Re: RE: Duplicating film

Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Mon, 25 Mar 1996 01:27:29 -0500 (EST)

On Mon, 25 Mar 1996 LESMD@aol.com wrote:

> Glenn, Judy et al,
> I agree the Freestyle film is useful in making enlarge negatives. The problem
> I have found is if you low the contrast enough with diluted Dektol you lose
> the shadow detail. In those cases I end up making three (or sometimes more)
> negatives ; one for the high tones, a second for mid-range tones and a third
> for the low tones. These are than printed in registration with the
> appropriate pigment gum concentrations.

Sounds like a good idea ... But I'm not quite clear when you say "making 3
negatives" & printing them in register, whether you mean ganged up, or one
after the other. Although it is not writ in fiery letters in the sky that
I MUST do one-coat gum, I fell the call right now, and so wouldn't resort
to that (yet) myself ... tho I like the idea to pass along.

How large are you working? What are your exposure times like? For 8 by
10 (at school) students were getting one to two minutes. We had another
duplicating film from a place in California called Photo Warehouse, which
may have been old x-ray film. It gave a better continuous tone with finer
grain, but times for 11 by 14, were eternal -- like 10 minutes. The kids
went out for coffee! Don't know if they still have it, but if you're
working smaller (or have a stronger exposing light), I recommend it.

However, something else occurs -- wouldn't it be easier to do a positive
and negative which could probably handle the whole range in two
operations and two pieces of film, than the duplicating film 3 or more times?
Tho perhaps you like the tone separation for gum, making a virtue of
necessity?

Judy