Technical question about Robert Frank's later work/prints

[logan2z]

In Robert Frank's later work (post The Americans) he often creates printed pieces from several photographs. Some are obvious collages and that is corroborated by the information on the MoMA web site, but there are several that are simply listed as 'Gelatin Silver Print' but appear to be made using a set of 35mm film strips. For example:

This one is listed as a 'Gelatin Silver Print' with dimensions 18 7/8 × 14 15/16" (48 × 38 cm), so I assume it's on a single sheet of paper. It has the appearance of a contact sheet, but the dimensions don't add up.

This one is similar:

This is also listed as a 'Gelatin Silver Print' with dimensions 23 11/16 × 14 3/4" (60.1 × 37.5 cm), which also imply this is not a contact print from 35mm film.

I think these are really interesting pieces in Frank's oeuvre but I'm not quite sure how these would have been printed. Does anyone have any insight into how these prints might have been made?

This next one is also simply listed as a 'Gelatin Silver Print' and I assume it was created by printing two different negatives onto the same sheet of paper. It's something I'd like to try, but I need to think of a repeatable method for getting things positioned correctly.

 

[Don_ih]

The second print is an enlarged 16mm motion picture film strip. (so is the first)

 

[Don_ih]

The third one looks like stuff smeared and written on a mirror with some scratches on the negative. The top part of it, with the weird artifacts to the left, make it look like a Polaroid negative from peel-apart film. So, two such negatives.

 

[koraks]

appear to be made using a set of 35mm film strips

Check out the perforations. That's not 35mm. Looks like he used a 16mm movie camera.
I bet he just cut the strips of film, removing the perfs on some, and then pasted then all onto a single shield of acetate or glass. Then enlarged onto regular photo paper.

 

[logan2z]

Check out the perforations. That's not 35mm. Looks like he used a 16mm movie camera.

Showing my ignorance here. I see sprocket holes, I think 35mm film. I've never seen a 16mm film strip

I bet he just cut the strips of film, removing the perfs on some, and then pasted then all onto a single shield of acetate or glass. Then enlarged onto regular photo paper.

Dumb question, but how would one produce an enlargement from that?

 

[logan2z]

So, two such negatives.

Right, that's what I figured.

 

[koraks]

Dumb question, but how would one produce an enlargement from that?

Not a dumb question. Take an enlarger that can handle a fairly large negative format. Then all of a sudden it becomes a walk in the park. If you take that first image from your initial post, you can work out that the image area would just about fit on a 6x9cm enlarger. Maybe he used something bigger, but he could have gotten away with a modest 6x9cm enlarger. And as said, the cut negatives can be arranged on something like a plate of glass or clear plastic, then placed in the negative carrier of the enlarger.

 

[Don_ih]

I've enlarged 16mm strips before. I've enlarged 35mm strips side-by-side, before. If Frank had a glass enlarger negative holder for a 4x5, it's a snap to just lay out the strips. And it does look like he sheared off one edge of sprocket holes.

 

[logan2z]

I just noticed this quote in the book "Robert Frank: Life Dances On":

They are very difficult photographs to make and when I work with Sid in the darkroom it often happens that the final thing is decided as we make the print. I think that maybe two or three negatives will work together and so we work for hours and hours and print it and it really doesn't come out good, so I'll change one Polaroid for another, I'll leave one out, or whatever, and then sometimes it works.

So, yes, some of these are indeed from Polaroid negatives and apparently they found the prints difficult to make.

 

[koraks]

I imagine it's a lot of work to try different arrangements until something works visually. By the sound of that quote, the approach was quite experimental, not very pre-meditated. Lots of back & forth, evaluating prints and then hoping for everything to fall into place at some point. I think it's more about that challenge than the technical aspect.

 

[logan2z]

Not a dumb question. Take an enlarger that can handle a fairly large negative format. Then all of a sudden it becomes a walk in the park. If you take that first image from your initial post, you can work out that the image area would just about fit on a 6x9cm enlarger. Maybe he used something bigger, but he could have gotten away with a modest 6x9cm enlarger. And as said, the cut negatives can be arranged on something like a plate of glass or clear plastic, then placed in the negative carrier of the enlarger.

Thanks. I should have done the math, I didn't think such a plate would actually fit in a 'standard' enlarger that could do 6x9, but it looks like it could.

 

[koraks]

They're teensy little frames! That helps.

 

[Don_ih]

The two polaroid negatives would fit in a 5x7 negative holder - but it could have been a contact print.

 

[logan2z]

They're teensy little frames! That helps.

The two polaroid negatives would fit in a 5x7 negative holder - but it could have been a contact print.

Thanks for all the help, guys

 

[Arthurwg]

Bring back those Polaroid negatives!