Project help -- Fine Art 35mm contact prints

[EddyB]

I like the idea, but my first thought was concern regarding the close audience interaction with your small images and magnifying glass. Hopefully we will soon be post-pandemic, but who knows what the new normal will be like.

This had occurred to me in passing, but now that someone else has raised it.. Still, I went to the Don McCullen exhibition in Liverpool and I noticed that people tend to get close to any picture in front of them, regardless of size.. and I suppose with this there's the added barrier of a magnifying glass? I suppose I'll just have to see where we are in a few months time.

 

[Craig75]

Do you mean make final prints and then photograph them?

Yes make a 7x5 or 8x10 print with all yr dodges and burning etc, photograph the prints on 35mm film, then contact print those. That might be the lazy man's solution to the problem though...

 

[Vaughn]

I have been platinum printing negatives from my Rolleicord and other MF cameras (as well as up to 11x14). No burning or dodging, but then I do not do that for the larger negatives either.

As Matt mentioned, working at this size is different than 4x5 contact prints or larger. With larger prints, the viewer has the choice to view from a distance that allows one to see the image in its entirety and focus more on form rather than detail -- and then get as close as they wish to control the appearance of the detail. Very small prints do not provide this luxury and form must predominate in the composition. Plenty of exceptions, of course...rules must be broken!

I provide magnifying glasses. Some folks do not carry their reading glasses and can not focus at what I would consider the best viewing distances of small images (reading distance, generally). And the detail is there to be enjoyed if one can attract the attention of the viewer with form.

Edit to add: The other choice for control in the contact printing would be to use masks...I suppose the sprocket holes could be used to aid registration. Masks could be made with film, or even digitally. A lot of work though. I prefer to put the work in up in the front end, and enjoy wandering and the seeing/finding of light that can be worked with in the field to create an image without needing burning and/or dodging.

That said, on an odd print or two I have used a sharpie on the glass of the contact printing frame to 'dodge' small areas. This concept could be applied to the entire image...pulling the contact printing frame out from under the light and applying sharpie or some other light-blocking ink or paint onto the glass above selected areas of the negative. Then the frame is returned to the light to finish the exposure. This could be done several times over an exposure, varying the thickness of the material applied, etc to give fine control. Could be quite fun.

If done on a thin piece of glass (or plex) laid on top of the contact printing frame's glass, it could be repeatable. File the 'mask' away if one thinks it will be printed again some day.

An example below (no masking, etc) -- of course, keep the image at 2 1/4" square to more closely duplicate the image.

 

[Paul Ozzello]

Do the prints have to be made in the darkroom?

You could scan them and do your dodging and burning in Photoshop. Dodging and burning a contact print without seing the projected image and with a glass plate on top of the negative would be pretty hit or miss.

Or you could output to a digital negative and contact print that.

 

[Vaughn]

You got me thinking, fatso. Images that are not contact prints, but then printing as images the size of 35mm or possibly as big as 2 1/4 square, would tend to just be obnoxious. They would need a solid reason to exist in order to 'work'. Contact prints, however, are the size that they are...sweet little things!

 

[Paul Ozzello]

You got me thinking, fatso. Images that are not contact prints, but then printing as images the size of 35mm or possibly as big as 2 1/4 square, would tend to just be obnoxious. They would need a solid reason to exist in order to 'work'. Contact prints, however, are the size that they are...sweet little things!

Yet indistinguishable. And if you create a new digital negative from a scan - then you are essentially creating a contact print.

 

[ic-racer]

I had a tiny print accepted in a show, mostly with much larger prints...it looked like this...

 

[warden]

Hello!

I'm currently developing a project with a view to putting on an exhibition in the new arts centre opening near my house. It looks like it's going to be a wonderful, creative space and after speaking to their main organiser I can say with confidence that so long as the quality of the work is high they would be more that happy to back me. However before I make any bold time/paper commitments I could do with some help troubleshooting the whole thing.

The idea goes a little something like this -- I’m going to wander the streets of my town snapping various details, moments and innocuous scenes on 35mm B&W (as I’ve done for years anyway), then make individuated contact prints, on fibre paper, with all the care, attention, burning, dodging, split-grading and toning of a fine art print. The teeny tiny results would then be mounted individually and displayed in oversized frames, inviting people to smile, take a closer look at my little town (through magnifying glasses, probably) and maybe even have a thought or two about the value of attention.

I’m still very much in the R&D stages so any pointers, ideas, or even warnings would be much appreciated. I have some dark-time booked in for the end of this week to mess around, so feel free to try and influence that messing.

Many thanks,

Ed.

I like the idea and hope you get a chance to do it. Tiny prints are great on a gallery wall and invite closeness. I particularly like vintage tintypes and the like when shown on a wall. I think ultimately your challenge (aside from making interesting images of course) will be about human factors. Your prints will make those tiny tintypes look huge in comparison, and few over 50 years old will be able to focus on them unaided as you have already identified. Placement on the wall will be critical if you want taller people to not excessively stoop or shorter/younger people to be able to see the images at all. Maybe have step stools available?

Patrick Jacobs has experimented with magnifying lenses for his public works and dioramas to good effect:

https://www.patrickjacobs.info/installations/kbma4ptlk2pfk6exbc89zq2hkdx25q

 

[Bill Burk]

This sounds lovely. How do you go about doing reductions? I've poked about that dark ally on here but never worked it out..

I have the extension bellows for the Omega DII. It lets me put the enlarging lens far out in front of the negative.

 

[Bill Burk]

Do the prints have to be made in the darkroom?

You could scan them and do your dodging and burning in Photoshop. Dodging and burning a contact print without seing the projected image and with a glass plate on top of the negative would be pretty hit or miss.

Or you could output to a digital negative and contact print that.

The strength of digital negatives is that you can do platinum/palladium from 35mm and not be restricted to miniatures.

I would want to make and look at a real miniature with the natural high resolution continuous tone that you get from contacting (or reducing) a film negative.

And it's worth looking through your collection of negatives for the best material, even though you think you can get away with defects like unsharpness or distracting backgrounds, you really do need to be MORE particular with what you make tiny.