RE: Lith film

Clay,

I agree. I think I have been able to produce fine alt prints (albumen,
kallitype, ziatype) from in-camera lith (APH)negatives which have (to my
eye) all the subtle tonalities I was looking for. Admittingly I did not a
side by side comparison between "normal" pan film and lith film both
processed for an alt process. I did try once for silver gelatine, and the
results were comparable (except for the orthochromatic nature of lith film
ofcourse..)

Best,

Cor

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay [mailto:wcharmon@wt.net]
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 4:03 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: 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 09:23:11 2003