Anyone know how to make positive transparencies from negative b&W film?

[Kino]

3) print that original Negative as a "Master Positive" on "duplicating positive film. (developed in D96) (sometimes referred to as a "Lavender")

Lavender? Wow, you must be as old as I am!

I have worked with quite a few actual Lavenders from the late 1920's to late 1930's and they are quite different from modern day Master Positives (or as our lab calls them, Fine Grain Masters). They tend to be extra low in contrast and, as the name suggests, on strongly lavender-colored base. These elements tended to be originally processed to a 1.0 or unity gamma, so they were incredibly flat...

You almost always have to optically print them on a Oxberry or Acme optical printer AND bump up the processing gamma to .70 to boost the contrast back into normal range for a dupe negative.

We had a DeBrie CTM Archive Printer that was a step optical wet-gate printer that was great for introducing brutal contrast into any element copied, so it was perfect for copying Lavenders.

Ah, the good old days...

 

[runswithsizzers]

@cmacd123 and @Kino - thanks for providing a valuable overview of how these cine films were used.

But I am still trying to figure out a practical workflow for someone who is relatively inexperienced in developing film who might want to take a common modern negative and then copy or contact print that negative onto a cine positive print film such as Kodak 5302. I realize a certain amount of testing on my part will be required, but I am hoping to find some guidence by someone who has already worked out how this is done.

Issues to be determined:
1. Exposure. I don't have a darkroom, so I will probably use a macro lens and bellows to copy the negative onto Kodak 5302. I hope to use a LED light table as the light source. Most of what I've read indicates the ISO rating for this film is about 5 or 6. The film is sensative only to blue light, right? Is the meter built in to my Pentax MX camera practical to meter the exposure? The ASA dial on my light meter only goes as low as 32, so if I meter at ISO 32 and get 1/60 sec, I need 5-6 times more exposure than that, which is about 2-1/2 stops, or around 1/15-1/8th seconds, right?

2. Developer. All of Kodak's technical literature about 5302 is concerned with large scale commercial processing using D-97 developer. Even if I can locate a source for a small quantity of D-97, I have not yet found any guidelines for small tank development. I would much prefer to use something more commonly available such as "Dektol or similar" as suggested by cmacd123. The <massive development chart> lists a film called "Kodak Direct Positive" - possibly the same as 5302 (?). That chart does not list D-97 as a developer; Dektol is listed, but there is no data for the Direct Positive film. I don't know enough about the various developers to guess which ones are 'similar' to Dektol. The <Freestyle chart> shows neither the film or developers I am interested in. For now, I am not interested in mixing something up from raw ingredients, so if I'm going to try this, it must be with off-the-shelf chemisty available from a supplier in the USA.

 

[Kino]

OK, you'll have to live with fact that it takes some testing and expense to arrive at a usable workflow, but once you get there it should be fairly stable...

Here's how I would start...

Bulk load a short 12 exposure roll of 5302.

* Your best bet for a good exposure is not LEDs but a good, high guide number strobe pointed directly at the lens through the negative being copied.
* Place a texture-less diffuser (white plexi or opal glass is good) between the strobe and the negative that is a few MM away from the negative. (Some slide copying bellows have this diffuser as a matter of course, but you might have to rig one up...) Make sure there are no marks or patterns on the diffuser that can be superimposed on your image.
* Place the strobe on manual/full power.
* Stop the taking lens down to mid-range; usually f5.6 or f8 and your shutter speed at your normal flash sync speed.
* Place the strobe as close to the diffuser as you can without causing a hot spot. This is your first exposure.
* Using a ruler, back the flash off 1 inch at a time, taking all 12 exposures thusly.
* Load the exposed reel in your development tank as per normal.
* Mix enough Dektol to fill the tank at a 1:2 dilution.
* Process for 5 min @ 68 degrees F with CONSTANT agitation; not violent, but constant movement.
* Stop for 30 seconds constant agitation.
* Fix (w hardener) for 5 to 7 min.
* Wash for 1 min with a hypo clearing agent.
* Dip in photoflo
* Only evaluate when dry

That's where I would start from and adjust from there...

Sorry I had to write this fast...

EDIT: Chose your best exposure from the 12 as a starting point for your "typical" negatives. It is hard to establish a baseline when so many variables are in play, but you have to start somewhere and work your way to the finish.

Remember:
* density is exposure
* contrast is development

Vary as required...

 

[AgX]

[The <massive development chart> lists a film called "Kodak Direct Positive" - possibly the same as 5302 (?).

In photoengineering "Direct Positive" means a photographic material that in one-stage processing, thus no reversal processing, yields an image of the same kind as the original. (Thus a positive, if the original is a positive.)

However with film designations one must be careful as manufacturers sometime applied weird terms.

 

[cmacd123]

"Direct Positive" means a photographic material that in one-stage processing, thus no reversal processing, yields an image of the same kind as the original. .

requires the maker do a song and dance to make the film. possibly pre-exposing it to get on a weird place on the development curve.

film with that description automatically gives an image which is darker where the film received less light, without using a reversal type process. Often this is a scientific or technical use film, or a document film.

for 5302 the chart gives :
Eastman 5302 Dektol 1+5 ASA 25 8 minutes at 24C

when using any of the motion picture films, the correct idenification includes the 4 digit number, very different film characteristics some time come out when a new product was released to serve a given role in the movie lab. Kodak USED to use the Eastman Name for all their Motion Pictures films, but now they often use Kodak for some products. And many EASTMAN films used to say "Kodak Safety Film" on the edge print

 

[Kino]

for 5302 the chart gives :
Eastman 5302 Dektol 1+5 ASA 25 8 minutes at 24C

Ah good; my time/dilution was just a guessitmate.

What chart are you referencing?

 

[cmacd123]

Ah good; my time/dilution was just a guessitmate.

What chart are you referencing?

the "massive development chart" that a previous poster referenced citing a different film.

 

[runswithsizzers]

requires the maker do a song and dance to make the film. possibly pre-exposing it to get on a weird place on the development curve.

film with that description automatically gives an image which is darker where the film received less light, without using a reversal type process. Often this is a scientific or technical use film, or a document film.

for 5302 the chart gives :
Eastman 5302 Dektol 1+5 ASA 25 8 minutes at 24C

when using any of the motion picture films, the correct idenification includes the 4 digit number, very different film characteristics some time come out when a new product was released to serve a given role in the movie lab. Kodak USED to use the Eastman Name for all their Motion Pictures films, but now they often use Kodak for some products. And many EASTMAN films used to say "Kodak Safety Film" on the edge print

Thanks for that! "Eastman Kodak" is a name I've heard all my life, but not so much recently. I never would have found 5302 in the Massive Development Chart database without your help, as it never occured to me to look anywhere else except under "K" for Kodak. The Ultrafine / Photo Warehouse website <here> lists the product under the title "Kodak 5302 Fine Grain Positive Release Film 35mm x 36 Exp" - but does describe the product as "EASTMAN Fine Grain Release Positive Film 5302". The 135 cartridge pictured has a label saying the film is KODAK 5302. I learn something new almost every day on this site.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Ah good; my time/dilution was just a guessitmate.

What chart are you referencing?

Link <here>

 

[AgX]

requires the maker do a song and dance to make the film. possibly pre-exposing it to get on a weird place on the development curve.

Different techniques are possible.
As classic processing types they were and still are common in the microfilm and aerial film ranges.
Also all instant materials are direct positive materials.
Also a Ambrotype.

 

[koraks]

Also a Ambrotype.

Which is technically a negative (more density is laid down where the plate receives more light), but due to the visual difference between reflected and transmitted light, it looks like a positive as long as overall density is sufficiently low.

 

[AgX]

It is intended to look this way by coating the emulsion on a black plate or a transparent plate with black backside, thus it is a direct positive material.

There are various techniques behind direct positive materials, even within a sub-group.

 

[koraks]

It is intended to look this way by coating the emulsion on a black plate or a transparent plate with black backside, thus it is a direct positive material

Sure. I've made quite a few myself. Collodion negatives as well. It's just fundamentally different from a film or paper "direct" positive in terms of the relationship between silver density and optical "density"/appearance.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's easy. And yes, TMax100 works quite well for the interpositive. Just contact print the two together, emulsion facing emulsion. It takes a bit of practice to get the correct exposure level and development time, but that's no big deal. No need to overcomplicate the subject. I prefer HC-110 for this application, but D76 would be OK.

 

[runswithsizzers]

It's easy. And yes, TMax100 works quite well for the interpositive. Just contact print the two together, emulsion facing emulsion. It takes a bit of practice to get the correct exposure level and development time, but that's no big deal. No need to overcomplicate the subject. I prefer HC-110 for this application, but D76 would be OK.

That would be easier for me than trying to use a cine film because I can easily get TMax100 locally, I already have some D-76, and I already know how to develop TMax100 in D-76.

It sounds like you have actually used TMax100 to contact print from a negative, and you are apparently satisfied with the result for use as an "interpositive" (I don't know what that is, or how it would normally be used.). But would the resulting TMax100 positive have enough contrast and density to look good mixed in with some slides and projected? In other words, if the result has the same contrast and density as a normal negative, only positive, that's not really what I'm looking for. Even if I bump up the density and contrast by over exposure and over development, is TMax100 capable of densities and contrast comparable to cine films like Eastman Kodak 5302 Fine Grain Positive Release Film ?

I guess I should mount a nice contrasty negative and see what it looks like projected.

 

[John51]

HI, I wonder if I can achieve good positive transparencies from a negative b&w film, using b&w negative film. I.e. if I have a negative b&w film and I want to make positive transparencies of it, can I use negative b&w film to convert it to positives with nice quality, like good dynamic range and smooth tones? For example I have Kodak T-Max 100 negatives and want to convert them to positive transparencies, can I use also T-Max 100 film to convert them to positives with rich contrast and if it is possible what kind of developer should I use? Maybe a high contrast developer or simply a D-76 with longer developing time? Or should I use a lith film to achieve optimal contrast and neutral b&w tones as the T-Max films have some magenta cast?

Easiest way to find out imo is to copy 2 or 3 negs with your next roll of film. Gives you a starting point wrt contrast. Then you can change developer to increase/decrease contrast.

Will the positives be projected?

 

[koraks]

The curve of tmax 100 extends beyond 3.0logD, which is more than sufficient for projection. D76 undiluted for an extended time (or any other non-compensating developer) should work fine. The tmax films don't have a magenta antihalation dye in 35mm format AFAIK; this is only present with 120 and sheet film, and should disappear entirely if fixed for 7-10 minutes in fresh fixer at dilution 1+4.
A probable reason why Drew suggests this film is its reasonably straight response curve which makes it one of the most suitable films for duplication, interpositives etc.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Correct. Not only is it capable of a good straight line, but was engineered in the first place to replace a number of other films
via versatility. I've done all kinds of very high-quality dupe, interneg, color separation neg, and masking work with TMX100.
It can be developed to a considerable range of contrast, and can even be reversal processed if necessary, though I prefer
double-neg technique in such cases.

 

[thuggins]

Though not exactly the same thing, XP2 can be processed in E6 chemistry to make beautiful monochrome trannies. I have posted the details here in the past.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Though not exactly the same thing, XP2 can be processed in E6 chemistry to make beautiful monochrome trannies. I have posted the details here in the past.

How do you get rid of the pink colour of the base?

 

[thuggins]

XP2 has a clear base. Well, actually a very slightly grey base, which is exactly what you want to keep highlights from being washed out. The films do have dyes (which, as I recall, are different between 35mm and 120) but these wash out with the first rinse.

Interestingly enough, a friend gave me an old roll of the Kodak C-41 B&W film. It had been ruined and there were no images (he has an odd habit of opening the camera back), but the base was orange. It looks like the same orange mask used for color film. I don't know why they would put the mask on a chromogenic B&W, since that is supposed to correct shortcomings in the color dyes. I assume it doesn't affect the printing process and Kodak was just exploiting economies of scale by using the same base. In any case, that stuff would have not worked well for cross processing.

Here are some examples. The results sometimes shift along the bluish/greenish scale. I have never figured out a pattern to it, but in any case they always produce a unique and engaging image. Just to recap, these are shot at 100ASA (over exposed 2 stops) and over developed by 25% (like a one stop push). It would seem like over exposing by three stops OR doing a three part push would give the same results. But I'm very pleased with the results of the current process and don't see a benefit to playing with it further. Obvious disclaimer, these scans do not do justice to the originals. Viewed on a light box they really are lovely images.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

XP2 has a clear base. Well, actually a very slightly grey base, which is exactly what you want to keep highlights from being washed out. The films do have dyes (which, as I recall, are different between 35mm and 120) but these wash out with the first rinse.

Oh.. ok, I don't know why I read it as XP2 Super which has a pink base. I have never used XP2.

Here are some examples.

Lovely! Very nice results.

 

[MattKing]

Interestingly enough, a friend gave me an old roll of the Kodak C-41 B&W film. It had been ruined and there were no images (he has an odd habit of opening the camera back), but the base was orange. It looks like the same orange mask used for color film. I don't know why they would put the mask on a chromogenic B&W, since that is supposed to correct shortcomings in the color dyes. I assume it doesn't affect the printing process and Kodak was just exploiting economies of scale by using the same base. In any case, that stuff would have not worked well for cross processing

The Kodak C41 black and white film had the mask because it allowed operators of typical minilab machines to easily print on to the colour photographic paper they used for the vast majority of their work.
Much of the amateur market for this type of film used minilabs.

 

[AgX]

The Ilford chromogenic film then omits that orange hue. Here not the easy processing/printing at a minilab was aimd at, but rather to be benefitial in a b&w lab (nonwithstanding C-41 processing.)