[alt-photo] Re: Creating Film Negatives

[Diana Bloomfield]

Well, yes-- I was gonna put in my 2 cents worth here, too-- mainly this is for Kurt- but if you're currently making gum prints  with 4x5 negatives, and aren't doing any scanning (or making digital negatives), and don't want to do so-- then I'm guessing you're not using separation negatives.  I agree that (almost) nothing beats an in-camera negative, and I get why you want to use them-- but in your case, it might simply be easier to buy (or make) an 8x10 camera.  That way, you'd have original 8x10 negatives (if someone is still making them).  Large format cameras are pretty cheap now-- or you could make a pinhole camera if you wanted.

Just thinking back on when I used to make enlarged negatives the "old-fashioned" traditional way-- years ago-- and what a serious and royal PITA it was-- stumbling around in the dark, worrying if I was getting the contrast right and avoiding scratches on the negative all along the way-- there's no one who could now pay me to do that again.  Not enough money in the world . . . well, maybe-- but it would be way up there in $$$$.

In my opinion, the best thing that came out of the digital photo craze, really, is the ability to make digital negatives.  It seems like a dream come true to me.  Of course, maybe it was my less than stellar work environment at the time, or my inability to work well in total darkness-- which I assume you still have to do-- but I honestly wouldn't turn around for the difference in quality of the negatives I made the traditional way, years ago, and my digital negatives today.  *Maybe* if I was making silver gelatin prints with them, I might be able to see a difference in the prints, but I'm not even convinced of that.

But-- for Kurt anyway-- it might be less hassle to use an 8x10 camera and then you still get to use your in-camera negatives. ??

Diana



On Jun 3, 2012, at 6:04 PM, Geoff Chaplin wrote:

> Well here's my two pennyworth.
> 
> I generally used in camera 8x10 negs but over the last couple of years have
> enlarged 35mm up to 16x24 for gum printing. I've tried the following
> methods:
> A. Reverse process B&W file (easy but lengthy) and print onto (e.g. FP4+)
> film.
> B. Neg -> enlarged print -> contact print onto (film, lith film, paper)
> 
> Out of the second set of steps printing onto paper is easiest but has a
> limited tonal range and leads to slow printing times. This can be speeded-up
> a bit if you print onto fibre based paper then oil the back (any clearish
> oil will do. Printing onto film is OK but I find difficult to judge - a
> densitometer helps. Generally I print onto lith film partly because it's
> cheap and robust. But the downside is development and resulting contrast
> range. I think I've tried everything that’s suggested on APUG and elsewhere
> and find the best continuous tone developer is dilute paper developer about
> 1/4 strength. It oxidises very quickly so you need a fresh batch every
> half-hour or so. Sometimes its necessary to make two negs - highlights and
> lowlights.
> 
> Of course scanning an digi-printing as a million times easier ....
> 
> Geoff Chaplin
> チャップリン・ジェフ
> 
> geoff at geoffgallery.net
> www.geoffgallery.net
>