garimo (omirag@cruzio.com)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:26:42 -0700 (PDT)
>Aloha Mac and All,
> If you are on a budget you probably don't want to hear this. I have used a
>pack of Kodak SO132(direct duplicating) that runs about $4 per 8x10,(no
>larger sizes available) with some good results. It is SLOW, exposures
>running about 10-15 minutes from my 2.25" negs, development time is also
>long, 10-15 minutes in paper developer. I have had better luck with the
>SO132 than the Lawless Litho reversal process, unfortunately considering the
>sizes available and the $$$ difference. I can't seem to get a good range
>with the litho, the mid tones come out flat. Whereas just about every neg I
>have printed on the SO132 is printing well.
>Any other experiences out there with the SO132?
>Good luck, Jeff
Hello,
My limited experience has been to develop the So132 in HC110 at about
1:15. The results seem to be a much shorter exposure time and faster
developing time than you mentioned. Also the contrast seems a bit lower
with more detail than what is achieved with paper developers.
My enlarged negative for the cyanotype magnolias in the traveling
portfolio B was made with this film.
So132 has sofar for me been the fastest, easiest and way most
expensive way of making large negatives...not considering the cost of
large format cameras & lenses.
Another less expensive way is...take your small format negative to
your local lab, let them make you a same size positive for around $3.00
and then use it to print on to a film like the Kodak fine grain
positive film 7302, which is much, much cheeper than the So132 and also
is available in sizes larger than 8x10.
So many possibilities.
Garimo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:38