Re: Lith film

I really don't agree that the lith film approach is a total dead-end
for making enlarged negatives. I have seen real-life results from
several workers (e.g. Stuart Melvin, Bob Herbst, Michael Kravit) who
are producing long scale pt/pd type enlarged negatives using APHS that
are very fine indeed, and retain all the subtleties in tone that you
could want for this process. Naturally, it takes a little practice and
a lot of care, but dismissing this approach completely is a little
premature. For instance, check out :

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/
Stuart%20Melvin's%20Pyro%20System.html

Clay

On Dec 11, 2003, at 8:52 AM, Monnoyer Philippe wrote:

> Jeffrey,
>
> We're tuned on the same wavelength. I also pay attention that all the
> tonalities of my original negative are transferred into the final
> print. Therefore digital negs are also an issue in terms of dots and
> resolution. I kept the hope that somewhere, a given lith film would
> allow me to play at low cost, that I just picked the wrong ones to
> test. I just received the curves of continuous tones processed lith
> film (APH) and they are what I expected. They would certainly fit a
> cyanotype paper curve or other contrasted printing techniques but
> certainly not Pt or Pd. The density range is only 1.1
> It's also possible to boost it by sulfiding, but this wouldn't go
> beyond a density range of about 2. I need a density range of 3.0
> To enlarge my negs, I screened the market and found two films. I use
> now an orthochromatic direct duplicating film with real halftones. I
> adjust the contrast for any process, and it's one step.
> I posted it in the past. The size are limited to 10x10" an dthe cost
> is higher than lith film.
>
> I keep the lith film idea for cyanotype tough.
>
> Thank you all for your posts on this,
>
> Philippe
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey D. Mathias [mailto:jeffrey.d.mathias@att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 15:22
> To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: Lith film
>
>
> Monnoyer Philippe wrote:
>> I see a lot of people are talking about lith film.
>> I'm not much aware of the previous discussions on this topic since
>> the beginning of the list but I'm curious:
>> I have a limited experience with lith film, but the few I tested NEVER
>> gave me a long range of tones suiting palladiotype or platinotype.
>> I even used very very soft developping agents and dilutions.
>> The Dmax can be high, but a long halftone range was impossible.
>> I should check the manufacturing specifications of such films,
>> but in the meantime, let me propose 3 hypothesis ...
>
> Philippe,
> Your experience with lith film being limited in tones is like my own.
> For the Pt/Pd process lith film alone will not provide the subtle tones
> capable of being printed with that process. Although, some
> photographers still use it, especially to get a larger negative, it
> seems they are not interested in achieving those subtle tonalities
> (this
> shows in their prints, not that it is good or bad, but that it shows).
> Lith films are useful as masks to add some densities to areas of the
> image (either in the highlights - negatives or in the shadows -
> positives. But a good base film with excellent tonal latitude is still
> important to have.
>
> It seems that some like to find shortcuts, and most of the time this is
> evidenced in their prints. The good graphic arts films have almost all
> been discontinued, but there is some hope if one is willing to work in
> the dark. Instead of the ortho films that are now gone, try using a
> regular panchromatic film (many still availiable in large sizes). By
> going through the positive/negative production route and adding masks
> where needed, one can still make a superior enlarged negative.
>
> Another alternative for large negatives is the Kodak Duraclear material
> which comes in wide rolls and has very good dmax and tonal quality (but
> not as good as some B&W films). One still has to work in the dark, but
> processing in best by machine.
>
> I still have found digital to be not there yet due to posterization
> issues, but it should not be long before at least 16-bit depth can be
> printed on a transparent substrate. At least then a competitive
> comparison can be made between a digital and a quality analog negative.
>
> --
> Jeffrey D. Mathias
> http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
>
>
Received on Thu Dec 11 09:03:13 2003