Weston's enlarged negatives

Many of Edward Weston's best pictures were made with a hand held 3.25x4.25 Graflex. Does anyone know the actual method he used to make his 8x10 negatives from them? Did he contact print the 3x4s and shoot copy negatives with his 8x10? Or did he copy the 3x4 negatives on 8x10 direct positive film? Or....?

I the Weston exhibits I have seen, his smaller format negatives were

all printed contact size. I don't recall reading anything about him

enlarging negatives, and since he never owned an enlarger, I'm

guessing that he didn't.

Have you read the Daybooks? I dont recall if he discusses the method

in any detail

E. Weston's work was all contact--the graflex negatives were exhibited

same size, just like the 8x10's

Bill:

According to the photo book "Supreme Instants" there is a section on

the use of the 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Graflex:

 

<p>

 

"To make 8X10 prints from his 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 Graflex negatives, Edward

had first to make enlarged positive tranparencies with his view

camera and from them, internegatives. This was a tedious and lengthly

task. He noted in his daybook on October 7, 1924: 'I am utterly

exhausted tonight after a whole day in the darkroom, making eight

contact negatives from enlarged positives.'"

 

<p>

 

Greg

Thanks Greg, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

Yes, from enlarged positives, but does anyone know how the positives

made? Did he find someone with an enlarger he could borrow? or is it

possible he did this himself? Is it possible to enlarge a 3X4 neg onto

8*10 sheet of film if all you had to do it with was an 8*10 camera?

David, I don't know how Weston did it, but this is still a common

technique used in duplicating negs in a 2-step process....I don't

think there was a direct pos. film at that time, although I could be

wrong...he could very well have used an enlarger, and I guess this

would open up all sorts of doors for debate...because the

interpositive duping technique is usually regerded as the method with

more control than the one-step. If all he had was a camera, then he

could have just shot the neg. on a light table of sorts, and just made

an in-camera dupe, as an interpositive, and then contact printed this

onto another sheet for the negative. But, if this were the case, then

there'd be a collection of interpositives someplace, maybe??

It seems pretty clear from the text Greg quoted: "<I>Edward had first

to make enlarged positive tranparencies with his view camera and from

them, internegatives</I>." He would shoot the negs with a light

source behind them using an 8x10" camera, then contact print the 8x10"

interpositive onto another sheet of film to make the negative that

would then be contact printed onto paper, most likely using the

Azo/Amidol combination that he settled on after some years of platinum

printing.

Although he used Azo (and of course Amidol) he also used Velox, Apex,

Convira, Defender Velour Black and Haloid, which was certainly among

his favorites.

If Cole is still alive has anyone thought of asking him? Pat

here is the weston website, ask away....

 

<p>

 

http://www.edward-weston.com/

Hi everyone, OK I can understand the possibility of taping a 3*4 to a

window and photographing it onto film. My question is what kind of

lens would you need to do that. His 8*10 is a Korona, and so I'm

thinking 30" of bellows. So what kind of lens and how do you use it to

enlarge from 3*4 to 8*10? Thanks, David

David, you make a good point, which hadn't occured to me. The

standard lens for a 3x4 Graflex was a 6 3/8" Tessar design, excellent

for copying, which I'm sure could be mounted on the 8x10 for high

magnification.

Hi Bill, do you know the math to figure out if the 6" lens will

project 3*4 onto 8*10 with 30" of bellows or is this something we have

to sit up and test? If he did use this method, it seems like he could

have done some fine tuning on the image during this process. I've seen

some of the original 3*4 prints in the Weston Archives in the George

Eastman House collection. These photos would be like his personal snap

shot collection. For instance there is a Graflex contact of Rivera.

I've also seen Tina Modotti's photos in the Eastman House, and those

are Graflex contact prints, very small photos. So whatever process he

was using to enlarge, they weren't carrying on the process to her work

and I wonder if this is because it was labor intensive? Best, David

David, a 6 3/8 lens on a 30" bellows will give a reproductin ratio of

3.7. My goodness that must have been tricky!

Either lens turned around backwards on the 8X10 would've worked.

Almost, but not quite. A 10" lens with 30" bellows only has a 2X

reproduction ratio, about 6.5x8.5". I believe that his shortest lens

for the Korona was an 11" Rapid Rectilinear. The enlarged negatives

must have been a real pain; wonder why he didn't just buy an enlarger

for the 3x4?

Well, my guess is that he had way more time on his hands than he had

money. I could see where he could have rented a photographer's

darkroom-enlarger to make the positives. That's a possiblity, but he

seems like the 'do-it-yourself' kind of guy who would like to be self

sufficient. He was the master of elegant solutions to technical

problems, and he certainly wasn't affraid of hard work, and that's why

it seems to me maybe he did it with materials on hand. I think I read

where Modotti had a 4*5, so that could be a factor? Maybe he used a

camera as an enlarger? Best, David

Hey...I've been following this for awhile and I just wanted to say

that people still do make duplicate negs this way more or less....now

I'm not sure how Weston made his (and it's not really that important

to me), but let me ask you all this question: Where are his original

negs? If he were making interpositives of his smaller negs, and then

contacting these to make the final negs....then the interpositives

would be valuable as well. Generally, the positive becomes the

"master" and the duplicate negs become the working negs in this case.

The positive is usually alot denser than you'd think...it's rather

chunky and would look dark if you viewed it. Now, maybe he didn't do

it this way, or maybe he didn't care & threw them all away...who

knows? For a long time though, in commercial & portrait photography,

this was a regular technique. Nowadays, it seems to be only done in

duplicating old glass plates & negs.

I've been asking the same question for awhile, the best clues I've

come across are in an article Edward Weston authored for CAMERA CRAFT

published September 1939 titled "Thirty-Five Years of Portraiture".

The article is included in Peter Bunnell's "Edward Weston on

Photography" - Peregrine Smith Books, 1983.

 

<p>

 

The article is lengthy, but references his use of enlarged negatives

pre-1917 to make 16x20 platinum prints for the London Salon.

 

<p>

 

A couple of cites - to whet your appetite:

 

<p>

 

"From the time I left Mexico in 1926 until 1933 all of my

professional portraits were made that way..." "I made negatives with

a sharp lens on 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 film and enlarged them to 8x10 with the

soft lens (a Verito referenced elsewhere in the article), stopped

down just short of being sharp. The illusion was complete: the

retouching disappeared."

 

<p>

 

I asked Cole Weston about the enlarged negative process during one of

his workshops about two years ago...he said he didn't recall.

 

<p>

 

Certainly, the running debate about contact vs enlarger quality

between Ansel Adams and Edward Weston indicates Weston's decided

preference for contact prints for his personal work. As noted, he

didn't use an enlarger as we know them.

 

<p>

 

The book cited above is a great trove of information about his

evolution as an artist with many references to his professional

portraiture. I'd recommend it to anyone. Fred

Hi again, well 1923-33, my guess is the original negs where nitrate.

I'm not sure though. If nitrate, they might just be dust in an envolpe

some where. Is there a good source article on this process of making

positives and interpositives? Thanks, David

Hi again, it just occurred to me I was told that back then it was not

unusual to use factory prepaired glass plate negatives. If he made the

interpositive with glass, it might have been impractical to carry it

home to California. David

David, I seem to recall reading in a Lustrum Press darkroom book an

interview with Cole Weston, where he made some remark about how he &

Brett would scrape the emulsion off his dad's old glass plates (from

his commercial work) and use the glass to repair windows....haha...so

maybe that's where the interpostitives wound up!

 

<p>

 

Look, he could have done it any number of ways, including just making

a contact print of the smaller neg, and then shooting a copy neg of

it...There were also direct-positive films back in the late 40's at

least, (Kodak Radiograph is one that sounds about right), but I'm just

unsure of any earlier times. 1939 was the last date of manufacture for

nitrate based sheet film for Kodak. Other manufacturers dates are hard

to find, but unless the originals are in some cold storage vault now,

they probably are all gone.

 

<p>

 

My experience duping films has mostly been by contact with the direct

positive films, but I am now getting into the 2-step methods, which

have been explained to me as being superior in both control &

stability. There are numerous documents about this, including the

vendor spec sheet for NARA, and several online sites within the

museum/archives community. Probably the best how-to book is Kodak's

"Copying & Duplicating in B&W and Color" (pub M-1) and "Conservation

of Photography" (F-40). Another good book that may be out of print

now, is "Collection, Use & Care of Historical Photographs" by the

AASLH. And lastly, just about any edition of the old Morgan & Morgan

"Photo Lab Handbook". I have one from the 50's and it's a great

resource. One of the few commercial labs that does this for

institutions is the Chicago Albumen Works. They specialize in duping

19th century plates & negs by 2-step methods. I have done some duping

& making internegs of 8x10 CTs, shooting them on a vc down to 4x5.

It's not really that hard, once you get the hang of it, and it doesn't

require exotic equipment either. It's just a side of photography

that's not exactly "fun", more work....

Oh hey...one more thing about the Kodak books. They're great

resources, because these techniques are solid & don't really change.

Unfortunately, several of the films are no longer made that were used

most for this. That's where the other sources come in handy, if you

decide to try this.