Re: Lith film

I agree with Clay. I have made prints from lith negatives that had
every bit of the tonal range and subtleties of tonal range that are
in my large format in-camera negatives. But it took a lot of work to
make the negatives.

However, Jeffrey makes a good point about digital negatives. In my
opinion a much better case can be made at this time for digital
enlarged negatives than for enlarged negatives with either lith film,
or for that matter with other continuous tone films. And although
posterization can be an issue with some scenes with 8-bit files
there are many images where it is not a problem.

And speaking of 16-bit files, my understanding is that Photoshop 8
will allow layers and some other tools to work in 16-bit that were
previously limited to 8-bit. Does anyone know if it will also allow
printing in 16-bit?

Sandy

>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 11:33:24 2003