Duratrans or Fujitrans in cut sheet

[AeroDan]

Hi Folks,

I've been shooting B&W exclusively for over a year, but recently had a request from a client to print some photos as backlit transparency. I can have them done digitally, but that's no fun. I'd be grateful for a lead on where either Duratrans or Fujitrans can be obtained in precut sheets? Cutting rolls is overkill for me sadly. Maybe if more demand we're generated.

Lots of searching and calls have yielded zero results.

Thanks and be well in the new year,
AD

 

[Robert Ley]

I use Duratrans and the only way that you can get it is in very expensive rolls. I had to spend over $900 and then cut it down. If you are not setup for RA-4 printing, I would not attempt it. Your best bet is to find a commercial lab that does Duratrans and let them do the job.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

If they're BW, maybe you can print on lith sheet film and process in a print developer? Another alternative is use OHP film on an ink jet printer.

 

[AeroDan]

I'm all set for RA-4 in a jobo ATL, though the roll cost- or more, the cutting and housing of a big roll, is my main issue. A local shop was kind enough to sheet cut enough to run my first batch, but it's a shame these aren't precut anymore. I haven't seen a photo paper roll cutter in some time, and am at maximum on square footage in the darkroom now too. Inkjet is pretty poor in comparison but I appreciate the responses! If a solution should present itself I'll be sure and share it here.

AD

 

[AgX]

You all overlooked that Agfa too was making "Trans" and "Clear" RA-4 materials. The "clear" version is still made by Agfa under the designation Aviphot CP94.
Next to 10" rolls sold also as 50 sheet packs of 10"x10" Sheets. Most probably too small for you.

 

[AeroDan]

Thanks AgX - 10x10 is indeed too small but now at least I know something exists in sheet form. 10 inch rolls are a rather odd size, wonder why they standardized on that...

 

[AgX]

Because they are intended to make contact copies from 10" wide aerial negatives.

 

[MartinP]

There is, or was a standard aerial-photography film size of a roll of about 9 1/2 inches wide which would generally be contact-printed. When I worked in a lab we used to get occasional printing jobs from a large civil-engineering company, for publicity-displays or exhibitions, on this size black-and-white square neg. The largest enlarger we had in the lab was an 8x10" De Vere, so we used that and lost a little bit from two sides. I expect the 10" Aviphot print material was intended for the 9x9" image-size contacts.

Edit. Aha, beaten to the response !

 

[AgX]

Yes, there are two sizes in aerial photography:
-) 9.5" (also designated as 9.7/16")
-) 10"

For taking films only the smaller width is used, for copy and print films both widths are used.

 

[pingzzzzz]

我使用 Duratrans，唯一能得到它的方法就是非常昂贵的卷。我不得不花费 900 多美元，然后削减它。如果您没有设置 RA-4 打印，我不会尝试它。最好的选择是找到一家做 Duratrans 的商业实验室并让他们来做这项工作。


使用 Tapatalk HD 从我的 iPad 发送

Hi Robert i am looking for some Kodak Duratrans film. i am studying contrast masking

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Hi Robert i am looking for some Kodak Duratrans film. i am studying contrast masking

Hi there, you dont have to have Kodak Duratrans to create contrast masks.
My setup for this is;
have a focused light, covering 10x12 inch area
put a white acrylic sheet to cover entire mask, about 3-5 mm thick
then the glass sandwich to keep the films flat.
films are

• top: original negative, emulsion up
• below: mask film, emulsion up

this setup creates enough blurred mask. Alternatively you can use the mask film as emulsion down to create even more blurriness.

 

[koraks]

@Fatih Ayoglu thanks for helping out; what kind of film do you use for masking? I imagine this would be relevant knowledge for @pingzzzzz

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

@Fatih Ayoglu thanks for helping out; what kind of film do you use for masking? I imagine this would be relevant knowledge for @pingzzzzz

For BW negatives; I use Arista Ortho film
For C41 negatives; I use Ilford FP4 (this requires a bit more preparation than BW negatives, like day light balanced light, then orange mask filter etc.)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Duratrans and Fujitrans never were used for masking purposes. For masking color film, ideally use either FP4 or TMax100 sheet film. But if you are on a tight budget and working only with black and white originals, you could experiment with other options like Ortho Litho, although it's harder to tame for this purpose than the two pan films I just mentioned.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Duratrans and Fujitrans never were used for masking purposes. For masking color film, ideally use either FP4 or TMax100 sheet film. But if you are on a tight budget and working only with black and white originals, you could experiment with other options like Ortho Litho, although it's harder to tame for this purpose than the two pan films I just mentioned.

There are some recommendations from some people to use Duratrans or Fujitrans to create blurriness, instead of acrylic sheet I’ve mentioned, or in between the films. However it is not a must

 

[pingzzzzz]

KODAK Universal Backlit Film is an excellent substiyute for Durantrans or Fujitrans, but Durantrans is the best choice.​

 

[koraks]

KODAK Universal Backlit Film is an excellent substiyute for Durantrans or Fujitrans, but Durantrans is the best choice.​

Sadly, both are no longer being produced. There's no transparent RA4 material being made anymore. There will likely be some remaining stocks of Fujitrans remaining as inventory here and there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why on earth would anyone buy a very expensive hard to handle coated photosensitive medium like Duratrans or Fujitrans to create an unsharp mask when all one needs is a little piece of translucent frosted mylar or Duralar (not Duratrans) available by the sheet at many art stores?

You position this between the original and the sheet of masking film you're exposing to slightly unsharpen the image.
I generally prefer the 7-mil version, frosted both sides. These can be reused many times if you handle them carefully.

I have personally NEVER heard of anyone using photosensitive transparency display film for masking purposes. The whole idea is ridiculous. I've made thousands of masks, and know other serious practitioners who have as well. Frosted mylar is standard.

The degree of diffusion can be fine-tuned by the thickness of the mylar, or even by using multiple layers if desired. A stronger degree of diffusion can be obtained using thin plexiglas. But it takes some practice to learn how to do this subtly.

In the past they also used something called Pan Masking Film, which resembled Plus X Pan sheet film, but minus the antihalation layer to produce blurred edges. But there are even better ways to do it today using extant sheet films.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Drew, give pingzzzzz a bit of a break, she/he is a brand new member and being located in China and is probably using a translator to read everything. The last film we used for masking was a Dupont orthochromatic film which we used under a bright yellow safelight. From memory it was available in cut sheet and roll form, but that was around 40 years ago.

I too have never heard of anyone using Duratrans for unsharp masking.

​

pingzzzzz, welcome to the forum.

 

[pingzzzzz]

Why on earth would anyone buy a very expensive hard to handle coated photosensitive medium like Duratrans or Fujitrans to create an unsharp mask when all one needs is a little piece of translucent frosted mylar or Duralar (not Duratrans) available by the sheet at many art stores?

You position this between the original and the sheet of masking film you're exposing to slightly unsharpen the image.
I generally prefer the 7-mil version, frosted both sides. These can be reused many times if you handle them carefully.

I have personally NEVER heard of anyone using photosensitive transparency display film for masking purposes. The whole idea is ridiculous. I've made thousands of masks, and know other serious practitioners who have as well. Frosted mylar is standard.

The degree of diffusion can be fine-tuned by the thickness of the mylar, or even by using multiple layers if desired. A stronger degree of diffusion can be obtained using thin plexiglas. But it takes some practice to learn how to do this subtly.

In the past they also used something called Pan Masking Film, which resembled Plus X Pan sheet film, but minus the antihalation layer to produce blurred edges. But there are even better ways to do it today using extant sheet films.

Drew, give pingzzzzz a bit of a break, she/he is a brand new member and being located in China and is probably using a translator to read everything. The last film we used for masking was a Dupont orthochromatic film which we used under a bright yellow safelight. From memory it was available in cut sheet and roll form, but that was around 40 years ago.

I too have never heard of anyone using Duratrans for unsharp masking.

​

pingzzzzz, welcome to the forum.

thanks for your help i will test and study Drew said

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Drew, give pingzzzzz a bit of a break, she/he is a brand new member and being located in China and is probably using a translator to read everything. The last film we used for masking was a Dupont orthochromatic film which we used under a bright yellow safelight. From memory it was available in cut sheet and roll form, but that was around 40 years ago.

I too have never heard of anyone using Duratrans for unsharp masking.

​

pingzzzzz, welcome to the forum.

Why on earth would anyone buy a very expensive hard to handle coated photosensitive medium like Duratrans or Fujitrans to create an unsharp mask when all one needs is a little piece of translucent frosted mylar or Duralar (not Duratrans) available by the sheet at many art stores?

You position this between the original and the sheet of masking film you're exposing to slightly unsharpen the image.
I generally prefer the 7-mil version, frosted both sides. These can be reused many times if you handle them carefully.

I have personally NEVER heard of anyone using photosensitive transparency display film for masking purposes. The whole idea is ridiculous. I've made thousands of masks, and know other serious practitioners who have as well. Frosted mylar is standard.

The degree of diffusion can be fine-tuned by the thickness of the mylar, or even by using multiple layers if desired. A stronger degree of diffusion can be obtained using thin plexiglas. But it takes some practice to learn how to do this subtly.

In the past they also used something called Pan Masking Film, which resembled Plus X Pan sheet film, but minus the antihalation layer to produce blurred edges. But there are even better ways to do it today using extant sheet films.

Lynn Radeka suggests Kodak Backlit film as a diffuser between negative and mask film.

But also the method I’ve described above, negative emulsion up, the mask film emulsion up or down creates a sufficient blur.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

thanks for your help i will test and study Drew said

@pingzzzzz I highly recommend you to avoid any extra material as that means an extra 2 sides of dust collecting material.

Try emulsion up, and mask film emulsion up and down, and try as 2 print. Then print with these masks to see if it is sufficient for you. The base of single negative or the sum of base of both films are reasonable enough to give you enough space to create blur. If emulsions of negative and mask film are touching each other, that won’t create enough blur, requires a sheet of material. However if they are not touching each other and negative film has thicker base than Ortho film, then that’s a start

 

[DREW WILEY]

The primary problem with back to back contact is the risk of Newton rings with slick films.

There are numerous brand names for frosted mylar. But don't confuse it with frosted acetate, which is not dimensionally stable and more likely to render a visible pattern. These products are typically sold in art stores as retouching vellum, or as a substitute to old fashioned tracing paper.

Another distinct advantage of frosted mylar sheeting is that you can apply ink, smudge pencil, or red dye to the mylar itself as part of your masking protocol if desired, rather than on the film itself.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

The primary problem with back to back contact is the risk of Newton rings with slick films.

There are numerous brand names for frosted mylar. But don't confuse it with frosted acetate, which is not dimensionally stable and more likely to render a visible pattern. These products are typically sold in art stores as retouching vellum, or as a substitute to old fashioned tracing paper.

Another distinct advantage of frosted mylar sheeting is that you can apply ink, smudge pencil, or red dye to the mylar itself as part of your masking protocol if desired, rather than on the film itself.

Or you can with OHP shwet or solely fixed BW film (not exposed, not developed, straight fixed) as well.

What do you think @DREW WILEY ?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Using fixed out film in lieu of frosted mylar has been less successful for me. It's getting harder to find sheet films still having a retouching tooth surface. I think Tri-X 320 still has it. If you have something like that on hand, of course you could fix out a few unexposed sheets. But if you don't, you can buy a lot more square footage of 7 mil frosted mylar for considerably less price than what a box of sheet film currently goes for. Or maybe you could get some outdated film more reasonably.

I tried fixing out unexposed Arista Otho Litho film too, since it has a surface quite resistant to rings. But I simply couldn't get that particular film anywhere near clear enough or blemish free. I did have quite a quantity to experiment with already on hand.