Contact prints without enlarger - part II - negative film

In the previous blog post, I wrote a few words about contact printing without an enlarger using paper negatives. It works perfectly.
This time I focused on standard negatives to see how different the process itself is.
The list of required elements remains the same except printed material so that I won't repeat here. 

Negative film lets the light through much faster rather than paper, so exposure is much shorter. I didn't expect, however, such a difference.
Initial test strip showed that about 3-4 seconds is already too much. Another thing which surprised me was the fact that even a slight change in position of the printed paper will affect exposure time. First print gave an utterly black paper anyway.

Shortening exposure didn't bring anything to the process, so the last step was to extend the distance in between light source and print. I took away a small plastic chair I was printing on and moved the paper to the floor - further 30cm down.
Now everything has started to work.

I got a first prints which can indicate another step - longer exposure - two, three or four seconds. Clearly, even split of a second makes a difference, but I work without any possibility to measure the time precisely, so it's hit-and-miss.
And that's why it is all such fun. The trick is to work with what available without any extra investment and keep testing. I am sure more consistent results will come with experience.

I discovered another element which makes it all more complicated - something I will have to change soon to be able to predict somehow further steps - the bulb. Halogen bulb (E14 7W), when switched on, doesn't give a full power light at the beginning. It starts to shine properly after a second or so.
I managed to fix this problem temporarily by covering it with cardboard which I took away when the bulb gave a full power light. It's not a big deal. Jut another unnecessary step.
I need a standard, low power bulb. 

Final print with a little bit of dodging and burning at the end. Three seconds exposure and then extra 1-2 seconds for the sky only. 

I really like what I got here.

Going further, I decided to use a different negative. An old portrait of my daughter I made many years ago. 

A few quick tests following previous results. One second, two seconds, four seconds… 

This one was much easier. Probably slightly below 4 seconds would give better results but just after this print I broke my glass sheet, so this is the end of tests until I will get a new one… next week ;) 

Conclusion? I am delighted with the results of both tests. I still think, however, that using paper negative for this particular process makes more sense rather than standard one. Paper gives a specific look of the final image and allows more flexibility in manual postprocessing. Especially timewise. It is also an excellent alternative for direct positive paper. 

Thank you!