I know cibachrome is gone and there is information out there but i'm finding it tough to go through all of it, but for positive to positive printing it seems making inter negs is the only way of doing this? Are there other processes out there?
Scanning and digital printing is a very easy solution unless you are looking to enjoy the fun darkroom experience that most of us enjoy with black and white photography. I recently picked up an Epson scanner and scanned and printed some Kodachrome slides from the 1970's. I was very impressed with the results. Check out the scan of the attached photo of my parents taken at my wedding reception in 1978. I had this printed at a Meijer store (for under $1.00 for a 4 x 6 snapshotView attachment 171679 ) and the print looks as good as a print from a color negative. Great detail.
Recently I was thumbing through "Beginner's Guide to Darkroom Techniques" by Ralph Hattersley. Haven't tried it myself but he goes into some detail (devotes an entire chapter) about making paper negatives from enlarged color slides projected emulsion side up onto RC paper. The paper negative is then contact printed to obtain a positive print. He claims prints can be made of the "very highest quality". Actually, will be trying it myself in the near future.
I spent some time today trying to make this work. A scan of the original transparency (Provia 100F) is shown as well as paper negative and positive. I worked a bit with the negative to lower the contrast -- preflashing brought up the shadows slightly. Even so, I find the contrast unsatisfactory. I could probably work with it some more (and admittedly it's a contrasty scene to begin with), but what put me off more than anything was the softness of the positive; I did use glass to keep the paper in good contact. Another problem is "Fujicolor Crystal Archive" appearing in all the shadows (back print on the paper negative).Both the slide and the paper produce high contrast, so the paper being used twice, it seems, would produce contrast off the scale. If it was color paper, dye impurities would appear three times, as there is no masking, causing excessive color degradation. Can't see how it would produce high quality. If paper was b&w you could lower the contrast but some of the color spectrum would be missing.
bvy, I'd say that given the known difficulties of printing from slides, your effort has produced a very good positive print so well done .If I managed as good a print from what is, as you say, a fairly contrasty scene in the first place then I'd consider this effort a success.
I'll take it that on the actual RA4 print there are clear signs of the paper's name but I have to say I cannot see it.
pentaxuser
Thanks. There might be potential, but there are a lot of "bugs" to work out -- and even then you'll have to be happy with something acceptable or "artsy" if you prefer. I think a clean reproduction that stands up against the slide itself is out of reach. Here I don't like all the blown highlights which suggests that I need a longer exposure time. I did make a few negatives of differing contrasts, and might try again. A heavier piece of glass might help with the sharpness.bvy, I'd say that given the known difficulties of printing from slides, your effort has produced a very good positive print so well done .If I managed as good a print from what is, as you say, a fairly contrasty scene in the first place then I'd consider this effort a success.
I'll take it that on the actual RA4 print there are clear signs of the paper's name but I have to say I cannot see it.
Portra 160, overexpose slightly and pull at 2:45 or 3:00.IIRC PE has said that Kodak recommends Portra for making internegs. But there was some slight change they recommended in the processing. I don't recall exactly, but I think it was to pull it a bit.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?