From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 01/31/01-10:05:41 PM Z
Hi Christina, Thanks for the plug -- and for the good info. A couple of
comments and questions:
> When the retouching is complete, contact print the diapositive to
> another piece of photo paper, emulsion to emulsion, using glass to flatten
> the sandwich if needs be. This results in your final paper negative, which
> can also be retouched. The negative is also printed emulsion to emulsion to
> produce the final print, and thus the image will "right" itself.
> Save yourself a step in this process and print a slide onto RC
> paper to make your negative. If you do this, remember to print the
> slide emulsion side up in the enlarger to make sure the image is not
> reversed in the final print, since you will only be doing two
> back-and-forth steps instead of three.
For what it's worth, if you use lith film instead of photo paper, it's so
thin doesn't matter which side is "right reading." That is, you can print
emulsion up without any noticeable lost of sharp.
> There is some disagreement as to what creates more of the paper
> texture to be visible in the final print. One camp says that the
> waxing of the negative, below, actually makes the paper grain stand
> out more, and that to decrease paper grain you must print your first
> diapositive through the back of the paper uppermost, and then again
> make your paper negative with the back of the paper against the
> emulsion side of the diapositive. The grain will thus cancel each
> other out. You can experiment with this. I would assume, since you
> are trying this process in the first place, that texture in your final
> image is not a bad thing. It's not as if you can expect an f64 print
> from a paper negative!
I've read the claim that THICKER paper (ie., doubleweight fibre) shows
less grain because it cancels itself out. But I believe if you use RC
paper no fibre to speak of... or that's what they say. I haven't used it.
But then the RC doesn't take pencil on the back very well -- unless you
mat spray it, maybe?
> Others say that to make the negative more transparent, contrastier, and
> the final image less affected by the paper texture, you can use one of the
> following number of ways:
> 1) Peel the paper backing from the plastic emulsion front of the RC print.
> Tape the edges afterwards with clear tape to keep the negative from curling.
> Or,
> 2) Coat the front of the RC print with acrylic medium a number of times, and
> then soak and rub off the backing paper. Or,
I HAVE done that peeling and rubbing, trust me it's easier to expose onto
lith film. In fact it's easier to carve your negative out of glass. I
suspect those methods were devised when lith was still unknown and/or
expensive. Except if you're Jack Fulton. He can do it. Get him to come to
your house & do yours.
> 3) Using an iron, iron the print to warm it, and then rub with a paraffin
> stick to melt the paraffin onto the negative. Iron again, between blotter
> paper, smoothly and evenly. You can do this on top of a cookie sheet lined
> with blotter paper, or on top of silicone release paper (the kind you use to
> bake cookies), or regular paper. Or,
> 4) Use mineral or vegetable oil to make the print transparent. This may be
> messier, and may have to be reapplied with time as it evaporates. Or,
Those do work, why am I being so difficult about waxing? (Don't answer,
rhetorical question.)
> 5) Use beeswax to wax the print as above; a cheap source for this is 'toilet
> seal' in the hardware store. Or,
I have it from Gene Robkin, good old country farmer, maestro of all
trades, that toilet seal is NOT beeswax, tho he allows that toilet seal
might make sublime negatives. (Then again, he says it might not.) (As
reported P-F #5.)
> 6) Use one of these formulae for your transparentizer: 1 oz. castor oil
> mixed with 6 oz. alcohol. Or, 4 oz. paraffin mixed with 1 oz. linseed
> oil: melt at 176? and soak print; let dry between blotting paper. Or, use
> 5 parts mineral oil to 1 part alcohol. Or, rub in white vaseline on the
> wrong side of the print, using a clean rag and allow to stand.
Those sound promising -- probably smear less & do away with the hot
iron... Is it safe to heat linseed oil & paraffin on flame? Maybe
microwave?
> The waxing process can be done easily with negatives made with Xerox or
> laser printer toner. With ink jet "negatives", you don't have to wax them.
> You can print them out on regular paper and use as is; you can take your
In my tests, inkjet neg WITHOUT waxing took 4 -5 times as long to expose
as waxed. Some papers may be less dense, but I think you'd still want to
wax.
> slide to Kinko's and have them reverse the image to a negative and have it
> printed out for you, to save having to make a positive and then a negative.
> Or, you can print the ink jet negative on acetate, for a clearer base.
Have you and yours had any luck with that last? I had some frosted
acetate and it made a *surprisingly* clean ramp. No blobs, no texture. But
it didn't give enough density for most media -- only to 0.7 log density
tops. Some folks use TWO acetates bound together, however.
> A good material for printing desktop negatives is Pictorico OHP
> transparency film. This material has a special ceramic coating, which takes
> inkjet ink very well without a lot of dot gain
> (bleeding). It also seems to dry very well. Refer to:
> http://www.pictorico.com/lproduct.asp?id=4
Unfortunately, that seems not to come above 8x10, but must be tried, maybe
the company will oblige larger, because that would lift all boats.
Mortensen technique:
> 1. Set up the enlarger with a negative focused and
ready to print. Mark
> exactly where the negative will project.
> 2. In the darkroom and under safelight, take a piece of fresh unexposed
> enlarging paper and soak it in a tray of developer for 3 minutes.
> 3. Lay the wet enlarging paper face up on a sheet of glass or similar
> material and squeegee the excess developer off. Use a paper towel to blot
> up any spots or runs. Work quickly to prevent staining.
> 4. Place the glass and paper under the enlarger, registering it accurately
> with your marks.
> 5. Turn on the enlarger.
> 6. Nothing will happen for about 20 seconds; soon after, you will see the
> shadow areas of the print darken, then the midtones, and then the
> highlights. The print will go from negative to gray to positive as you
> watch it.
> 7. When you think it is done, place in stop, fix, wash and dry. This is
> the diapositive. It will have soft shadows and look weird.
Christina, I hate to embarrass myself in front of the whole class -- but I
don't get that. I mean with all due respect to M. Mortensen, what's the
point of making wet mess full of pitfalls for a pos, when you could just
make a simple pos the regular way?
> 8. Work the back of the print, if needs be, with a charcoal pencil to
> adjust the print. Fix charcoal marks with a fixative spray.
> 10. Place this diapositive and a fresh sheet of unexposed enlarging paper
> in a tray of water for three minutes.
> 11. Place the two sheets of wet paper, the unexposed sheet and the
> diapositive, emulsion to emulsion, and squeegee them to the glass. Make
> sure the diapositive is on top.
> 12. Expose through the back of the diapositive under the enlarger light
> (the negative has been removed from the enlarger).
> 13.Put in stop, fix, and dry.
> 14. Use charcoal pencil again to dodge highlights, if needs be, on this now
> negative.
> 15. Follow steps 10-13 to make prints (or just contact print your dried
> negative onto dry photo paper).
Whew !Thanking you kindly for the rundown.... and the reminder that there
is LIFE beyond Epson --- Analog, analog, analog ! Hooray !
love from
Analog Woman
(just kidding, I really LOVE digital, grrrrr)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 02/05/01-11:45:24 AM Z CST