Did my first enlarged neg last night

Akki14 · Sep 24, 2007

And it wasn't scary at all. I need to do another negative though because a hair was on the glass of my proofsheet printer (hey, how about some forward planning on my part next time? Hello, you do not have any contact printing frames that hold 4x5inch film :rolleyes: ) And the negative was a bit weak... I'm thinking of exposing the film a bit more, maybe open up the lens a stop (this is for the contact printing part so I'm not losing anything) and see if that helps. Probably choosing one of the thinnest negatives I have wasn't a good start either :confused:

I used Diafine since that's not too fussy about timing and temperature and it's a nice standard 3minutes and 3minutes. I guess the low contrast nature of diafine is great for the interpositive but not so great for the actual negative. Maybe I should try rodinal in a tray for doing the next negative.

Oh and I'm using fomapan 100 because it's cheap and cheerful

Edit: I scanned in the cyanotype I did quickly between cloudiness on some kinda old (few months) cyanotyped watercolour paper. Had to bleach it back in tap water to get the white border so it's not the best cyano ever anyway. Definately needs higher contrast, going to try Rodinal tonight after I clean my proofer)

davido · Sep 24, 2007

Hey, good one for your first time. It great to see others still making enlarged negs with film. I can't supply much advice in regards to your technique (I use lith film with HC-110) but 3 minutes sounds very short (is diafine paper developer?)
The nice thing with Lith film is you can go quite large. However, the stuff is kinda fussy to work with.
david

Akki14 · Sep 24, 2007

Ah I should have been more specific for people unfamiliar with diafine. It's 3minutes in Solution A then 3 minutes in Solution B. As I understand, Solution A just sort of soaks into the film, then Solution B is like a catalyst that reacts with solution A to do the developing. It only develops "to completion" so you can't overdevelop with it, just overexpose. Thought it was a good choice to start off with because it's somewhat dummyproof as far as temperture and timing is concerned.
Fomapan is panchromatic so I get to fumble around in 100% darkness.. but 50sheets of 4x5 for 17ukp is cheaper than lith and I'm used to developing fomapan in diafine. I was getting much higher contrast results with fomapan 120 film in camera so I kind of think I was just being conservative in my exposure (f/16, 2seconds, tho I have digital timer, I was doing tests in 0.5second increments)

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 24, 2007

Sounds like you're on the right track. I think the key thing you've figured out is that if you want a high contrast neg for cyanotype, maybe Diafine is not the best choice. You want something that will give you a higher contrast neg if you leave it in the developer longer. If you have Rodinal, that's one possibility. A print developer will likely give you even more contrast.

You should probably start with a normal contrast original negative until you've got a handle on the process. If the original neg is thin, you might just not get anything of interest. Even if the enlarged neg has enough contrast for cyanotype, the detail may just not be there.

Akki14 · Sep 24, 2007

Print Developer with panchromatic film? I've heard of using print developer with lith film and occasionally the use of it for a more grainy/charcoal effect on films like tri-x... Didn't realise it would produce higher contrast too. I still think I was just underexposing too much, and not accounting for reciprocity error at all (which, now reading the info sheet is x2 time lengthening and -1 aperture for 1 second) because I was getting pretty decent negs for cyanotype in diafine in 120 format with fomapan100. Oh.. wait... No I think I was using Fomapan400. Maybe that's the difference.
I'll probably try out 1+50 Rodinal for 7 minutes... just guessing based on fomapan100 times given on massive dev chart (though they mention 3 1/2 minutes for 1+25! eesh, too quick)

roy · Sep 25, 2007

With the few enlarged negatives I have made I have used paper developer.
At a workshop I attended, we used Ilford Multigrade and I have also used Bromophen, the powder version of PQ Universal.

Akki14 · Sep 25, 2007

roy said:
With the few enlarged negatives I have made I have used paper developer.
At a workshop I attended, we used Ilford Multigrade and I have also used Bromophen, the powder version of PQ Universal.

Do you use use it at paper developer dilution (1+9)? How long? Was it with panchromatic or lith film? Sorry for the questions but I've not found much information out there to give me a starting point

roy · Sep 25, 2007

Heather, my favourite film for this is Bergger Ortho film as it can be used with a red safelight, making life a bit easier ! The link is as follows:-
http://www.linhofstudio.com/products/fineart/BerggerFilms/BPFB-18.pdf
I used to use it like a piece of enlarging paper, making test strips etc to get the exposures I wanted. Ilford used to make an Ortho film but have not done so for quite a while now.

Akki14 · Sep 28, 2007

I think my new interpositives came out better. I have to do quite a bit of time(3-4 seconds)... is there reciprocity error when doing enlarged negatives? I'm not doing a meter reading, I'm just going by what's on the film test "strips"/sheets so I assume not really...:confused:
Still using Diafine and fomapan 100 for the interpositives. I'll try rodinal for the negatives when I do them tonight.

David A. Goldfarb · Sep 28, 2007

Reciprocity law failure is a characteristic of the film, no matter how it is exposed, so yes, there should be some RLF with Fomapan 100 in exposures more than 1 sec.

davido · Sep 28, 2007

The inter-positive should be low contrast or you risk building up too much contrast in the final negative. So perhaps you need only change the developer for the negative?
david

Akki14 · Sep 30, 2007

Yes that's my plan.. Stick to low contrast Diafine and switch to Rodinal for the negative. That will split up the process a bit so I'll just do the interpositives one night then set up the stuff for the contact printing of negatives the next night
I've had a nutty idea. I have a 4x5 film holder (Fidelity Elite) and I'm considering using it like a contact printer... I can slide two films into it fine and they hold flat but I'm not sure if they're flat enough without glass. I guess I'll find out. Just seems like a nice idea because I could even use the darkslide to help me do the test strips (I hate fumbling around with a piece of black card in the dark).

Sparky · Sep 30, 2007

Can't one use graphic arts film? That'll certainly be ortho. Should be dirt cheap on ebay... and plentiful...! I THOUGHT I'd seen some development tables somewhere - indicating continuous tone development times for certain developers...(?)

Akki14 · Sep 30, 2007

I dunno the graphic arts film I saw on ebay (only found one auction though iwas using ebay.co.uk) looked like, um. plastic film. like mylar? Not anything photographic... Maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing by searching for graphic arts film.
The darkness isn't that bad, really, and I work in a temporary darkroom setup and I've not bumped into anything yet. I've been using my setup for so long that I can use it blindfolded so working in complete darkness isn't that bad and it just meant a bit more gaffa tape around a few things to make it very very lighttight. I intend on doing my own RA-4 prints sometime soon so working in complete darkness is something I'm going to have to learn anyway.

FM2N · Sep 30, 2007

Hello All,
Very interesting topic. Please tell me if i am understanding the process?
Contact print a 4x5 negative with a piece of 4x5 sheet film to make a positive . Develop. Place positive in enlarger with emulsion facing down and expose onto a sheet of Ortho or apiece 5x7, 8x10 or larger sheet film negative? Develop that negative and use to contact print.
I know I am quickly stating what will take a lot of trail and error but am I on the right track?
thanks
Arthur

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 1, 2007

There are different ways of doing it. You could enlarge the interpositive and contact print that to another sheet to make the enlarged negative, or enlarge to an intermediate sized interpositive and enlarge that to the final interneg size.

The original can be any size, so you could go, say 35mm->8x10"->8x10" or 6x7cm->4x5"->11x14", etc.

If you have a large camera, another option is to make a small print rather than a film interpositive and then dupe that with the large camera.

FM2N · Oct 1, 2007

David,
I can understand that, but am I correct in the way i decribed it in my original post? the interpositive is the end result of contact printing an original negative of any size with another sheet of film? How would I then enlarge the interpositve? What would you suggest to enlarge it on to? Could i not take anyone of my negatives and install it backwards into the negative holder, emulsion down, so instead of getting a positive image onto lith paper i would get a reversed image onto lith paper? And then use this lith paper to contact print with?
David have we met? Were you at the freezing cold LF Central park shoot this past winter?
Arthur, NYC

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 1, 2007

Yes, we did meet in that cold Central Park shoot (which finally convinced me that carbon fiber tripods are a good thing).

And yes, if you contact print or enlarge a negative to another sheet of film, you get an interpositive. Flipping the negative in the enlarger gives you a flipped image, but it will still be positive. You can make a direct enlarged negative by enlarging the original negative onto film, and then reversal processing the film (as you would for a B&W slide). There are instructions for that in an article on unblinkingeye.com.

Generally, you get a better result by enlarging the original negative to the interpositive, and then contact printing the interpositive or enlarging it further to another piece of film to make the internegative, than you would by contact printing the original negative to film to make the interpositive.

Most people do this using ortho film, like Ilford Ortho Plus (and Freestyle has some less expensive alternatives), since it's easy to work with in the darkroom, and there's no particular advantage to using panchromatic film for this purpose in general.

FM2N · Oct 1, 2007

So to do this I would put my negative in the enlarger and project the image onto the easel at the size i wanted, say 8x10 then turn the enlarger off place the ortho paper into the easel and project the image onto the Ortho paper then develop the ortho paper as per the directions. I now have a positive on the ortho paper. I would then contact print the ortho paper with another piece of ortho paper to make an 8x10 negative. Then use the resulting negative to make a cynatype or other alternative process.
Thank you for your time!

Akki14 · Oct 1, 2007

I only have an up-to-medium format enlarger so what I've been doing is just enlarging onto 4x5" film for the interpositive then just contact printing onto another sheet of 4x5 film to make the negative. I know I read the slightly confusing article on unblinking eye that made the process sound harder, especially if you're enlarging 35mm (they suggest contact printing the internegative... I think I'd have a little difficulty trying to see if my "test strip" if I could even do it properly in the dark, was right. It's all well and good if you have a 4x5" neg to enlarge but it's not going to work in my case). I happened to bookmark a topic where David A. Goldfarb had described the process as enlarge onto film then contact print so that's what I tried.
Also, as you're working, always remember that it's going to be emulsion to emulsion so when you do your enlarging to make the interpositive, and you view it through the nonemulsion side like you'd normally do, it will look reversed, then when the film is dry you contact print them emulsion side to emulsion side and then you get your negative the right way around.

So what you said in your most recent post is correct - just remember to dry the interpositive to be absolutely bonedry.

Where do you guys get your cheap lith film? Because from my searching around on various websites over here, it still seems like fomapan 100 is the cheapest sheet film around at 17UKP/50 sheets in 4x5. So that's 34pence a sheet or about $0.68 USD (at the moment). If I could get lith film that cheap, I'd use it.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 1, 2007

FM2N said:
So to do this I would put my negative in the enlarger and project the image onto the easel at the size i wanted, say 8x10 then turn the enlarger off place the ortho paper into the easel and project the image onto the Ortho paper then develop the ortho paper as per the directions. I now have a positive on the ortho paper. I would then contact print the ortho paper with another piece of ortho paper to make an 8x10 negative. Then use the resulting negative to make a cynatype or other alternative process.
Thank you for your time!

That's it, except it's ortho film, not paper.

Steve Smith · Oct 1, 2007

Does anyone use transparency film in the enlarger to create a larger monochrome negative for contact printing?

It's something I have thought about but have not done yet.

Obviously ortho film would not give a true rendition of the colours but it could be done with panchromatic film.

Steve.

KWhitmore · Oct 1, 2007

Steve Smith said:
Does anyone use transparency film in the enlarger to create a larger monochrome negative for contact printing?

It's something I have thought about but have not done yet.

Obviously ortho film would not give a true rendition of the colours but it could be done with panchromatic film.

Steve.

I've made paper negatives from using slides in my enlarger. I've only done this process twice I think, (MY results were not that super) so keep this in mind.
Some details were lost in both the shadows and the whites. The image ended up being a bit soft as well which may or may not be what you like. I've read that the key to a good paper negative is to print it a bit darker and duller than you would a normal print.
That way you'll get more detail from your final contact print. As for the softness, it can work well if you choose the right image. A good contact print frame will help also. (I used 2 sheets of glass taped together and RC paper) It's a fun process nevertheless.

Kathy

davido · Oct 1, 2007

A good friend of mine was using colour transparency slides to make enlarged lith negatives. they worked quite well being as they were already lower in contrast. they also had a softness to them, which worked with the image (angel statues). I have been shooting B&W transparency (ie Scala) for a while, to skip the inter-positive step. I've done one negative from a colour slide and it seemed o.k. but perhaps not as sharp as one from a b&w neg? but that could work to one's advantage.
david

Akki14 · Oct 2, 2007

Hm I tried rather high concentration Rodinal and I still am getting too low of contrast. Any suggestions? The shadows keep fogging up before the highlights get dense enough. I'll try printing them as cyanotype anyway, hopefully they'll still work out okay. Might well try paper developer next.

Did my first enlarged neg last night

Akki14

Attachments

davido

Akki14

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Akki14

roy

Akki14

roy

Akki14

Attachments

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

davido

Akki14

Sparky

Akki14

FM2N

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

FM2N

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

FM2N

Akki14

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Steve Smith

KWhitmore

davido

Akki14

Attachments

Did my first enlarged neg last night

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency