RE: Duplicating film

Glenn Cannon ((glennon@netcom.com)")
Wed, 20 Mar 1996 00:39:01 -0800

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 1996 06:27:47 +1000
Reply-to: alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au
From: Chesapeake Bay Foundation <cbf@mtolympus.ari.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <alt-photo-process@vast.unsw.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Duplicating film

At 04:12 AM 3/20/96 +1000, you wrote:
> In leafing through a Freestyle Catalogue, though, I noticed a
> direct positive film which is considerably less expensive than
> SO-339. The folks at the Kodak Technical Help Line
> (1-800-242-2424) guessed that Freestyle has cut into sheets an
> aerial film which comes in long rolls. I don't have the
> details here, but I can get them if you like. You may want to
> consider this option.

I tried this film and found it to be unsatisfactory. It lacks contrast,
though I have been developing it with straight Dektol, as opposed to a lith
developer (I was told that Dektol would work fine).

george

Hello,

We are using this dupe film at Cypress College (Orange County,
California) with GREAT success, by using a developer made by Lauders.
It's more concentrate than straight Dektol, but we mix it in varied
dilutions (from 1:1 to 1:30) and get acceptable results for most
processes. Has anyone else used it?

Glenn
glennon@netcom.com
http://www.newart.com/cannon