Negatives for Contact Printing v. Enlargements.

[c6h6o3]

I'm asking if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, do you think that a negative for contact printing should most often have different characteristics from that of a negative that will be enlarged

No

 

[donbga]

I'm almost sorry I asked the question in the first place and perhaps it would be more diplomatic to just walk away from the conversation but I'm bad at that.

It's not my desire to be argumentative but I'll risk it to suggest that nothing on your list is beyond my comprehension but that by insisting that they must be considered variables, you're trying to reframe my question as more complicated than I had inteded for it to be read.

You're suggesting variations where I did not. To begin with, let's assume that your #'s 1&2 are the same for both contact and enlarger printing.

#'s 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 come under the umbrella of optimizing a prinitng processes for one or the other. I didn't ask about that. It's a worthy endeavor but I deliberately tried to keep the scope of my question narrow. Let's assume that those variables are also constant in both scenarios.

I would even prefer to eliminate #4 as a variable.

#10 is a variable that cannot be eliminated. It may or may not be an issue for enlargements, it is not for contact printing.

My question relates to #'s 3, 5 & 6. I'm asking if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, do you think that a negative for contact printing should most often have different characteristics from that of a negative that will be enlarged and what are they.

When you plan to contact print, do you meter/expose/develop differently than if you plan to enlarge. Yes? No? How? To achieve what distinction in the negative?

Thanks.

Since you keep mentioning that you want to know the difference between film exposure and development for contact printing vs. enlarging then that eliminates quite a few processes and materials. That being the case just perfect your negative for enlarging and you should have no problem contact printing your negative.

The best approach is to get away from your keyboard and go make some photographs. Experience will be your best source of information.

All too often people make photography too complicated.

 

[jstraw]

Since you keep mentioning that you want to know the difference between film exposure and development for contact printing vs. enlarging...

In fact, I never once mentioned wanting any such thing. I was looking for insight into other peoples opinions and practices, it the broadest, most general terms. Between the condescending folks and the overly technical "you're not asking the right question" folks I learned some things, just not the things I was interested in knowing about.

I was asking about what other people do, within a very narrow scope. I was not asking anyone to tell me what I should do. I apologize for not asking either what some assumed I was asking or what others lectured me that I should be asking.

My question was not flawed. It was the question I wanted to ask. If it's not a question someone is interested in responding to, that's really not my concern.

 

[Roger Hicks]

If it's not a question someone is interested in responding to, that's really not my concern.

Sorry: yes it is. If people don't understand your question, or do not believe that it is adequately phrased, it's hard to answer.

I was trying to avoid being overly technical. My primary point was simply that the differences will depend so much on what YOU want that others' experiences are of such limited value as to be effectively useless. My secondary point -- echoed by several others -- was that the best thing to do is to make some negs; think about the variables; and make such changes as you think fit or can conveniently make. The enlarger flare point is fundamental; all others warrant whatever consideration you care to give them.

Otherwise we're into the old A-level questions: 'assuming an inextensible string of negligible mass...' There are simply more variables than you seem willing to address.

The most basic answer is, "Any neg that contact prints OK should be capable of enlarging OK too." Then you have to add "though you will almost certainly need harder paper for the enlargement, depending on the enlarger." Then you add...

Today I have just made my first 12x15 inch negs with my 100-year-old Gandolfi. When I have developed the first (I shot three of the same subject, all on Bergger BPF 200), I'll make judgements on how to develop the second... This is the ONLY realistic way to determine what negs you need for any purpose (enlarging is hardly an option at 12x15 inch). Others' opinions really are of somewhat limited value.

Cheers,

R.

 

[noseoil]

"I'll make judgements on how to develop the second..." Roger

Since I don't own a densitometer, this is the way I work as well. Shot some Efke 25 in dead-flat light yesterday and am playing with stand development and pyrocat-hd. Did the first shot, guessed at correct time, developed and printed. Next negative needed about a stop more development, did same, will print tonight to see how close I was. Plot curve, look for different lighting and do again, etc, etc. tim

 

[Roger Hicks]

"I'll make judgements on how to develop the second..." Roger

Since I don't own a densitometer, this is the way I work as well. Shot some Efke 25 in dead-flat light yesterday and am playing with stand development and pyrocat-hd. Did the first shot, guessed at correct time, developed and printed. Next negative needed about a stop more development, did same, will print tonight to see how close I was. Plot curve, look for different lighting and do again, etc, etc. tim

Dear Tim,

Despite the fact that I do own a densitometer, I'd still rather do it your way, because I'd much rather take pictures! After all, which would you rather do: take a picture, even possibly a flawed one, or shoot grey cards?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve Sherman]

After all, which would you rather do: take a picture, even possibly a flawed one, or shoot grey cards?

Cheers,

R.

Can't say it any better than that!

 

[avandesande]

I would check out Mortensen's 'the negative', he explains this stuff better than i have seen anywhere else.

I'm almost sorry I asked the question in the first place and perhaps it would be more diplomatic to just walk away from the conversation but I'm bad at that.

It's not my desire to be argumentative but I'll risk it to suggest that nothing on your list is beyond my comprehension but that by insisting that they must be considered variables, you're trying to reframe my question as more complicated than I had inteded for it to be read.

You're suggesting variations where I did not. To begin with, let's assume that your #'s 1&2 are the same for both contact and enlarger printing.

#'s 7, 8, 9, 11 & 12 come under the umbrella of optimizing a prinitng processes for one or the other. I didn't ask about that. It's a worthy endeavor but I deliberately tried to keep the scope of my question narrow. Let's assume that those variables are also constant in both scenarios.

I would even prefer to eliminate #4 as a variable.

#10 is a variable that cannot be eliminated. It may or may not be an issue for enlargements, it is not for contact printing.

My question relates to #'s 3, 5 & 6. I'm asking if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, do you think that a negative for contact printing should most often have different characteristics from that of a negative that will be enlarged and what are they.

When you plan to contact print, do you meter/expose/develop differently than if you plan to enlarge. Yes? No? How? To achieve what distinction in the negative?

Thanks.

 

[JBrunner]

When you plan to contact print, do you meter/expose/develop differently than if you plan to enlarge. Yes? No? How? To achieve what distinction in the negative?

Thanks.

No. I expose my negative for the density I require based on the subject and conditions, the known performance of my stock, the developer I am going to be using, and for favorite silver gelatin papers, pt/pd, or both. If the negative will be contact printed or enlarged on silver gelatin has absolutely no bearing on my exposure, or any other part of my process. In all practicality, there is no difference in the papers response, other than exposure time, no matter where the negative is in relation to the paper when the paper is exposed. It is a non issue.