Re: enlarged negs using lith film (reply)
Hamish Stewart & Sophie Colmont (Hamish.Sophie@wanadoo.fr)
Fri, 29 May 1998 08:17:53 +0200
>Subject: Re: enlarged negs using lith film (reply)
>Sent: 27/5/98 8:37
>Received: 27/5/98 22:52
>From: Judy Seigel, jseigel@panix.com
>To: Hamish Stewart & Sophie Colmont, Hamish.Sophie@wanadoo.fr
>CC: Mike Roberts, mdrobert@echidna.stu.cowan.edu.au
> Alt-photo-process, alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>
>
>
>On Wed, 27 May 1998, Hamish Stewart & Sophie Colmont wrote:
>> have used both lith film and DD over the years and they have their good
>> and bad points. I work exclusively with Gum bichromate and I'm happy with
>> the results from using both types of film. The DD film though expensive
>> is the easiest route and I have found the results with this film are
>> excellent. It also comes on a thick base which makes it much better to
>
>Hamish, when you say DD, or Direct Duplicating film, do you mean Kodak S0
>339, replacement for 4168? I understand that it has in turn been
>discontinued, at least in this country, replaced by a film whose ID I know
>not, but which I've heard bad reports of. Any facts out there?
>
>Judy
>
I checked on this last November and the film was still SO-339, though to
get it in Australia you had to indent order. If the film has since been
updated I haven't heard anything. But when I used to use 4168 it was an
excellent film and easy to use (though expensive). As my recent gum
prints from lith negs have indicated this method works well, and though
you have to do the intermediate positive step at least the film is
cheaper and you can get the film in sizes larger than 8x10. I also
reminded of another method of making negs which involves dong the
positive on commercial film - developed rather heavy and soft, and then
printing this positive onto lith film... And after seeing Denis
Berthier's large (and very beautiful) Gum prints here in Paris, I have to
start exploring larger multiple coat gum prints
Cheers
Hamish