW, I use the end of an old Tokina 400mm lens as a loupe. It's big enough to see the whole of a 35mm negative, and has a very high and relaxing eye position.

 

[albireo]

FWIW, I use the end of an old Tokina 400mm lens as a loupe. It's big enough to see the whole of a 35mm negative, and has a very high and relaxing eye position.
View attachment 352501
View attachment 352502

This is a GREAT idea. My 8x AP loupe sucks. I need something better. Any Tokina lenses near me should now be very, very worried.