New Here -- Multiple Enlarger Printing

[Nolan Zunk]

Hi folks,
I'm Nolan, just joined in December. I started shooting film about a year ago and recently began emulating Jerry-Uelsmann-esque multiple enlarger printing. Here's a YouTube video about my process:

I'm curious for advice/feedback on the process. To make cleaner divisions between enlarger exposures, I am planning to use laser-cut matte board in between sections. I appreciate any feedback I can get! If there's a sub-forum related to multi-enlarger printing that I haven't come across, please let me know.

 

[mshchem]

Back in the very old days, 40s and 50s there were die cut jigsaw puzzle like easels to allow combining multiple images. You can find on Ebay now and then.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Looks quite interesting, you can turn the darkroom white light back on when the paper is in the fixer.

Laser cut could be a big kick forward. Have you thought about having the cut running at, say 60º to make it slightly undercut? The idea being that you need a fairly wide surface to place your block-out material, but if it is undercut on either side, then your white line will be narrower.

Having a low contrast scene works very well, when you switch to high contrast scenes, then you will be working.

Fascinating!

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I cannot get the YT on, but multiple enlarger can only mean one thing. So my question is: why multiple enlargers when same thing can be on one?

 

[AgX]

Welcome!

I am puzzled too....
To me multiple enlarger printing means operating several enlargers same time (which only makes sense at looooong exposure times), or at least having several, different, enlargers in ones darkroom.


I glanced at the video...
I think mosaic printing is the right term.


EDIT:
I looked a 2nd time at the video... and now I see indeed two enlargers being used for same piece of paper.
I got no sound. And by now I am even more puzzled.
Can someone make me wiser ?

 

[John Salim]

The only time I've used two enlargers for one 'print' was for making a composite 5"x4" ( blow-up ) duplicate transparency using two medium format transparencies.
This required 'matt' printing ( placing one image inside another ), which is a similar technique used in motion picture optical printing - but not as accurate.
Very time consuming - the larger format certainly helped.

John S

 

[George Collier]

I think he's using multiple enlargers because the images come from multiple negs. Yes, you can cycle through different negs on the same enlarger, but imagine doing test strips and test prints that way.
Also, if the masking form (with the more precisely cut sections) was raised above the paper area, the merging of the different images could be blurred, to soften the transition and avoid the white separators. Adjustment of the height, or f/stop would vary the quality of the blur.

 

[AgX]

I still do not see the benefits, even if several same enlargers are already rigged up, but likely I have just another of my slow-on-the-uptake days.

However if there is even a slight benefit too it, please moderators, then delete this thread as it being harmful to those already having GAS....

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I think he's using multiple enlargers because the images come from multiple negs. Yes, you can cycle through different negs on the same enlarger, but imagine doing test strips and test prints that way.
Also, if the masking form (with the more precisely cut sections) was raised above the paper area, the merging of the different images could be blurred, to soften the transition and avoid the white separators. Adjustment of the height, or f/stop would vary the quality of the blur.

I can't see your point. What's the difference between flipping mask on one enlarger vs. moving paper from one to another? One enlarger wins at all times in my book, it keeps receiving paper in one place throughout.

+ Mask done right will not blur the dividing lines.

One can use 3 screwdrivers to screw in one screw, or can just use one and be done with it. Reinventing the wheel is not a good advice, making things more complicated they need to be is just trying to make things look what they are not.

 

[MattKing]

It is easier to register a piece of paper than it is to register a negative - the paper is larger.
Multiple enlargers make sense, particularly if you are working with negatives of different formats when you are combining them into a single print.
Multiple enlargers are good as well if you are pre or post flashing.

 

[Don_ih]

Multiple enlargers will already have the negative in the holder and focus and enlargement set. That is, you may want more magnification on a part of second negative. There is no way a single enlarger will work well for that. You will never get it right.

("Never" may be too strong a word, but you won't be able to hear yourself think with all the cursing you'll be doing.)

 

[AgX]

Multiple enlargers will already have the negative in the holder and focus and enlargement set.

So what, then you adjust scale and focus at the actual print. I mean for this sort of work one anyway has to set the scale in advance for testing the compostion. Each modern enlarger has a scale for the magnification, the scale thus can easily be re-set and of course focusing done at each partial exposure. And focusing at three enlargers to me is no benefit over three times focusing at one enlarger.

The argument I can follow is that of very different negative formats. But those of us who are working with most different formats likely already have two enlargers rigged up.

The argument on positioning the negative is so so. I mean, working with one enlarger means to make a sketch at the testing paper for the positioning. Only when positions needs to be up tp the millimeter on the paper, then several enlargers make sense.

 

[ic-racer]

Sad to read Ulesmann's multiple enlarger techniques are not know or misunderstood.

 

[Don_ih]

So what, then you adjust scale and focus at the actual print. I mean for this sort of work one anyway has to set the scale in advance for testing the compostion. Each modern enlarger has a scale for the magnification, the scale thus can easily be re-set and of course focusing done at each partial exposure. And focusing at three enlargers to me is no benefit over three times focusing at one enlarger.

All I can say is go give it a try. The magnification scale is not going to do much for you when you need exactly sizes. And I don't think anyone would like going through the trouble of changing negatives, resizing, focusing, rexposing the paper over and over again to overcome small deficiencies in the print. You would waste hours of time doing all that. "So what" are the curses you would be screaming by the end of it?

If the negatives stay in the enlargers and the enlarger stay in their focus, magnification, exposure settings, the easels all clamped down, you just move the paper from one to the next to the next - as many enlargers and negatives as you have.

 

[Don_ih]

Ulesman's multiple enlarger techniques are not know or misunderstood.

Do you have an online source for something that could be more enlightening? I'd like to know.

 

[ic-racer]

One of the greatest darkroom workers ever and still a champion of film photography:

 

[AgX]

I still do not get it. Concerning scale, just make a mark for each negative on the scale. Concerning focusing, I already replied. concerning establishing exposure, you must do so in any case. Working with several enlargers may mean in addition shoving around meters an resetting them.

 

[ic-racer]

As AgX mentions multiple enlargers are not needed for this type of work. Indeed, in an interview Ulsemann said earlier in his career he would only make a few of each image, but later he might make more than ten copies of an image (see above video). That would be more time consuming with a single enlarger.

 

[Mick Fagan]

AgX, precision is what is required. I seem to remember the Uelsmanm had 8 enlarger systems in his darkroom. That is, 8 enlargers, 8 easels, 8 timers and so on.

One that I remember well was a similar technique in an advertising production, where we had the cobblestone street as a base on one negative with the hotel on another negative. The cobblestone image was exposed first, then the paper taken to the second easel where the hotel was exposed. It worked well, but from memory, it took close to half a day of work to get things exactly right and for the advertising executive to sign the work off; then we were all systems go. The end product was the cobblestone street merging into the hotel, it did look good.

The final combination print, being a continuous tone print, was then sent to a reproduction camera where a halftone negative was produced so the image could be reproduced in magazine advertisements.

The graphic arts industry called these, combination prints. This was a standard work practice and everyone mostly used paper or film with Kodak registration holes and Kodak registration pins for this kind of work; it was a daily occurrence thing.

This was around 35 years ago......

 

[Don_ih]

I still do not get it.

I still say try it. See how much you like moving everything around - including even the enlarging easel as you change negatives, change magnification, change exposure settings. Doing it with one enlarger would be a painful experience compared to using multiple ones. It would also take much longer.

 

[gone]

There's some crazy possibilities w/ something like 3 enlargers.

Like put a negative in each and make your test strips/filter/exposure decisions. Then print the three, wash 'em quickly w/ a wash aid, dry w/ a blow dryer or microwave, and you have 3 prints of 3 different images in very little time. That sounds better than 1 print at a time.

With the 3 prints, you get to see them side by side and at the same time because you don't have longish gaps between prints. At that point I'd pick the "winner", set the other 2 aside, and put some effort into improving that one. Too often I've spent too much time and effort trying to make a good print from a negative that wasn't worth it. With a 3 enlarger system I'm sure I'd be making better prints w/ less effort and less material costs.

Sounds like a no brainer, thanks for the idea!

 

[AgX]

Please stop this, my place is already filled with stuff...


Recently I had to let go half a dozen of identical enlargers, I was offered, for scrap metal. Well Momus, I should have sent them to you.

 

[Bill Burk]

I still say try it. See how much you like moving everything around - including even the enlarging easel as you change negatives, change magnification, change exposure settings. Doing it with one enlarger would be a painful experience compared to using multiple ones. It would also take much longer.

Bad enough that I shoot different formats and have to change the lens, carrier, raise/lower the enlarger to print different negatives. I have notes about the height for each negative size and I tend to always print 11x14. So I have standardized so it takes little time to rejig. But it’s physical work so I usually gang the printing sessions to print all one format.

Combination printing? I would setup multiple enlargers. Where? That’s another question in my small darkroom it would be a challenge. I have four enlargers already, and my buddy Jim wants to give me his Beseler 23CII, so I may have five soon. But my darkroom is too small. I told him I would find a good home for it.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi folks,
I'm Nolan, just joined in December. I started shooting film about a year ago and recently began emulating Jerry-Uelsmann-esque multiple enlarger printing.

Bravo Nolan!

Many historical photographers used combination printing. I hope you get to meet Jerry Uelsmann one day. I particularly like his waterfall-to-tree trunk illusion.

Your three phases of snow is a great demonstration and you performed the graphic arts work cleanly. I hope you can blend different prints with seamless transitions in a future experiment.

 

[Bill Burk]

Lootens, in the book “on Photographic Enlarging and Print Quality” 1944 shows a three enlarger setup and the print he made from it. A good reference book that will be easy to find. I have an extra copy if you want it.