[alt-photo] Re: Creating Film Negative by Enlarging a Film/ Slide Positive

Tue Jun 5 19:17:56 GMT 2012

Sorry for the delay in response. I got side tracked.

Eric and Dave,
Thanks for the insight. If I go the way of color slide then I'll definitely
be using panchromatic B&W for the enlarged neg. If I use B&W reversal then
I should be able to use panchromatic or orthochromatic. Either way, I'm
working with Efke PL100 and HP5 for my big negs (still working out which
one I like best for Azo type emulsions and pt/lp, leaning toward the Efke)
so it'll be one of those two even if I use reversal for the original 35mm
negs. I'm fine with being in the dark and I prefer to work with a minimum
of materials so I'm not inclined to add another film (like something ortho
or lith) to the mix. Tri-X would only be used for the original 35mm neg if
I used B&W film and reversal processing to get the positive. I wouldn't be
using Tri-X for the enlarged negs.

I'm trying to avoid an interpositive in this case. The more reproductions
the greater the loss of image information and sharpness. Hence why I'm
interested in either shooting color slide positives in 35mm and then
directly enlarging them onto enlarged negs OR using B&W neg film that I
reversal process to get B&W slide positives that I can enlarge directly
onto the enlarged negatives in the same way. Makes it a two step process to
get to the bigger neg rather then a three step.

My primary concern is just how to do the exposure when enlarging the 35mm
positive onto the larger film (neg). Like I said, I've been told it is as
simple as putting down a grey card and measuring the exposure being
projected by the enlarger and exposing for that based on how I would
normally expose the film as if it were any other exposure and developing by
inspection as I usually do. I've seen the Ilford EM10 exposure meters but
I've never heard anything good about them. If the grey card works I'd
rather do that and reduce the number of necessary tools.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not interested in dodging and burning or any
other manipulation during the exposure from 35mm to larger neg. That is
something I would have done when working with paper negatives but for my
purposes here my concern is just getting an enlarged version of the
original 35mm neg. All the print work would be done from the enlarged
negative. Just wanted to clarify in case anyone was thinking I wanted to
dodge and burn in the enlargement phase.

For anyone doing this or having done it, can you comment (some already have
but feel free to repeat yourself) on how you determine the proper exposure
under the enlarger and if working with color slide please comment on
whether or not you feel it will be too contrasty to produce negatives for a
process like Pt/Pl or Azo. Also, if you reversal process B&W, do you
reversal process it like normal (to achieve normal looking B&W slides) or
do you develop them to a lower contrast in anticipation of the enlarging
stage and the contrast issue we've been touching on? Thanks everyone!

-Francesco

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Dave S (fotodave) <fotodave at dsoemarko.us>wrote:

> Francesco,
>
> Tri-X is good for your original. It has a flatter curve on the highlight
> area (I am talking about negative here, so the highlight of the scene, or
> the dark area of the negative). If exposed and developed properly, one has
> a
> nice highlight (the Ansel Adam look). When Kodak came out with TMax, many
> photographers are not used to it because they use the same zone system
> calibration but found that with TMax they lost highlights. That is because
> TMax has  a straight characteristic curve.
>
> But Tri-X might not be a good choice for interpositive. As you know, Tri-X
> has pronounced grains, so if you use Tri-X for originals and then Tri-X for
> interpositives and the final negatives, you will have some cross grain
> problem (sort of similar in concept with Moire pattern except this is
> random).
>
> If you like the look of Tri-X, I think you can have good result with Tri-X
> original, TMax interpositive, lith film for final negative (as it is
> cheaper).
>
> As for contact or enlargement, if you are after impressionistic look, then
> it probably doesn't matter. If you want the sharpest and most accurate
> duplication, the best result could be obtained by enlarging interpositive
> to
> final size, then contact printing the final negative. The next would be
> contact printing the interpositive and then enlarging the final negative.
> Still next would be enlarging the interpositive (to an intermediate size,
> e.
> g. from 35mm to 4x5), then enlarging again to the final negative size.
> Though people describe the last one as losing too much sharpness, I have
> done it quite successfully (at least I was happy about the result).
>
> For the exposure, if your original negatives are all nicely callibrated,
> exposed and developed, maybe you can use the simple exposure as you
> mentioned. Otherwise you will have determine the exposure time by each
> negative. You can use a densitometer or an exposure meter to determine the
> exposure. The important thing is not to lose any highlight or shadow in the
> interpositive because once it is lost, you cannot recover it in the
> subsequent steps.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf
> Of
> Francesco Fragomeni
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2012 6:38 PM
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Creating Film Negative by Enlarging a Film/ Slide
> Positive
>
> Dave,
> Most of the instructions I've found list TMAX 100 and 400 as good films for
> reversal. What about Tri-X? Does it work as well? I've always loved Tri-X
> for 35mm and have quite a lot of it so if it works with this film that
> saves
> me some money and waste. Let me know your thoughts. Also, I've always been
> a
> B&W shooter so I'm not working with slide film at the moment, i was just
> considering the switch for this particular purpose although reversal seems
> like it might just be easier (and less expensive). When you refer to
> negative-positive-negative approach do you mean making regular negs in
> camera and then contact printing them to positive and then finally
> enlarging
> the interpositives to larger film negatives? I've entertained this idea as
> well and would be interested in hearing more on the topic. I figure I would
> cut up a developed roll and lay the strips out on an 8x10 sheet of film
> like
> making a contact sheet and expose the whole roll at once and then develop
> the 8x10 sheet after which I'll have my positives that can be cut and
> enlarged onto bigger film. Is this how you'd go about it?
>
> Also, is there a best way to approach exposure in the enlarger/ light
> source
> when contact printing the negs to produce positives and then the subsequent
> enlargement to big film negatives? I was told it was as simple as laying a
> grey card in the film plane (on top of contact printing frame for neg to
> pos
> phase and under the enlarger lens for the enlargement phase) and taking a
> meter reading at the iso of the film and then stop down and expose. Is this
> correct? Seems quite simple if this is the case.
>
>
> Geoff,
> I too have used 8x10 primarily. I actually just stepped up to 11x14 and
> 8x20. I love big cameras and big film but I also love my 35mm Leica lenses
> and very much still enjoy shooting 35mm. However, I am a contact printer
> and
> prefer to work with the contact printing workflow far more then enlarging
> and on top of that the materials I use require contact printing in almost
> every case. So, I've set out to figure out how to enlarge these 35mm negs
> of
> mine :)
>
> Would you mind sharing your reversal process as well? I'd be interested to
> hear it.
>
> I'm familiar with the copy-print process but in this case it not the method
> I'd like to use. Also, the waxed paper techniques are something I'm very
> familiar with. I spent a long time working exclusively with paper negative
> processes. Great stuff but not ideal for my purposes here.
>
>
> Thanks for the insight everyone, I look forward to reading your responses
> and further comments!
>
>
> Anyone else listening,
> bellow are a few links to reversal process explanations and instructions
> that I'm looking at:
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/wi/spqrspqr/photo/bwreversal.html
> http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/en/photo/slidesbw.htm
> http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/formulary_tech/01-0600.pdf
> http://www.bonavolta.ch/hobby/files/Kodak%20j-1.pdf
>
> -Francesco
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Geoff Chaplin <geoff at geoffgallery.net
> >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
> >
> > Skype: geoffchaplin1611
> > UK mobile (英国の携帯電話): +44(0) 7770 787069 Japan mobile (日本の携帯電
> 話): +81(0)
> > 90 6440 7037 Japan land line / fax (日本の電話とファクス): +81(0) 166 92
> 5855
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
> > [mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On
> > Behalf Of Francesco Fragomeni
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 1:11 AM
> > To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
> > Subject: [alt-photo] Creating Film Negative by Enlarging a Film/ Slide
> > Positive
> >
> > I'm interested in enlarging positive film (any slide/ chrome film or
> > B&W reversal processed film) onto a larger piece of traditional B&W
> > negative film (not lith) for the purpose of producing enlarged
> > negatives suitable for alt-process and Azo. I know people do this but
> > I've had a difficult time finding a solid explanation and instructions
> > for how to go about it since it is far more common to scan these days
> > which I am very aware of but not interested in with this particular
> > case.
> >
> > Basically, can I expose/ enlarge slide (positive) film onto regular
> > B&W negative film and achieve an enlarged negative? Is the higher
> > contrast of slide film helpful in this situation or a hinderance?
> > Would it be better to contact print B&W negative film (much lower
> > contrast) onto another piece of B&W neg film to produce a positive,
> > develop to the same contrast as the original, and then enlarge that
> > lower contrast film-interpositive onto a larger sheet of B&W neg film to
> achieve the enlarged negative?
> >
> > I'm interested in this specific process of enlarging film positives to
> > larger negatives, not the alternatives so lets please try to stay on
> > topic and not go astray with conversations of digital negatives,
> > duplicating film, etc., although if reversal processing your original
> > B&W neg to positive plays a role that might be worth explaining.
> >
> > Thank you!!
> >
> > -Francesco Fragomeni
> > www.francescofragomeni.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo
>