Very large contact print... Is it possible? Am I just crazy?

[George Papantoniou]

Interesting project !

Regarding the sample image, I cannot really imagine how exactly the shooting was orchestrated ! I mean, how did the OP succeed to shoot 1044 pictures of a single scene in the studio, with a 35mm camera, resulting (when combined side by side on a big print) in a normally looking perspective like if it was one single image shot with a normal (50mm) or similar lens... Theoretically, in order to shoot all those small fragments of the scene one should use a super-telephoto lens (something close to 2000mm) but then the perspective (and DOF) would be dramatically different than the one shown on the sample image !

Anyway, my personal view to this project is that it would be much more interesting to make an "imperfect" (but more interesting) collage of images that would maybe distort the global image created instead of doing such an impeccable view of the general shot. But this is just my opinion and the OP is of course free to decide what to do ! I will only mention that some years ago, I say the work of Tetsu Okuhara and was really impressed, this project brought it to my mind !! Okuhara puts together images shot from different angles in order to create a different perspective of real life images !

http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnlegweak/3863902710/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[baachitraka]

I presume, OP rather shot small area of a big photo made earlier...

I am rather curious about the device he built to fit infront of the lens to get such a small area to shoot.

 

[jcc]

The focal length you need depends on how far you are from the scene — 2000mm is a bit much on a 35mm film. In this situation, 400mm was appropriate, moving the camera laterally and vertically to avoid distortion. Or as baachitraka said, shoot a small area of a big photo.

The "imperfect" has been done. It's easier, less methodical, and not as "crazily obsessed". The actual title of the piece is 1 kilopixel, take from it as you will, but one of the layers I wanted to incorporate into the piece was this modern obsession with digital pixel peepers and their quest for perfection.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Very impressive project. I admire your persistence! Well done! If you did 20x24 you wouldn't need as many sheets, by the way, and would line up with the final dimension almost perfectly.

 

[jcc]

Very impressive project. I admire your persistence! Well done! If you did 20x24 you wouldn't need as many sheets, by the way, and would line up with the final dimension almost perfectly.

The biggest trays I could use were 16x20". It's also the largest sheets I've ever printed on, and I was constantly worried about creasing the print (I only had 10 sheets — 9 to use, 1 for testing exposure).

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The biggest trays I could use were 16x20". It's also the largest sheets I've ever printed on, and I was constantly worried about creasing the print (I only had 10 sheets — 9 to use, 1 for testing exposure).

Yeah, paper this size gets expensive, and is a bit more difficult for sure. You still managed fine, in my opinion, and the final product as several 16x20 sheets will be equally impressive as a single sheet. Nobody other than photographers will care.

 

[mesantacruz]

AWESOME !!!

I think it's already outstanding, but a perfectionist never finishes. here's some input.

I've recently started a project to print (enlarging) on 42" paper (roll, which i came across inexpensively, albeit rc)... my output would be 42in. x 63in. I've built a faux frame/easel (for $17)

supplies from Home Dep*t

1 1/2 baseboard 17ft ($0.69 per ft)
super glue
12 large washers 14 cents or so each
4 nuts to raise 4 washers to same height as others
12 neodymium magnets 3-4 bucks for tiny ones

The cheapest natural wooden baseboards are light enough to be held together by the super glue. While i am projecting horizontally, you can do so on the floor, or where ever. you might also be able to get away from buying the magnets and just use a large sheet of plexi? or use large strips of the cheaper magnets around the border... (the tiny neodymium ones are really strong by the way).

As for chemicals, I've bought 8" large pvc pipes (diy jobo style) and still do this under safelights since i don't have the light-tight caps like jobo or patterson. I also use a cabinet mesh to separate the paper from itself, always starting out with a water wash before starting any actual chemical process. I also use very diluted dektol and go around and separate the mesh from paper manually as it processes as an extra precaution.

Of course there's always the 'roll through a trough' method, which i don't trust myself with as it involves to much handling of the paper, for this clumsy guy.

 

[johnielvis]

Yes, there is a trick--unfortunately it hasn't been invented yet.

Here's one: it may be easier to just get paper in strips the length of the film strips, print each film strip and then reassemble them strips together instead of trying to print a bunch of unwieldy strips on unwieldy pieces of paper. You can cut them all down to match and push/pull prod the paper to all fit together seamlessly--a little bit bigger here--a little bit smaller there--the little corrections will be impossible to notice, just as the little deviations from the standard widths are impossible to notice.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Good to see I'm not the only nutter doing stuff like this (well not yet, but I intend to).

What I've got so far is a pinhole camera that can fit about 11x14 (possibly bigger, haven't tried yet).
But paper is paper and paper is slow, and I've got a whole lot of film lying around, 135 and 120. What I intend to do is to cut up the film (maybe 1 or 2 rolls per photo) and tape it to the back of the camera. Proper alignment isn't an aim of this, I intend to have overlaps and gaps between strips of film.
Of course, I could just scan it and digitally arrange (why not, I've got 20GB of RAM to fill up), but that's boring, I also want to contact-print.

My question is, what's the best way to hold all the negs in place when contact-printing? Because of the weird alignments when shooting, I'll have to arrange them in the light and hold them in place before upturning onto the paper in the dark.

I was thinking of clear-plastic-adhesive sheets (we aussies just call it Contact, like you cover schoolbooks with to stop them getting ripped), but then the negative might stick to it too much and the emulsion could peel off and get damaged and such.
Sticky-taping to a non-adhesive floppy-plastic sheet wight not work, the negs will sag in the middle when I upturn it.
Taping to a huge sheet of glass would be perfect but fragile.
Taping to a sheet of perspex might work, but wouldn't the light refract weirdly?
All of those methods I envisage the 'holder' will interfere with the light (even though it'll be enlargerlight->holder->negatives->paper) to some degree.

Are there any better ways of holding the negs down properly? How did you go about it?

 

[snapguy]

need help

I think you need to call in help from Paul Bunyan. I believe he is semi-retired somewhere in your area.

 

[analoguey]

+Wow.
The effort it must've taken. And planning -that would be wonderful to hear about.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[jcc]

Good to see I'm not the only nutter doing stuff like this (well not yet, but I intend to).

What I've got so far is a pinhole camera that can fit about 11x14 (possibly bigger, haven't tried yet).
But paper is paper and paper is slow, and I've got a whole lot of film lying around, 135 and 120. What I intend to do is to cut up the film (maybe 1 or 2 rolls per photo) and tape it to the back of the camera. Proper alignment isn't an aim of this, I intend to have overlaps and gaps between strips of film.
Of course, I could just scan it and digitally arrange (why not, I've got 20GB of RAM to fill up), but that's boring, I also want to contact-print.

My question is, what's the best way to hold all the negs in place when contact-printing? Because of the weird alignments when shooting, I'll have to arrange them in the light and hold them in place before upturning onto the paper in the dark.

I was thinking of clear-plastic-adhesive sheets (we aussies just call it Contact, like you cover schoolbooks with to stop them getting ripped), but then the negative might stick to it too much and the emulsion could peel off and get damaged and such.
Sticky-taping to a non-adhesive floppy-plastic sheet wight not work, the negs will sag in the middle when I upturn it.
Taping to a huge sheet of glass would be perfect but fragile.
Taping to a sheet of perspex might work, but wouldn't the light refract weirdly?
All of those methods I envisage the 'holder' will interfere with the light (even though it'll be enlargerlight->holder->negatives->paper) to some degree.

Are there any better ways of holding the negs down properly? How did you go about it?

I taped the negs to each other with small (~1/4 of a thumb nail) weakened gaffers tape. I weakened it by placing a fresh tape on my cotton shirt, which was still sticky enough to hold the negatives in place. The tape was mainly beyond the borders of the paper, so it wouldn't show up on the contact sheet as a white spot (except for one sheet, during at the end of the run and got sloppy). Then I used a 20x24 sheet of 4-5 mm-thick glass to weigh down the film strips.

I thought about using clear tape, but decided it might leave residue. Then I tried it with the cotton shirt method and it wasn't sticky enough.

 

[jcc]

+Wow.
The effort it must've taken. And planning -that would be wonderful to hear about.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

I haven't had a serious (>3 hours) printing session since. Maybe it traumatized me!

 

[frobozz]

If you want to do a "Panorama" version of the same thing I could lend you my Canon FN-100 back and you could do 100 frames per strip! (Or get an older Nikon or Canon 250 exposure back...)

Duncan

 

[jcc]

If you want to do a "Panorama" version of the same thing I could lend you my Canon FN-100 back and you could do 100 frames per strip! (Or get an older Nikon or Canon 250 exposure back...)

Duncan

Thanks for the offer, Duncan!
After doing some Googling, I stumbled on the Nikon 750-frame F2. Holy cow! I'm trying to digest how to develop a 100' of film, let alone what to photograph with it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for the offer, Duncan!
After doing some Googling, I stumbled on the Nikon 750-frame F2. Holy cow! I'm trying to digest how to develop a 100' of film, let alone what to photograph with it.

Lomo (or other) movie film tank. There are a few websites with different approaches to home processing cine film, so you might see where google takes you with that approach. Another method is to make a drum out of two disks with dowels running between them around the perimeter, and attaching the film emulsion side out at one end, winding it in a spiral to the other end, and fastening it at that end as well, and then process, rotary fashion, in troughs.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

If you don't mind some scratches of if you work with tougher film stock the bucket method may work. Just unwind into 5 gallon buckets of developer, stop, and fix. I saw a video of someone doing it once with 16mm, looked like a total jumbled mess but was fine when they line dried it at the end.

 

[jcc]

If you don't mind some scratches of if you work with tougher film stock the bucket method may work. Just unwind into 5 gallon buckets of developer, stop, and fix. I saw a video of someone doing it once with 16mm, looked like a total jumbled mess but was fine when they line dried it at the end.

A 5 gallon bucket is exactly what I was envisioning! A friend developed a 16mm short film (movie) in a Paterson 8-reel tank in similar fashion.

 

[frobozz]

Thanks for the offer, Duncan!
After doing some Googling, I stumbled on the Nikon 750-frame F2. Holy cow! I'm trying to digest how to develop a 100' of film, let alone what to photograph with it.

Aren't too many of those around; the 250 or 100 frame backs are quite a bit easier to come by.

Nikor made 100-foot long spiral reels and tanks to go with them, and I have a set I could let you borrow if you pick up one of those 750-frame monsters and want to do this project ;-)

Duncan