Enlarged Negatives and Black Borders

[Travis Nunn]

I enlarged my first negatives tonight. I used the Arista APHS Premium Halftone Supreme Ortho Litho film and its really quite nice. I was suprised how nice the interpositives look.

My question, though, is about the borders of the negative made from the interpositive. They have black borders. How would I go about getting clear borders? Or is this something I should just deal with? I want to try some alternative processes and these black borders would result in a white border on the print and I think it would look a little strange. Any advice?

 

[JG Motamedi]

Cut them?

 

[bobherbst]

Black Borders in APHS Enlarged Negatives

Part of the answer depends on your process. Did you make a contact positive and an enlarged negative on an easel or the other way around? Border artifacts are different. I make a contact positive and enlarged negative in an easel which results in white borders as if the film were exposed in a film holder. This will show black borders in a Pt/Pd print. If you have black borders in your negative and wish to show your brush marks, cut the negative to the exact image without borders. If you want no black borders at all, mask the image with lithographers tape and suspend it in orange masking paper the same size as your printing paper for a nice printing mount.

 

[Lukas Werth]

As I am using the same film, a few notes:

1) You say you want to try alternative processes. If you have not yet any experience, I strongly suggest that you make your first pictures with in-camera negatives, developed for the respective process: this way you learn how your enlarged negs should look like to produce optimal results.

2) I personally sometimes do not mask prints from in-camera negatives, but always those from enlarged negs. Masking has two other advantages: it is easier to control whether a print has cleared, and in case of toning of alternative silver prints, the toner does not get wasted on the borders.

3) I, again personally, prefer to produce analog enlarged negatives with Liam Lawless' direct reversal process. If you work your method out properly, you get (at least!) the same quality, and the method is less lengthy. Should you want to try this, I could provide further tips.

 

[Joe Lipka]

When I did this many, many moons ago, I was able to get a roll of rubylith tape and tape the edges of the film positive to get a nice border. When I contact printed the positive, I had a clear border around the negative.

Don't know if they make rubylith tape anymore.

 

[donbga]

As I am using the same film, a few notes:

Should you want to try this, I could provide further tips.

Lukas,

Anything information you can share will be appreciated. I've been printing kallitypes with enlarged negs on APHS all week, so this discussion is timely.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Lukas, unfortunately I don't have a LF camera so this is the reason I'm experimenting with enlarging my MF negatives. Like Don, I'd like to know more about the direct reversal process.

I could cut the edges off, they're small borders so it wouldn't matter much and that's the quick and easy way to go about it, but the direct reversal sounds really appealing to me.

One more question, I know the end result should be a contrasty, dense negative, but should the interpositive be flat or contrasy? My initial guess was to make the interpositive contrasty, but I have read somewhere that it should be flat. Or does it even make a difference?

Just for clarification purposes, the process I'm doing is enlarging MF negatives onto a sheet of Litho film, developing in Dektol 1:9 and then contact printing the resulting interpositive onto another sheet of Lith film to get the resulting negative. I'm not married to this process so if there's a better one out there, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Lukas Werth]

First, yes, red plastic foil is still available (used in other printing techniques), though it becomes more difficult to locate. I don't know whether the stuff I use is the same as ruby lith: it does not come in tapes, but in sheets which I cut.

Bob Herbst, who responded in this thread earlier, has written a description of the direct reversal process at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html
Maybe you would like to add something, Bob? Liam Lawless's original description seems to be no longer online. I have the pdf here, but I would feel better if interested people contacted Liam himself about it.

About in-camera negs: why not develop a few mf-negs accordingly, and print them in a process you would like to try? (Which is it, by the way?) Or, build a pinhole camera, and use sheet film inside.

About interpositives: they should be rather flat and dense. I don't think you will get the right quality using lith film for an interpos. You may use it for maskin the interpos, however. Personally, I think this is a tedious procedure, and I might consider producing digital negs if this would be the only route.

I currently make enlarged negs of up to 20x24", and through reversal I can do this with reasonable effort, at a reasonable cost (considerably cheaper than digital negs, as fas as I can see), and, if I get it right, at absolutely first-rate quality.

My suggestion to those interested is: read Bob Herbst's article first, then ask specific questions.

I might just add here the following qualification:
a main problem of direct reversal with lith film is highlight contrast, particularly if your original negs are a bit on the contrasty side, as are mine. If you expose too long, shadow values are lost, and if you expose for the shadows, highlights will lack contrast. Two solutions, either single or in combination: a) use the first developer at half strength for the double time. b) sandwich two enlarged negs, one for the shadows, one for the highlights.

Also, I frequently use selen toner to optimize the neg.

 

[Lukas Werth]

Oh yes, forgot one point: I use only one dish all through, and change baths by lifting and pouring into buckets. This saves place and the film which is very sensitive to touch before it is bleached.

 

[Travis Nunn]

Thanks for the advice/info Lukas. I don't know. Maybe I should rethink this whole thing and just get a pinhole camera until I can afford a LF.

 

[donbga]

Thanks for the advice/info Lukas. I don't know. Maybe I should rethink this whole thing and just get a pinhole camera until I can afford a LF.

I would encourage you to continue to make enlaeged negatives using APHS. You can make inter-positives with the APHS using Dave Soemarko's low contrast lith film developer, which has been successfully used by many, including Christopher James.

http://members.aol.com/fotodave/Articles/LC-1.html

You can also use the developer for use with lith type films in pin hole cameras.

The direct reversal method article developed by Liam Lawless can be found here and is very effective:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html

You are in your early days of alternative process printing so you are apt to have more failures than successes, but don't get discouraged. Every failure will teach you a lot. You will be sucessful if you keep at it.

 

[Lukas Werth]

I would encourage you to continue to make enlaeged negatives using APHS. You can make inter-positives with the APHS using Dave Soemarko's low contrast lith film developer, which has been successfully used by many, including Christopher James.

I agree with the above, and I am sorry if my last comment sounded too discouraging. I read about Dave Shoemarko's developer, butnever tried it. Very well possible that it works for interpositives.

I was thinking of a two-way approach: to print with as much care as possible some original camera negatives may give you an idea of what to look for in, say, a platinum print, and this may help to build the optimal enlarged negs.

 

[Travis Nunn]

I do intend on continuing attempting to enlarge negatives because I have some negatives that I think will work really well printed as a VDB. However, it does make sense to me to try to work with some in-camera negatives first. Taking a step back and getting some good original negatives may help me to get better results with enlarging onto the APHS film.

 

[davido]

I have been printing enlarged APHS negatives directly from Scala 35 mm B&W transparency images. This way one skips the extra inter-possitive step. Ofcourse, you have to have the possitive image to start with and also Scala film is no longer available. However,It is possible to have regular B&W film processed as possitive image either yourself or through www.dr5.com . Another option is to enlarge your lith negatives from color slide originals, which can work quite well as the original image is typically one of lower contrast.
Just some other options.
david
ps. just checked out your website Lukas, you've done some fantastic stuff!! I've never been a huge cyanotype fan, but your cyano night scenes are really great!

 

[bobherbst]

Enlarged Negatives with APHS and Wimberley WD2D Pyro

Lukas,

You have your articles mixed up but people have probably figured that out by now.

For Everyone,

The article I wrote was about using APHS for making enlarged negatives using John Wimberley's original WD2D pyro formula for both contact positive and enlarged negative stages. It was first published in the May/June 2002 issue of View Camera Magazine. It is also posted on The Unblinking Eye at - http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/EnlargeNeg/enlargeneg.html. The text of the article can be found on my web site - www.bobherbst.com. My article was based on use of John Wimberley's original WD2D pyro formula with APHS rather than traditional developers. I have used John's formula on all of my roll and sheet film for 19 years - before Gordon's PMK book came out. You can still find Stuart Melvin's original enlarged negative method using APHS on Bostick & Sullivan's web site. Stuart was the first person I encountered using APHS for this application but there may have been others before him. He originally used D-23 for the contact positive development and PMK for the enlarged negative. He later used Wimberley's formula for both stages which is where I came into the picture and was the basis for the article. If you do not have experience in reading Wimberley/ABC pyro negatives for platinum printing and you do not have a UV densitometer, I would not recommend using the method in my article. PMK and Wimberley/ABC negatives have a complete different color of stain and don't read the same to the human eye. PMK experience doesn't translate well for use with Wimberley/ABC developed negatives.

Bob Herbst

First, yes, red plastic foil is still available (used in other printing techniques), though it becomes more difficult to locate. I don't know whether the stuff I use is the same as ruby lith: it does not come in tapes, but in sheets which I cut.

Bob Herbst, who responded in this thread earlier, has written a description of the direct reversal process at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html
Maybe you would like to add something, Bob? Liam Lawless's original description seems to be no longer online. I have the pdf here, but I would feel better if interested people contacted Liam himself about it.

About in-camera negs: why not develop a few mf-negs accordingly, and print them in a process you would like to try? (Which is it, by the way?) Or, build a pinhole camera, and use sheet film inside.

About interpositives: they should be rather flat and dense. I don't think you will get the right quality using lith film for an interpos. You may use it for maskin the interpos, however. Personally, I think this is a tedious procedure, and I might consider producing digital negs if this would be the only route.

I currently make enlarged negs of up to 20x24", and through reversal I can do this with reasonable effort, at a reasonable cost (considerably cheaper than digital negs, as fas as I can see), and, if I get it right, at absolutely first-rate quality.

My suggestion to those interested is: read Bob Herbst's article first, then ask specific questions.

I might just add here the following qualification:
a main problem of direct reversal with lith film is highlight contrast, particularly if your original negs are a bit on the contrasty side, as are mine. If you expose too long, shadow values are lost, and if you expose for the shadows, highlights will lack contrast. Two solutions, either single or in combination: a) use the first developer at half strength for the double time. b) sandwich two enlarged negs, one for the shadows, one for the highlights.

Also, I frequently use selen toner to optimize the neg.