Re: Lith film

I do not have any experience using lith film for direct enlarged
negatives( positive to negative), but the reversal process with the APHS
lithio film gives wonderful results with a Dmax that can be tuned from 2.5
or so to as low as one wishes.
Marek
Houston, Texas
> 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 09:22:18 2003