# contact sheet exposure



## grokglock (Jan 29, 2013)

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 (Jan 29, 2013)

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


----------



## grokglock (Jan 29, 2013)

Mully said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2013)

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


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 29, 2013)

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 (Jan 29, 2013)

Rick58 said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2013)

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


----------



## TCampbell (Jan 29, 2013)

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 (Jan 29, 2013)

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 (Jan 29, 2013)

This article is great.

How to Make a Proper Proof Sheet


----------



## gsgary (Jan 29, 2013)

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


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 29, 2013)

gsgary said:


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



Not necessarily 

8x10 contact print - Google Search


----------



## amolitor (Jan 29, 2013)

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 (Jan 29, 2013)

amolitor said:


> 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 (Jan 29, 2013)

grokglock said:


> 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?


----------



## grokglock (Jan 29, 2013)

compur said:


> grokglock said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



it is a a canon elan7 film is either kodak tri x 400 or arista premium 400 both shot at asa 200


----------



## Jhorneva (Jan 29, 2013)

What developer did you use and how long did you develop it?


----------



## grokglock (Jan 29, 2013)

Jhorneva said:


> What developer did you use and how long did you develop it?



I don't think this matters in my case as all the equipment, chemistry, and film is basically the same for all other students. Only I am getting "off" results according to this process. I will upload a picture however to show you how my prints are coming out - which I don't think look bad but the contact sheets are where my problem is (hence implying I am exposing incorrectly)

picture is a wet print I took with an iphone with a broken camera lens lol, please excuse; mostly just to show an example of tones/dynamic range.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 30, 2013)

I see a lot of issues, probably from the reasons you listed, but exposure may not be one of them. I'm cunfused :scratch:


----------



## amolitor (Jan 30, 2013)

That appears to be a photograph shot at night under harsh lighting, and for such a thing the tones look pretty decent to me. It looks to *me* like shadows and highlights are blocking up about equally, so the exposure should be in about the right general region. Cleverer people than I might see something else, though.


----------



## ArcaneExposure (Jan 30, 2013)

The method of printing the contact sheet until the minimum black is achieved is a method that I often use to teach and show the overall density of the negative.  if you make your contact sheets in this way, it becomes very easy to see variations of negative density, and from there you can start to determine if they are problems, and how to correct them. 

Notice how I'm speaking of general negative density.  The proof sheet is just one of the first steps on your way to a final print. Proof sheets are made as a tool for you to be subjective about each frame and serve a great many purposes.  

That being said if your frames appear dark on the proof sheet, they probably are really dark, true you could raise the contrast of the paper to make the frame more 18% grey (or even gray depending on where your from).  The goal for you at this point is not to make your contact sheet conform to your negatives, but to make your negatives conform to your contact sheet.  The paper grade should be 2-3 no higher or lower.  When I was a young labtech working for high end photographers I would get a good reaming for printing anything other than 2-1/2 grade.  

The density as well as the contrast of the frame are controlled properly thru proper exposure and development combinations.  The important thing here, since your taking the class is to learn the right way, which over time will yield better results.  Other grades of paper are true lifesavers at times, and can create wonderful effects, but that's no way to do your day to day work.

If the picture you showed above is what your talking about by looking dark, then it does look dark because the scene is dark, it was afterall at night.  Also a scene like that can play havoc with even the best TTL metering systems.  You must learn how to interpret those meter readings.  Remember that those meters really think the world is 18% grey. Typically the measurement is weighted toward the center, or in the case of the "smarter" meters into a bunch of little blocks where it tries to figure out what you meant.  Your meter may not be off, but it may be incapable of correctly guessing what that scene was.  Lets break this down, you have lit up white walls black horse butts in the center, and a brightly lit spot of foreground.  I think that probably your meter was thrown for a loop by the sheer amount, and intensity of brightness which, and you expected it to correctly expose for horse butts, which are in this case black.  I might have opened up a couple stops from what my meter told me in the case of an especially dark subject on brighter surroundings.

You have discounted the processing as a possible problem, but exposure and processing go hand in hand.  Unless your all putting your film thru the same processing machine, which I doubt you are, then you need to at least suspect that it may be off a little as well.  I've never seen a class full of people develop each roll properly let alone the same way.  Small nuances in the way you develop your film can have great impacts on the how each one will print, it took me years to get the rhythm down to develop each roll the same way every time, and if I take time off of developing, it has a tendency to go away.  Watch your times to the second, take into account pour time. Temperatures should be within a degree as well for consistency.  

You might also compare the edge print of the film with the other students, is yours lighter than theirs? the edgeprint is b y no means definitive, but can be an additional clue, especially within the same batch of film..  

A small underexposure, coupled with a small under-development or perhaps  low contrast development could easily produce thin negatives that print  dark

Try doubling up with another student, and processing your rolls together, the the other student processes the film and it comes out fine there's a clue as well.  

Most of all, just realize that your on an adventure of discovery, and as long as you can be analytical and not take the problems to heart, you can overcome them. Lab technique is about 90% oops, 5% Voila, and 5% WTF...  if your lucky...


----------



## grokglock (Feb 2, 2013)

Thank you all for the insight, I will compare this roll (shot mostly at night) with some exposures taken during the day and see if it may just be the night playing tricks on my metering system/


----------

