Any way to make analog prints from slides?

[Paul Howell]

I tired to make internegatives from Porta 400, contrast is about the same as 160 but a bit faster, used a slide duplicator with an Miranda EE. This is not the top of line with built in flash and soft box, a bellows attachment that is used in the sun or with photo lamps. I bracketed 1 stop over and under. Contrast is a problem, lost of the shadow details when I got the highlights right. To fix I would need to make a mask, and register to line up the two negatives, I gave up and had my slides printed at the local lab. If you really want to make a quality print you can find either ortho or high contrast copy 35mm film at Photowarehouse and figure out a way to make a print registration negative carrier.

 

[DREW WILEY]

So I guess an old thread was revived? I don't deal in hypotheticals in this case, but real experience. Portra 160 is by far the best interneg film available, but ideally you need to contrast mask the chrome film to match the contrast range. I have also made very good internegs with Ektar, but only from very low contrast chromes; otherwise, it's not realistic for this kind of use. Portra 400 would seem a little off in hue balance and too grainy, and that extra speed means nothing in a lab application where you can control the light intensity anyway.

None of this is easy. It takes quite a bit commitment and experimentation to do correctly; but all that has personally been worth it for me. I only do it for select large format film originals. The masking film has to be panchromatic and precisely balanced or else you're skewing all the values. FP4 is a good masking film choice for large format film, the finer grain of TMax100 makes it the best choice for small originals, although it's excellent for bigger sizes too, just a more expensive. Ortho or ortho litho makes zero sense.

 

[Paul Howell]

That's why I gave up and sent to a commercial lab for prints. Good thing I didn't bother to try making a mask as I would have thought a high contrast film just to mask the deepest shadows, now I understand your point.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

I guess that most aren't shooting slide film for projection, but as I intend to shoot/develop my own film and print in the darkroom, using a hybrid process doesn't work for me (scanning/printing inkjet).

So, maybe just look into a decent medium format slide projector and enjoy your slides, as they were mostly used/intended for !

I'd like to see prints, but it's not a standart process regardless (internegatives or RA-4 reversal), so I can live with just projection...

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've heard the hypothetical ultimate in print quality being described as attainting something equivalent to putting a "slide show in a frame", but in the reflected light sense. There's nothing quite like a true old-fashioned slide show.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

I've heard the hypothetical ultimate in print quality being described as attainting something equivalent to putting a "slide show in a frame", but in the reflected light sense. There's nothing quite like a true old-fashioned slide show.

I'd really like to see a slide projected, but sometimes a more "permanent" record, like a print, is worth for long term viewing.

Is it true that slides can't be projected for too long, because they start to fade over time ?

I've heard that using glass slide mounts prevents this issue, not too sure.

 

[Sergey Ko]

I have a lot of slides instead negatives. Modern labs are ALWAYS print through scanning, so it makes practical no difference what is source. Here is the scan of the print, from 6x4,5 Fuji Velvia, shot with Fuji GA645Zi, printed 24x30 on Fuji color paper:

KoTao by Sergey Kozlov, on Flickr

 

[DREW WILEY]

Mounting slides in Anti-Newton glass keeps them flat for sake of better center to edge projection sharpness, and also protects them somewhat from handling. Plenty of UV and heat will still get through to affect them. The longer they are projected, and how often, determines the lifespan of the dyes, besides how specific films might differ in that respect. But with glass mounts, it's especially important to store the slides in a well ventilated rather than humid area, to prevent fungus on the emulsion. I've used Gepe 6X7 glass mounts, as well as 35mm. I don't think 6x9 mounts were ever made, but could be wrong. Flat-field projection lenses are needed, rather than the usual kind.

Back in the day of professional slide shows, often with very powerful projection lights for sake of big audiences, they often ordered duplicate slides of key images to protect the originals from fading. The quality of lab dupes varied from OK to rather miserable, and was somewhat costly when properly done. But having a relatively pristine original not only allowed the possibility of more duplicates later on, but of potentially making prints for sale from that particular image. The special characteristics of extant duping films allowed this to be done without masking, often using some kind of instant flashing device instead. Masking would have been way too expensive anyway for such volume applications, though I personally prefer it quality-wise. Now the contrast curves are commercially controlled via scanning and software, as in the previous post. Masking is more a "home-cooking" option today. But nuthin' beats real home cookin'.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Going through old family photographs from the 50's I came across some prints with excellent color reproduction - made from slides and 2x3" in size. The quality was nothing like the miserable prints available in the 60's and 70's. If you wanted a good print from a slide in the malaise era you had to pay for a 6x9cm internegative and a then get a regular-ole color print.

On the back of the prints in the family collection it said "Kodachrome Print." Not at all sure how they did it, you can put a Kodachrome emulsion on paper but you couldn't process it. The color fidelity said Kodachrome all through it.

Kodak also made duplicate slides with/from Kodachrome - again stunning colors, nothing like an Ektachrome dupe.

 

[MattKing]

On the back it said "Kodachrome Print." Not at all sure how they did it, you can put a Kodachrome emulsion on paper but you couldn't process it.

Those are R prints - made by Kodak (most likely) on "R" type direct positive paper from Kodachrome slides.
The ones I have are from the 1960s (I think), and haven't survived particularly well.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Those are R prints - made by Kodak (most likely) on "R" type direct positive paper from Kodachrome slides.

Yup, I have quite a few of those from the 60's and 70's. And as you noted, they don't age well.

These old 2x3 prints in the old family photos haven't aged a bit in the 60-odd years since they were made. The finish looks like a plastic lamination.

But, they could be really well made 'R' prints.

 

[MattKing]

I guess there is a possibility they could have been made from internegatives, but I don't see my father having that done, even with the employee discount.
I wish he was still around to ask how long it would have taken to have that work to be shipped from Vancouver to Toronto, then to Rochester NY, then back to Vancouver through Toronto.

 

[foc]

Back in the 1970s 1980s, in Ireland type R prints were rare, maybe one lab in the country might have done them. If you wanted a print from a transparency you got an interneg and type C print (although they were more commonly known as just colour or reversal prints).

IIRC Kodak made an interneg film (Vericolor ???) in bulk roll but it was still C22 process until the late 1970s which was a problem for some labs. I know some labs here used standard professional C41 film as a duplicating/interneg film, mainly for convenience sake. Controlling the contrast was a problem sometimes.

 

[DREW WILEY]

R prints were notoriously fugitive. The arrival of Cibachrome pretty much doomed their momentum. But C prints from negatives weren't all that permanent back then either. Things have greatly improved over time in that respect.

"R" stood for reversal processing. Certain people on this forum having been experimenting with reversal of current chromogenic papers. I have no idea how permanent the results are. Time will tell. But qualitatively, there still seems to be a long ways to go to get fully predictable results. But this is a potential option.

 

[removed account4]

one could always shoot b/w color separation negatives and make a tri chrome, or / and put the negatives in slide mounts, project and overlap them and rephotograph with negative film and get a positive LOL
seems like an awful lot of work ... if it was my slide being reproduced more work than it is worth, so I'd just make an electronic image and output it whichever way I wanted, even as 3 large electronic separation negatives and then make a giant tri chrome gum print or gum over cyanotype or over PTPD or whatever... would be more fun than most other stuff.

So, maybe just look into a decent medium format slide projector and enjoy your slides, as they were mostly used/intended for !

is that what they were mostly used/intended for ? I'd rather free myself from the shackles of what something might have been intended for and use it for what I want to use it for .. there are no rules in photography or art making...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Tricolor projection of in-camera color separations onto panchromatic glass plates was actually the earliest fashion of routinely conveying color images, Three separate carbon arc projectors were aligned. Those shows must have been horribly slow and hot, but I've had old-timers describe them as the most stunning color photography presentations they'd ever seen. As far as gum over platinum and all that kind of thing, it's currently being heavily practiced by certain individuals and dedicated labs, but has quite a different look from what I've just described.

 

[removed account4]

Tricolor projection of in-camera color separations onto panchromatic glass plates was actually the earliest fashion of routinely conveying color images

it would have been nice to see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=russian+color+photographs+1909&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images
as they were intended ( that way you described )

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes, John, I presume that was the original purpose for those Russian tricolor shots. But turning them into printed images would have been feasible too as methods evolved. The whole problem I have taking sequential in-camera tricolor shots is finding suitable subject matter that stays stationary the whole time. Later, instantaneous three-shot cameras like Curtis and Devin were marketed, and then the ultimate form of simultaneous tricolor, the Technicolor movie process.

It would be fun but awfully expensive to completely reinvent the tricolor still camera concept using a coated beamsplitter prism instead of pellicles and colored filters. But then you'd also need a personal elephant and mahout to carry something that heavy.

But for infinity-only exposures, where parallax is not an issue, one could simply mount and align three separate small camera to the same focal point, and shutter trigger them all at once. Lots of potential avenues. But simply making color separations in the lab instead from a single chrome is a lot more practical, but still a lot of work.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

is that what they were mostly used/intended for ? I'd rather free myself from the shackles of what something might have been intended for and use it for what I want to use it for .. there are no rules in photography or art making...

For sure, there're no rules....

But if you wanted to reproduce a slide in a print through an analog process, they're not many viable methods.

Cibachrome (discontinued)
RA-4 reversal (inconsistent process)
Internegatives (too contrasty, hard to print from most dense slides)
Trichromes (ok, but too complicated)

That's why I said projecting would be the EASIEST, but not the ONLY way to view and present your slides.

 

[afriman]

it would have been nice to see https://duckduckgo.com/?q=russian+color+photographs+1909&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images
as they were intended ( that way you described )

There are better renditions of a few of these at https://www.boredpanda.com/historical-color-photography-russia-sergey-prokudin-gorsky. Produced by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky around 1910, they are truly stunning.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a lot of slides instead negatives. Modern labs are ALWAYS print through scanning, so it makes practical no difference what is source. Here is the scan of the print, from 6x4,5 Fuji Velvia, shot with Fuji GA645Zi, printed 24x30 on Fuji color paper:

KoTao by Sergey Kozlov, on Flickr

How did you scan the 24x30" print?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a lot of slides instead negatives. Modern labs are ALWAYS print through scanning, so it makes practical no difference what is source. Here is the scan of the print, from 6x4,5 Fuji Velvia, shot with Fuji GA645Zi, printed 24x30 on Fuji color paper:

KoTao by Sergey Kozlov, on Flickr

How did you create the print?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For sure, there're no rules....

But if you wanted to reproduce a slide in a print through an analog process, they're not many viable methods.

Cibachrome (discontinued)
RA-4 reversal (inconsistent process)
Internegatives (too contrasty, hard to print from most dense slides)
Trichromes (ok, but too complicated)

That's why I said projecting would be the EASIEST, but not the ONLY way to view and present your slides.

I scan and show them on my 75" 4K UHDTV.

 

[removed account4]

Trichromes (ok, but too complicated)

making tri chromes isn't tricky at all, I can understand why you think it is though.

a lot of photography is people making simple things very complex.

have you attempted to get a micro or macro lens, back light your slides
and just rephotograph them with your favorite color negative film and just
take into account that the color saturation will be a little off ? maybe just plain old rephotography is your solution.

 

[Ryan Oliveira]

making tri chromes isn't tricky at all, I can understand why you think it is though.

a lot of photography is people making simple things very complex.

have you attempted to get a micro or macro lens, back light your slides
and just rephotograph them with your favorite color negative film and just
take into account that the color saturation will be a little off ? maybe just plain old rephotography is your solution.

That's what internegatives are.
Will I get similar colors to a saturated slide, like Velvia 50, using a low contrast film like Portra 160 ?