11X14 FILM..large volume processing??

[PHOTOTONE]

I know most of you use a processing drum, or trays to process ULF film. I have deep tanks for 8x10 and smaller, with stainless hangars, and the convenience of this is habit-forming.

I was wondering, if anyone would know, what was used in the past, or currently at larger studio/labs to process larger volumes of 11x14 b/w film? Were there ever any hangars made for 11x14? Where I was raised, and continue to live the only 11x14 camera I have ever seen is the one I own. So I have no reference by asking any local retired person, etc. Never been any largish commercial labs around here, just me, with my smallish lab for my studio.

 

[CBG]

Here's one:

http://glennview.com/jpgs/dkrm2/processing/hangers/8x10/small_1.jpg

from this page: www.glennview.com/dkrm2.htm

Best,

C

 

[jimgalli]

The 14X17 neg holders like the glennview 11X14 one for a hundred bucks are common because that's how x-ray films used to get developed in a small tank. I have 15X18X3 inch stainless tanks at work that we used for radiography films. The pinchers that hold the film leave definite permanent marks. Do some ebay searches for 11X14 x-ray apparatus.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hewes can probably supply new hangers.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I'm not specifically looking for hangers, rather I am curious as to how studios and labs that commercially processed 11x14 b/w film used to do it in quantity.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not specifically looking for hangers, rather I am curious as to how studios and labs that commercially processed 11x14 b/w film used to do it in quantity.

On hangers. That's why Hewes (and others) made/make them. In nitrogen-burst tanks, if they were doing E6, which was vastly more common than B+W. Very, very little 11x14 B+W continuous tone was processed commercially anywhere, because it wasn't a popular commercial format. When I got my first 11x14, about 25 years ago, there were hardly any films available. The very few people who shot 11x14 inch B+W would normally process it themselves, probably in trays.

After all, who used 11x14 B+W? And what for? My own suspicion is that by the time plates had died out, commercial use of 11x14 mono was negligible and amateur use was smaller. ULF is quite a recent fashion, for most people.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've read that furniture studios in the Hickory, North Carolina area (where there is a large furniture industry) used 11x14" B&W as a proofing medium for color.

Brett Weston, of course, shot 11x14" B&W, but I don't think he was setting any trends in format size.

I suspect there was some commercial use for 11x14" for formal portraits.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suspect there was some commercial use for 11x14" for formal portraits.

Dear David,

Also 12x15 -- but I suspect, as I said, that with the passing of plates, this declined mightily. The furniture factory story sounds very likely indeed, in which case I'm sure they'd have used hangers, just as they would have for colour. What I'm doubting is that there were ever many commercial labs (as distinct from in-house facilities) that actually did process large amounts of 11x14 inch black and white film.

Of course there were plate-hangers too...

Cheers,

R.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

All my 4x5" and 5x7" film hangers are also plate hangers.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

A commercial use for 11x14 b/w film, and I have done this, is shooting a large enough bw negative of a product to easily do an amberlith background dropout frisket, which lays on the base side of the negative, blocking the background from the contact print. Thus rendering the product floating on white. B/W product photos are almost a thing of the past now, though. So are amberlith friskets. Ah, progress.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Black and White 11x14 film was still available in various emulsions from Kodak up into the 1990's, so there must have been "some" commercial use, other than fine art..

I would assume the current availability of 11x14 is directly and solely due to its use by fine-art and alternate printing enthusiasts.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Most all large commercial labs ran B&W 11x14 on refrema continuous dip and dunk systems.
Toronto B&W here would probably be able to do this for you if they have the hangers.
The Commercial lab I worked at in the 80's was able to do 16x20 B&W film as well as 11x14 and was done on a daily basis.
This was a normal service and I would imagine in the large commercial centers of the world you should be able to source out large volume processing for 11x14.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Please understand, I am not looking for a lab to do this kind of processing. If anything, I guess, I am looking for surplus gear for me to do it for myself. But my curiosity is such that I wonder how labs did it. Tray developing is not something I see large commercial labs doing.

 

[Roger Hicks]

A commercial use for 11x14 b/w film, and I have done this, is shooting a large enough bw negative of a product to easily do an amberlith background dropout frisket, which lays on the base side of the negative, blocking the background from the contact print. Thus rendering the product floating on white. B/W product photos are almost a thing of the past now, though. So are amberlith friskets. Ah, progress.

It was also quite common to do a good-size B+W print; blow out the b/g with opaque white; and make a copy neg from the print. I've done both (interneg and Rubylith/neg blocking) and my impression, from my reading and 30+ years in the business, is that a Rubylith block was less common. At least in Europe.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Black and White 11x14 film was still available in various emulsions from Kodak up into the 1990's, so there must have been "some" commercial use, other than fine art..

I would assume the current availability of 11x14 is directly and solely due to its use by fine-art and alternate printing enthusiasts.

Yes, but ONLY Kodak (God bless 'em). As far as I recall, no-one else offered 11x14 as a stock item in the 1980s, when I got my first 11x14 camera, though Ilford may still have had 12x15.

I'd wholeheartedly agree with the second para.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

It was also quite common to do a good-size B+W print; blow out the b/g with opaque white; and make a copy neg from the print. I've done both (interneg and Rubylith/neg blocking) and my impression, from my reading and 30+ years in the business, is that a Rubylith block was less common. At least in Europe.

Cheers,

R.

Ah, but the thing about doing a copy neg, is that it is quite possible to get a "tone" in the white of the resulting print from the copy negative if you aren't careful in printing. With the rubylith, or amberlith frisket sandwich, or opaque blocking of the negative with opaqueing fluid and a artists brush, you can get absolutely white background on prints. I used to use rubylith adhesive tape and an Xacto knife to block backgrounds out of 4x5 product shots all the time. For color I would use the silver-foil tape used to bind glass mounted slides. It cut very well with Xacto. Touch up with opaquing fluid.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, but the thing about doing a copy neg, is that it is quite possible to get a "tone" in the white of the resulting print from the copy negative if you aren't careful in printing. With the rubylith, or amberlith frisket sandwich, or opaque blocking of the negative with opaqueing fluid and a artists brush, you can get absolutely white background on prints. I used to use rubylith adhesive tape and an Xacto knife to block backgrounds out of 4x5 product shots all the time. For color I would use the silver-foil tape used to bind glass mounted slides. It cut very well with Xacto. Touch up with opaquing fluid.

True enough. I'm not saying it was better -- as you say, a masked big neg is much easier to print -- just that in my limited experience (professionally mid-70s onwards, and from reading, maybe 30 years before) the retouched print/copy neg route was at least as common. People often do what's easier or cheaper, rather than what's best. Quite unlike modern digi, then...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Ok . I understand, Large labs used and still do use dip and dunk auto processors with hangers to hold the film.
If you are looking for a 16x20 refrema machine to do this , it is not impossible to find but could set you back anywhere 500-8000 dollars.
Otherwise you could have tanks made from stainless steel and hangers to hold the film and do dip and dunk by hand.
Most professional labs used the auto method of film processing.

Please understand, I am not looking for a lab to do this kind of processing. If anything, I guess, I am looking for surplus gear for me to do it for myself. But my curiosity is such that I wonder how labs did it. Tray developing is not something I see large commercial labs doing.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

True enough. I'm not saying it was better -- as you say, a masked big neg is much easier to print -- just that in my limited experience (professionally mid-70s onwards, and from reading, maybe 30 years before) the retouched print/copy neg route was at least as common. People often do what's easier or cheaper, rather than what's best. Quite unlike modern digi, then...

Cheers,

R.

Those retouched copy negatives were used on semi-automated large format contact printers for churning out thousands of identical prints. Think..head-shot composit with type for budding actors.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Those retouched copy negatives were used on semi-automated large format contact printers for churning out thousands of identical prints. Think..head-shot composit with type for budding actors.

Yup... Believe it or not, I've shot those too. But again, the UK route was often small-format original (up to 4x5 inch); retouched print (a lot easier to find print retouchers than neg retouchers, as time went on); copy neg...

For actors' 'comps', though, that's not been the style in the UK for decades. Roller easels and enlargements were the norm (cf The Stage, the actors' lifeline). And, of course, even 1000-off 8x10 was more than any budding actor could usually afford: 250-off or 500-off 5x7 was often nearer the mark. Cash in advance!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chazzy]

Ah, but the thing about doing a copy neg, is that it is quite possible to get a "tone" in the white of the resulting print from the copy negative if you aren't careful in printing. With the rubylith, or amberlith frisket sandwich, or opaque blocking of the negative with opaqueing fluid and a artists brush, you can get absolutely white background on prints. I used to use rubylith adhesive tape and an Xacto knife to block backgrounds out of 4x5 product shots all the time. For color I would use the silver-foil tape used to bind glass mounted slides. It cut very well with Xacto. Touch up with opaquing fluid.

Did you lay the rubylith over the negative and trace the outline with the Xacto knife, and if so, how did you prevent the knife from damaging the negative underneath? I've never used the stuff before, but who knows when it might be useful?