"Real world" difference b/t 16x20 vacuum vs. non-vacuum frame?

dafy · Dec 17, 2010

Hey guys, I'm about to embark on my first alt prints, aiming at platinum eventually.

I think both because of cost and my location (I have neighbours and very thin walls) a vacuum frame is out of the question for me. I am going to go straight to 16x20 to minimize costs (I want to only build a frame/light setup once). Having said that, I DO plan on making the actual printed area small, as I'm learning, and very often the printed-area itself will not be bigger than 8x10, ie, in the middle of the 16x20 paper. I print on vellum and plan on continuing to do that with the wet processes, with much encouragement from what I've already seen online.

My question is, how much 'better' is a vacuum frame over a good non-vacuum frame from B&S? Are we talking 'a 16x20" print will look like crap without a vacuum frame' or are we talking 'a 16x20" print will look only 80-90% as good as a print done with a vacuum frame' or...?

Thanks for any thoughts.
Shawn

iansand · Dec 17, 2010

Shawn,
In my opinion, image is everything. I remember a show in Paris, prints by Cartier Bresson. Lots of them were 'soft' to say the least. I guess that a single point light source with a non vacuum frame would give you 'better' results than UV tubes, but as I said if the image works then.....

dafy · Dec 17, 2010

Thanks Ian how big were those prints? I've about 10,000 negs to go through and if 1% are good I'm happy. I made some nice...if not life changing...photos. The problem with being artificial...shooting people in a setting...is that you really need to nail the personality. And that was always my goal. I've got shots with great big boogers that I love and want to put then in prints I believe in cuz some day I'll die and even if they don't last forever or garner an objective response, I want the three people at my funeral to appreciate them

Ben Altman · Dec 17, 2010

Some simple math: I run my vacuum at the minimum, about 6 psi. For a 16x20 print, that's 16x20x6=1,920 lbs. That's a lot of sandbags. Obviously a spring-back contact frame doesn't generate 6 psi - the split-back frame I have will do an 11x14 okay most of the time, but with occasional bad i.e. fuzzy areas on prints. Word I hear is that 11x14 is the limit. Even if all you need is 0.5 psi, that would still be 160 lbs of weight on a 16 x 20. Hard to design a frame that will do that and stay straight, let alone your back...
Vacuum frames can be had for cheap if you look and are patient. I got a nice one for $160 if I recall, with pump and light-integrator. Office equipment recyclers have them. Put the pump in a big foam-lined box or something.
Ben

iansand · Dec 18, 2010

Shawn, I have been working on two sizes, image size 35" X 23" and 28" X 19" I have a vacuum frame for sale, its 70" X 47" weighs 880 US pounds and is in the south of France. Not very practical I guess! What if the three people die first by the way?

Joe Lipka · Dec 18, 2010

My experience was that high end details were printed better (sharper) with a vacuum frame than a non vacuum frame. The other side of the coin was the vacuum dried the damp printing paper.

Pick your poison.

dafy · Dec 20, 2010

Thanks for all the responses, guys. OK, well, I guess my options are to go 16x20 vacuum, and try to make it quiet, after finding one on the cheap; or going no larger than 11x14 and a contact frame should be ok, most of the time.

Going 11x14 non-vacuum, would allow a smaller buy-in, and I suppose if there is any merit in my output, in say a year or three, than any money I make could go towards a larger setup (trays, light source, vacuum frame, etc.) and in fact I could go even bigger than 16x20.

OTOH, I come from a painting background, and 'bigger is better' to me; indeed if I could approach Sally Mann sizes, I'd be happy. Point being, if I go 11x14 there will always be that side of me that won't be happy, because I like bigger.

Decisions, decisions.

Thanks for all the replies, I'll have to think hard on this one.

Shawn

Kerik · Dec 20, 2010

Just to add to the confusion, I print pt/pd/gum at 14"x17" and 17"x17" with a very well-made split back printing frame. Works great for me and my standards are very high.

Loris Medici · Dec 20, 2010

Watch out for bits and pieces on the glass, paper, negative and felt. Given you're careful with that and your frame is sturdy / the springs are strong, you'll likely get nice results.

I was using an oversized 11x14" frame and getting fuzzy areas here and there only in case of 1 or 2 in 10. (Can be considered as a high failure ratio depending on the process. E.g. pt/pd with carefully calibrated digital negatives...)

I'm using a vacuum frame now, with very sharp results...

I think 11x14" is pretty doable (if you're careful and not too picky) with a good spring back contact printing frame (and maybe a little larger), whereas 16x20" is a little bit pushing the limits, IMHO...

Regards,
Loris.

emilylivingstone · Aug 18, 2015

Hi,

According to me a non-vacuum frame would be a better option. While these frames also come in other varieties why don't you try them on-line?
16x20 frame is a standard frame size and you will get great options such as frames without mats and with mats & many more.

"Real world" difference b/t 16x20 vacuum vs. non-vacuum frame?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency