The intimate contact print

Newt_on_Swings · Jun 2, 2013

I actually have a small photobook of Andre Kertesz titled the early years and it's entirely small contact prints. It's a really nice change of pace to see these smaller more intimate prints.

I don't think you can do much dodging or burning with sizes under 4x5. They pretty much have to be straight contacts. Unless you use something like new cocine right on the negative. That may work.

cliveh · Jun 2, 2013

Trask said:
I'm curious -- how easy/practical is it to dodge and burn a contact print? For one thing, seems that you'd often be making micro-movements, harder to be accurate with than a standard enlargement.

They are contact prints and you don't dodge and burn. That's what makes them so pure.

Erik L · Jun 2, 2013

cliveh said:
They are contact prints and you don't dodge and burn. That's what makes them so pure.

That's a little limiting don't you think? Many people dodge and burn contact prints.

removed account4 · Jun 2, 2013

Curt · Jun 2, 2013

Josef Sudek and Walker Evans made small contact prints. Josef Sudek as small as 645. People of the generation where black and white photo albums were the norm had no problem with small prints. From silver prints back to tin types a lot of history was preserved.

doughowk · Jun 2, 2013

For dodging/burning of contact prints I use masks: Rubylith and/or mylar with grease pencil. I place the negative on a light box. Then place the mylar of same size over the negative, then use a grease pencil to cover over areas that you want to dodge. Rubylith works better for those areas you want to burn in.
For exposing I tape the negative to underside of contact printing glass, then visually place the mylar on top of glass. Expose for 1/2 the time with this configuration, then remove the mylar and continue exposing. Its alot of trial & error but does give you some tools.

cliveh · Jun 2, 2013

I bet Atget never dodged or burned a contact print.

NedL · Jun 2, 2013

I like to make contact prints from paper negatives in 116 and 122 size. Lately I've been using the 122 size more ( 3.25 x 5.5 inches ) but about a month ago I was looking through a "card deck" of the 116 size contact prints and I had forgotten how much I like them. Seeing this post here on APUG got me moving and I pulled them out again. I found one negative that I never contacted and another that might look good with some "faux pop" experiments... so thanks.. this got me going at that size again! I might even make one today!

Michael A. Smith · Jun 2, 2013

Dodging and burning on small contact prints is no different that dodging and burning on 8x10s. The on;y difference is that smaller tools are used whencontact printing the smaller negatives.

Michael A. Smith

Erik L · Jun 2, 2013

cliveh said:
I bet Atget never dodged or burned a contact print.

Not sure about Atget, but that hack printer E. Weston surely did

Look at around the 21 minute mark here. http://vimeo.com/58206083

removed account4 · Jun 2, 2013

cliveh said:
I bet Atget never dodged or burned a contact print.

hi clive

you are probably right ... neither did fox talbot
and i agree with you to a certain extant ... some contact prints are meant to be un-manipulated, and some are not ...

its kind of like making paper negatives.
some people refuse to scan them and only contact print them
because they are almost a holy-images or something sacred ..

i scan paper negatives too.

Shawn Dougherty · Jun 3, 2013

Michael A. Smith said:
Shawn makes beautiful photographs. He took mine and Paula's Vision and Technique Workshop in 2010, where he would have seen many of Paula's small contact prints--all mounted and overmatted on 13x15 mount board.
Michael A. Smith

Michael,
thank you. I truly appreciate that. Paula and you have both had a significant influence on my work.

Shawn Dougherty · Jun 3, 2013

Michael A. Smith said:
Dodging and burning on small contact prints is no different that dodging and burning on 8x10s. The on;y difference is that smaller tools are used whencontact printing the smaller negatives.

Michael A. Smith

That's exactly right. I've attached a couple examples of "print instruction sheets" for two of my 6x7cm contact prints and oftentimes they are much more involved than these. I've found that taping or otherwise hanging a straight print in front of you while you work, as a sort of "map", can also help.

Klainmeister · Jun 3, 2013

Jan Pierzak (wherever he's been recently) does some fantastic 6x6cm contact prints on Pt/pd. Love them! He has about 4" mat around them.

As for dodge and burn, get a piece of transparency and a marker. Works great.

Shawn Dougherty · Jun 3, 2013

jnanian said:
hi vaughn and shawn
have fun cause like anything ... once you make one or two, it will be hard to stop ( i've made around 25 i think, i lost count )
- john

john,
Thank you for that. I have been considering making something like this for some time now.

Mainecoonmaniac · Jun 3, 2013

Yes. I think so. I found some vernacular photographs in Seattle at Watson Kennedy. They look like a photo hobbyist that printed without an enlarger. They have a magical quality to them. I still have to mount, frame and display the photos.

removed account4 · Jun 3, 2013

Shawn Dougherty said:
john,
Thank you for that. I have been considering making something like this for some time now.

happy to help with what might end up being an affliction

just remember label the wheat/rice paste when you put it in the refrigerator.
it's easy to mistaken it for food and eat it

john

c6h6o3 · Jun 3, 2013

My best work is 4x5 contract prints. Does this mean that I'm small-minded? So be it.

DannL · Jun 3, 2013

ALFRED STIEGLITZ, Equivalent (Series), 1925-1931
http://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/artwork/Stieglitz-Equivalent_Series1.htm

cliveh · Jun 3, 2013

I think there is something about a contact print from whatever negative size that shows pure integrity of reversal. This is enhanced by the fact that there is direct physical contact between the neg and light sensitive material for positive conversion. Its almost like a painting that remains the same regardless of whether it is in negative or positive.

NedL · Jun 3, 2013

cliveh said:
I think there is something about a contact print from whatever negative size that shows pure integrity of reversal. This is enhanced by the fact that there is direct physical contact between the neg and light sensitive material for positive conversion. Its almost like a painting that remains the same regardless of whether it is in negative or positive.

I find this interesting, but I'm not sure I understand it. I make a lot of paper negatives, and sometimes I like the negative more than my contact print or "inverted scan". This happens especially when there are reflections in water or when there are lots of details in the highlights. Having those details on the dark background in the negative somehow emphasizes them and draws attention to form that is lost after reversing. ( I've speculated that this is similar to how some photographs look better on a white background or a dark one. ) I don't think my non-photographer friends tend to view them like I do though

But I get the sense you are talking about some kind of artistic or even physical purity. I've noticed people working with calotypes like to post the negatives, and have heard that they display the negatives. So that production of the original in-camera calotype is the goal. I've had thoughts along these lines with my big paper negative pinhole photos... there's something neat about the idea that the light went directly onto this paper and made this image. But I can't really say why that's different from a polaroid....

Old Fart said:
ALFRED STIEGLITZ, Equivalent (Series), 1925-1931
http://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/artwork/Stieglitz-Equivalent_Series1.htm

I love that series. And I like what Minor White wrote about it.

-Ned

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 6, 2013

I have this series of pictures of a dear friend that I'd like to present one of these years... Some of the negs are 4x5 and 5x7, and I've been trying to find ways of enlarging the 5x7 negatives without having to purchase a 5x7 enlarger...
I might just make all of the pictures smaller, thanks to this thread, and make a consistent look to the prints. Thanks for the inspiration!

Newt_on_Swings · Jun 6, 2013

My latest contact prints are 6x9s printed on a cut up long roll of ilford multigrade iv rc. I turned them into stickers by applying outdoor double sided carpet tape to the backs for a really strong bond. It's fun to leave them around or give them away.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 6, 2013

Newt_on_Swings said:
My latest contact prints are 6x9s printed on a cut up long roll of ilford multigrade iv rc. I turned them into stickers by applying outdoor double sided carpet tape to the backs for a really strong bond. It's fun to leave them around or give them away.

When I enlarge I always like a big white border to surround the image. So I print 6x8 on 8x10 paper, for example. That looks nice, and I mount the prints using simple photo corners, and overmat with something like 1/2 of the white print border showing.
How do I accomplish that when I contact print? Ruby lith? Black masking? I haven't found a good way.

TheFlyingCamera · Jun 6, 2013

Thomas- use an enlarging easel. Mask to the borders of the negative with the blades, then a sheet of heavy glass on top to keep the negative flat.

The intimate contact print

Newt_on_Swings

cliveh

Erik L

removed account4

Curt

doughowk

cliveh

NedL

Michael A. Smith

Erik L

removed account4

Shawn Dougherty

Shawn Dougherty

Attachments

Klainmeister

Shawn Dougherty

Mainecoonmaniac

removed account4

c6h6o3

DannL

cliveh

NedL

Thomas Bertilsson

Newt_on_Swings

Thomas Bertilsson

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

The intimate contact print

Attachments

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency