Let Us Now Praise Contact Proof Sheets

[Alex Benjamin]

Been back in the darkroom after 12 or so years. Shot a lot — I mean A LOT — of film the past few years, so first order of things is to do contact sheets. Tedious work. But I do learn so much from them, that I didn't from scanning. And by "from them," I mean of course from my mystakes, more numerous than I care for, but a good reminder that photography is the art of making mistakes way more than the art of making great photos. For me, the one that keeps popping up all over the place, not that noticable when viewing the negs on a lightbox, is exposure. Still have to work on that, and did not think I was that way off — and boy am I ! — when ballparking an exposure "from experience" (yeah, right).

At the same time, they are full of unexpected treasures, aren't they. Or at least possibilities — a photo you've took matter-of-fact, that you don't even remember taking, that pops out amidst a universe of banalities that you, on the other hand, thought would lead to greatness. The contact sheet thus also reminds us that photography is the art of the unexpected.

I will add thay they are great practice for if you want to get into f-stop printing.

How about you? Work hard on your contact sheets? What's your strategy? Learn invaluable lessons from them? Or have they been totally discarded from your workflow?

Curious to know how you approach them.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Moderators, I meant "Contact Sheets" not "Contact Prints". If it's possible to change the title, that would be appriciated

 

[MattKing]

Done - with even more detail, because I always find "Contact Proof Sheets" to be easier to explain and understood better by others.
And I always make them now - they are a part of my system for keeping track of my photography.
It was much harder to make them when I was using the glassine pages .

 

[Mark J]

I voted 'Other' because I do then for all of my negs, to a standard contrast level, so I know what I'm working with for larger prints.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Done - with even more detail, because I always find "Contact Proof Sheets" to be easier to explain and understood better by others.
And I always make them now - they are a part of my system for keeping track of my photography.
It was much harder to make them when I was using the glassine pages .

Thanks ! For the change and the info .

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I voted 'Other' because I do then for all of my negs, to a standard contrast level, so I know what I'm working with for larger prints.

How far do you go? If, for example, one photo is overexposed or underexposed on a contact sheet but the photo's possibilities as a print does intrigue you, will you dodge or burn that single frame to make sure, or will you rely more on your lecture of the negative?

I'm asking because I had this debate with myself today, regarding a few intriguing frames that were overexposed — and obviously so on an otherwise very even contact sheet. It was at the end of a 5-hour darkroom shift and I was too tired to actually start working on perfecting the contact sheet, but I regret it now.

 

[Don_ih]

I scan my negatives - although it can take a year. I don't bother with contact sheets because I don't want to use the paper for that. I end up printing sometimes an entire roll of shots, though. I can assess what's needed from looking at the negative, most of the time.

It would be great to have a contact sheet with every PrintFile sheet of negatives, just to see what's on them. But I find it easier to just never look at older negatives...

 

[Maris]

I specifically, deliberately, and in particular never never do contact sheets. Instead I print every negative, blanks and disasters aside, to the best of my ability even if it takes a bit of extra darkroom time.

This way of thinking emerged from my background in large format photography where every negative starts off being expensive and after exposure and processing becomes a commitment.

In recent years I've shot more roll film but I still ask myself the same hard question:
"Do I like this subject, this composition, enough to take the trouble to get the camera work right, to get the processing right, and to do the darkroom work in full?"

If the answer is no or maybe then I just don't take the shot. If the answer is yes then it stays yes all the way to the final print.

The obvious advantage to me is to get a better quality return for the amount of film shot and effort invested. The downside is due to a personal shortfall in talent, energy, and imagination that deceives me into passing up pictures I now regret not taking.

 

[Rick A]

I rarely shoot roll film and don't make proof sheets, I haven't shot 35mm in years so it's just 120 film. I lay my negatives on my light table and decide which I will print. I do pop a proof print for large format negatives, but to judge which alternate method I will use to print it.

 

[MattKing]

If I have rolls with a bunch of exposure "misses" - both under and over - I will sometimes make two from the same roll - one printed to better show the under-exposed images, and the other to better show the over-exposed images.
Not very often necessary, but sometimes ....

 

[Mark J]

How far do you go? If, for example, one photo is overexposed or underexposed on a contact sheet but the photo's possibilities as a print does intrigue you, will you dodge or burn that single frame to make sure, or will you rely more on your lecture of the negative?

I'm asking because I had this debate with myself today, regarding a few intriguing frames that were overexposed — and obviously so on an otherwise very even contact sheet. It was at the end of a 5-hour darkroom shift and I was too tired to actually start working on perfecting the contact sheet, but I regret it now.

Good question. In the past I have sometimes done contact sheets with extra exposure, to check dense highlights or over-exposed negs. I think in time, that I defaulted to examining the negs carefully in these cases, where the shot was otherwise worthwhile.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

In recent years I've shot more roll film but I still ask myself the same hard question:
"Do I like this subject, this composition, enough to take the trouble to get the camera work right, to get the processing right, and to do the darkroom work in full?"

If the answer is no or maybe then I just don't take the shot. If the answer is yes then it stays yes all the way to the final print.

The obvious advantage to me is to get a better quality return for the amount of film shot and effort invested. The downside is due to a personal shortfall in talent, energy, and imagination that deceives me into passing up pictures I now regret not taking.

Interesting, Maris. Past few years, my answer has almost always been "yes". Partly because I've been rediscovering the pure pleasure of photographing after years of not picking up a camera — long story I won't go into here —, partly because I am so fascinated by the medium itself that I subscribe to Winogrand's dictum of "I photograph in order to find out what things look like photographed."

That said, after doing so many contact proof sheets these past three weeks and looking at the results — turns out many things look as uninteresting photographed as they did not photographed —, I'm slowly modulating my "yes" to "maybe."

 

[Nige]

It would be great to have a contact sheet with every PrintFile sheet of negatives, just to see what's on them.

I do. If some exposures are widely different (bad!) I'll expose differently (against all the rules of proof sheets) so I can see what's there (I make notes about that in addition to the basic settings I've used). With the increase in paper prices I've considered making digital proofs (all negs on a single page similar to current proof sheets) as I scan them all as well. It is nice to have contact sheet and neg file in folder together.

 

[eli griggs]

If I knew of a decent, affordable paper for contact prints, I would most likely return to making one per roll, but the expense of contact paper, negative holder and plastic contact print for each roll has to be well balanced with what I want to see in a roll of 36 or similar.

 

[MTGseattle]

If like me, you live in a consistent state of chaos and/or disarray a contact sheet can save you if you've misplaced or buried your light panel or other negative viewing device. I enjoy contact sheets as an object. That being said, I haven't printed very many during these last months of renewed darkroom work.

 

[logan2z]

I never print contact sheets anymore. I scan my negatives in order to determine which ones are worth publishing on my web site/social media and included in books/zines/portfolios, and I make digital proof sheets from the scans. I then make darkroom prints from the frames I think are worthy of the effort.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I will sometimes make two from the same roll - one printed to better show the under-exposed images, and the other to better show the over-exposed images.

That's what I've started to do.

If I knew of a decent, affordable paper for contact prints, I would most likely return to making one per roll, but the expense of contact paper, negative holder and plastic contact print for each roll has to be well balanced with what I want to see in a roll of 36 or similar.

With the increase in paper prices I've considered making digital proofs (all negs on a single page similar to current proof sheets) as I scan them all as well. It is nice to have contact sheet and neg file in folder together.

Price is indeed a concern. I was hoping Kentmere or Arista would provide a bit of financial respite, but the savings between these and the higher-priced Ilford aren't that great. The 250 sheet Arista box is tempting — comes to a little bit over 1US$ a sheet once taxes are applied —, but I can't find it in Canada and the exchange rate between Canadian and US currency is mortal.

That said, looking at it objectively, since it usually takes me two sheets of paper for one contact sheet, each one ends up costing me about 3$CND, which is well worth it.

If like me, you live in a consistent state of chaos and/or disarray a contact sheet can save you if you've misplaced or buried your light panel or other negative viewing device. I enjoy contact sheets as an object.

I am like you — my home in the State of Disarray is probably not too far from yours. And I do find a well-done contact sheet to be a beautiful object. But since I'm working on different projects at the same time, they really do give me a good overview of what I have and what's missing, or what could be re-shot slightly differently in order to better fit into a project.

 

[Jim Jones]

I occasionally make contact sheets to give to people with a particular interest in a roll of film, but very rarely for myself. My almost 4000 rolls of film have one line each in a catalog, but that many sets of contact sheets would be absurd. However, someone just beginning to do darkroom work may find contact sheets useful for a while.

 

[jk0592]

I use them for every roll of 120 film. It helps a lot in chosing which negative will be enlarged.

 

[TomR55]

I have many three-ring binders of nothing but contact sheets (containing negatives from 1989 to present). Each contact sheet is numbered and cataloged. At least once a year, I make time to go through ALL of these—even if allowing time for only a cursory “glance.” Now, about three hundred (or so) of these are printed on 8x10 or 11x14 RC paper; these are kept in a relatively safe place. I have another several hundred (from the mid 2020’s on) that are “scanned” into directories that are backed up on a regular basis. I write notes for each contact sheet. I have discovered a substantial number of previously ignored (unprinted/unused) images by doing this, and I’ve acquired a sense of how I’ve changed as a photographer (for better or worse).

I sometimes wonder what will happen to these upon my leaving this world.

 

[GregY]

I occasionally make contact sheets to give to people with a particular interest in a roll of film, but very rarely for myself. My almost 4000 rolls of film have one line each in a catalog, but that many sets of contact sheets would be absurd. However, someone just beginning to do darkroom work may find contact sheets useful for a while.

Me too... the negatives tell the story....make the time to learn how to read them without the intermediary of the contact sheet.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, b&w negatives can be read without anything more than light, but, it generally takes time to get familiar with seeing this way and too much handling can damage the images if not careful.

One advantage with contact sheets is the physical graphic cropping of the image before the negative holder is placed into the enlarger, though PC scans can be made for close exam of the composition, before exposures are made.

 

[GregY]

Yes, b&w negatives can be read without anything more than light, but, it generally takes time to get familiar with seeing this way and too much handling can damage the images if not careful.

One advantage with contact sheets is the physical graphic cropping of the image before the negative holder is placed into the enlarger, though PC scans can be made for close exam of the composition, before exposures are made.

You don't really have to mark the cropping on a small negative. I find it much easier to check out potential cropping on the easel.... then make notes or keep a test print. No matter, everyone develops their own work flow. I left contact sheets behind long ago.

 

[Arthurwg]

Always made proof sheets years ago, today never. Yes, waste of time and money. Most of the time I'm in the ball park with exposures and composition, and get all the info I need looking at negatives and test strips. I print most pictures 8x10, and larger for the best ones after that. True, at $150 for a box of 100 (Ilford) it gets expensive, but what the heck, it's photography.

 

[Mark J]

I find that I sometime get seduced by the look of a negative, when actually the positive is mundane. So, it's better for me to have a proof sheet.