The easiest but the most difficult...
>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
positives are very difficult to judge by beginners
>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.
Carbon likes negs "with real meat" in them. If you don't have a
densitometer handy you know you have a good neg for carbon when you can
make a good quality silver bromide print on grade #1 or #0 paper.
>> 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.
Cheap film for small prints is false economy. If, and only if it can be
made to work, it makes sense with large sizes only.
Luis Nadeau
NADEAUL@NBNET.NB.CA
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/nadeaul/