contact sheet exposure

[grokglock]

Hello guys I am seeking some insight as to how to correctly expose a contact sheet. I am currently in a college photo program and my new instructor is telling us the proper way to produce a contact sheet is where the sprockets/reels are barely visible. However this is making obviously all my exposures look dark. I have never been taught this method before but if he is right then my camera is reading about 2 stops under.


Is the proper exposure for a contact sheet supposed to have the reels/sprockets barely visible?

 

[Mully]

I would do what your instructor wants.... you need to pass

 

[grokglock]

I would do what your instructor wants.... you need to pass

thanks that goes without saying but i am always looking for insight from varied sources so i can develop my process through a more open understanding.i wont be challenging my professor but i'd like to know how others view this method

 

[gsgary]

When ive used one of these 35mm Paterson Contact Printer Proofer - The Imaging Warehouse you dont see the sprockets

 

[Rick58]

I can see where your instructor is going with this.
The holes are obviously, just that. no film. Should print black
The emulsion around the holes has zero exposure, so the holes should print pure black and the emulsion print close to black.

 

[grokglock]

I can see where your instructor is going with this.
The holes are obviously, just that. no film. Should print black
The emulsion around the holes have zero exposure, so they should also print close to pure black.

Both should be printed just to the point of being black, not beyond.

thanks for the feedback, guess i cant trust my camera's metering - i am shooting right on the money according to TTL but i'll have to compensate now.

 

[amolitor]

Make sure you have't got -2EV already dialed in!

 

[TCampbell]

I suspect he's not talking about hiding/masking the sprockets... but rather how to identify if the exposure is correct. The frame number is typically printed on the film in the sprocket area. So if you mask that, then it'd be more difficult to find the correct frame on your negative strips.

I think what the instructor is trying to convey is the concept of finding a proper "black".

The "holes" punched in the edges of the sprocket are obviously not blocking any light at all. The film material itself does block *some* light. The film itself has it's own "dynamic range". The proverbial photo of the black cat at the bottom of the coal mine with no lights turned on should be absolutely black. That "frame" would appear clear on a negative. The opposite photo... the white polar bear in the snowstorm with really really bright lights should be absolutely white -- which appears as a black frame on the negative.

The instructors technique is trying to help make your true pure blacks completely black. Since even a "clear" piece of film technically blocks some light, it would appear to be a lighter gray next to piece of print which didn't have any negative on it at all (e.g. the holes in the sprocket.) He doesn't want stuff which is supposed to _completely_ black to appear to be a dark gray. He's using this technique to find a true "black" point. He wants black to be black.

BUT... this ignores the dynamic range or contrast of the film, paper, and developing process. By making your "blacks" correct, you may be messing up your mid-tones and your whites. And, as you've discovered, all your images appear to be too dark -- which seems to confirm that. You could develop onto higher contrast papers rather than continuous tone papers to boost contrast. Kodak has a tech document loaded with information -- of course it only deals with their own films, chemicals, and papers, but it may give you an idea the types of options available. See: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/o3/o3.pdf

Normally you do test strips, then check your images ... paying attention to your highlights and shadows to find the best exposure times and that's what you'd use to print.

As Mully says... you do need to pass. So if you have to make an instructor happy... of course, if the instructor's technique is valid, he or she should be able to demonstrate this technique with repeatable results. If you aren't able to repeat the results using your film, ask the instructor to demonstrate.

 

[Rick58]

In my film days, I always wanted to get into 8x10 contact printing, but could never afford it. There's nothing like a correctly exposed 8x10 contact print.

 

[Compaq]

This article is great.

How to Make a Proper Proof Sheet

 

[gsgary]

Contact prints are made to aid in the selection of images for further enlargement

 

[Rick58]

Contact prints are made to aid in the selection of images for further enlargement

Not necessarily

8x10 contact print - Google Search

 

[amolitor]

I love the coda to that article. Winogrand left 432,000 images behind which he has never seen. A committee had them all developed and proofed and then spent god knows how long picking out.. 25. One in 17,000.

I am not a huge Winogrand fan.

 

[gsgary]

I love the coda to that article. Winogrand left 432,000 images behind which he has never seen. A committee had them all developed and proofed and then spent god knows how long picking out.. 25. One in 17,000.

I am not a huge Winogrand fan.

I am, one of my favourites

 

[compur]

thanks for the feedback, guess i cant trust my camera's metering - i am shooting right on the money according to TTL but i'll have to compensate now.

What camera? What film?