> I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you using continuous tone
> negatives or are you using lith film developed as "continuous tone"?
OK, guess I'm not being too clear. I have been experimenting with a
single paper negative. That was the easiest way for me to get an enlarged
negative. Works OK, but the resulting image is a bit too soft. I'm not
certain yet it it is my carbon tissue formulation, exposure, light source,
or the contrast range of the paper negative. Several posts to this list
over the last few years about making enlarged negatives has turned up
various methods, but one common suggestion was to use the Freestyle Lith
film developed as "continuous tone". I've been skeptical, but since this
stuff is relatively inexpensive, I figured it was worth a try. I've made
a postive that looks pretty good, but haven't tried making a negative or
carbon print from it yet.
In the meantime, I built a 4x5 based on the John Layton article in View
Camera magazine. I tried printing one of the negatives from that last
week. The resulting carbon print was also too soft, but I'm certain that
I didn't have enough pigment in the tissue. I was experimenting to see
how little pigment I could get away with. Will probably mix up a new
batch tonight to continue tinkering.
> I have yet to see *excellent* carbons from lith films. This is not to say
> it's impossible but I have yet to see one. If you can't get excellent
> results from lith film it may not be because of your carbon technique. It
> could be the film.
That is good to know. I bought a small box of the Lith film just to try.
I'm still not sure that it will work either.
- Wayde
(wallen@boulder.nist.gov)