Vacuum Frames for 8x10 contact printing

[jos__garese]

<p>I have searched the archives before posting this question, but haven't seen any recent (digital era) post on the subject.<br>

I'd like to know whether there still remain places where vacuum frames are sold, other than ebay. I've heard that Nu Arc frames used to be top of the line, but I understand that there production was discontinued. So which quality vacuum frames are still produced to this day, and where are they sold? Thanks in advance for the replies.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>Did you google? This is first hit that came up for me. http://www.eepjon.com/VaCFrm.html</p>

<p>I bet you can make your own, I've seen similar applications in diy equipment used for woodworking, laminations. I'm guessing this seller is making his own. I'd also check over in the darkroom forum at apug</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[jos__garese]

<p>Thanks, Tom<br>

Yes, I had googled and that's exactly the site that appeared. In fact it was the only manufacturer/seller that I was able to find. Does anyone one have any reference of "Edwards Engineered Products", apparently run by Jon Edwards?</p>

[vick_vickery]

<p>Vaccum frames are very easy to make with an appropriately sized piece of pegboard, sides made from wooden 1x4's with a plywood back and a canister vaccum cleaner with it's hose stuck in a hole in one of the 1x4's. Remember that to work well, the material has to cover all of the holes or you have to have some extra paper (etc.) to cover the holes not covered by the print paper & negative. One thought, though...vaccum boards don't work so well for contact printing since only the paper will be held flat, not the negative on top of the paper.</p>

[jos__garese]

<p>Thanks Vick, but what I'm after is Vacuum frames which are done especially FOR contact printing. Nu Arc did those (I saw a couple at work earlier this year and they are fantastic). Apparently "Edwards Engineered Products" Austin, Texas, does them as well, but I don't know if they are as good...</p>

[sergio_ortega7]

You want something like this?

 

http://www.millingtonmachine.com/1/contactFrames.htm.

 

I used these vacuum frames many years ago when I was doing and teaching serigraphy (silk-screen) and

other graphic arts processes. The units I've seen are all for very large artwork, to maintain firm contact and registration across

the entire surface of any large contact print.

 

For something as small as an 8x10 contact print, vacuum pressure would hardly be necessary to achieve maximum contact

and registration. In all the years I've been doing 8x10 contact printing I've never found the need for anything more than a

simple 1/4" sheet of glass over the negative/paper to get a sharp print.

 

Google "graphic arts", "vacuum fames", "screenprinting"...you'll turn up lots of interesting stuff.

[User_503771]

<p>I agree with Sergio's post above. I worked for many years in graphic arts camera departments (among other things) and worked with vacuum frames. They're great for large artwork.</p>

<p>For contact printing 8x10 negs, I've used a glass-shop piece of tempered glass over the neg and paper; underneath is a double layer of an old bath towel.</p>

<p>Proof sheet printers from Freestyle photo should work well too. You just need enough weight above to flatten the paper and neg onto each other; the padding is to compensate for any lack of flatness of table top or whatever surface you're working on.</p>

<p>The proof sheet printers have dense foam rubber under the paper, so that's taken care of.</p>

<p>I've also used the wooden contact printing frames and they work great too; also available from Freestyle and others.</p>

<p>Again, it doesn't take much to get perfect contact with such a "small" negative.</p>

[jos__garese]

<p>Michael and Sergio, thanks for your input. I happen to own a Print File custom proofer, with "dense foam rubber" underneath, that is becoming not so dense as years go by... It doesn't give me perfect results. The top and the bottom borders of the photo go slightly out of focus. I guess that a separate heavier glass on its own would do better the job. I've used one in the past, but the fact that the glass was on its own, made it really easier to pick up dirt and fingerprints. I'm not enlarging 8x10 negs, I am limiting myself to only contact prints, really "small", yeah, so I don't want anything short of perfection. Also, having worked in both ways (with and without a vacuum printer) I can say that such a printer, the nu arc at least -with springs that hold the glass midway, for example- makes for easier and quicker work, and I am doing quite a lot of prints... And the results I had were noticeably sharper. Yes, I am a freak. But I think that's one of the points of working in LF... Being obsessive with the end result... it's quite an effort to take pictures in LF, I don't want to lose any detail (available in the negative) in the final step.</p>

[rob_hale1]

<p><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:DoNotOrganizeInFolder/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> </w:Compatibility> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:536871559 0 0 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt; font-family:Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:EN-NZ;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --><!-- [if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!-- /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} --> <!-- [endif]--><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!-- [if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></p>

<p > Hi,<br /> <br /> A couple of quick notes.<br /> <br /> if you buy a second hand vacuum pump.<br /> <br /> A./ don’t disassemble second hand vacuum pumps. !!<br /> <br /> B./ lead the pumps exhaust out doors.<br /> <br /> Vacuum pumps are used in a very wide variety of jobs and often suck bacterial substances, a wide range of high powered chemical some of which can highly concentrated by the vacuum process and others are toxic by their nature.<br /> <br /> Regards<br /> <br /> Rob<br /> <br /> </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p ><br>

</p>

[jos__garese]

<p>Good point Rob. I really hadn't thought about that. The one I used had the motor outside the darkroom (vacuum noises inside the lab can be unnerving), and also the exhaust. I had planned on following that setup, but leading the pumps exhaust outdoors is indeed worth considering. At least for second hand equipment...</p>

[randall_white]

<p>If you can find an old contact printer that would work, Lab I worked in used a "Reso" Burke & James one to print contact 8x10s from Kodalith negatives for making Army manuals, would print hinders a day!</p>