Film for copying prints

[Fall]

Hello all,

A relative of mine has asked me if I could copy an old, what looks to be, 6x9 contact print. It's rather out of focus, and a bit overexposed. My question is what film should I use for the copy work? I was thinking tech pan, but it is no longer made, and FPP has old stock for 10US. Would pan f or tmax be viable? My first thought to him is to do it digitally, but he told me he did not wish to send it over the mail, and I only have an office printer/scanner combo. One more thing. I noticed the print has been ferrotyped, should I expect to have difficulty do to the glossy finish?


Merci

 

[bdial]

Tmax should work well

Put a piece of glass over the print, if you have a darkroom proof printer it would likely work well, or simply a piece of framing glass.
Mount the camera on a tripod if you don't have access to a copy stand.
Arrange lights on either side so that the camera doesn't catch the reflections and the print is illuminated evenly.
You may want to pull the development slightly so that you don't pick up too much contrast. Bracket your exposures liberally. Kodak may have a tech pub on using Tmax for copy work, I think they pitched it as a replacement for their discontinued copy films.

All that said, your multifunction scanner would likely be just fine, they can scan at plenty of resolution to do the deed.
Scan in color to get the best flexibility in matching the original.

 

[David Lyga]

As bdial says, Tmax should work well, especially the 100 speed. I doubt if Pan F+ would indicate an improvement, especially since you apparently are not enlarging it. Also, Ilford's Delta is excellent. To tell the truth, even if you did this on Tri-X you would probably be just as satisfied.

No, the gloss should not be a problem given that you are using a flatbed, but even if you were not, as long as the print is positioned in such a way that reflections do not enter, you are OK.

The VERY BEST film to use would be Kodak's ImageLink Microfilm but, again, what improvent would there be? You are not taking a 35mm negative and enlarging it 20X.

One final caveat: if, by some chance, there are yellow stains on the print, you could use a yellow filter to lighten their effect on the final print. - David Lyga

 

[jeffreyg]

A copy stand with lights on both sides at a 45 degree angle to the base would be ideal but if not available a tripod and glass cover of the print to keep it flat as mentioned. Tungsten color film might capture the color and tonal range of an old print. Bracket your exposures. Also as mentioned your printer/scanner should work especially since the quality of the original is not high and with digital capture and some manipulation it might be improved upon.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/
http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've done plenty of this kind of thing in the past, using both ordinary and specialty films. Nowadays either FP4 or TMX would work fine once
you develop for the proper contrast. Pan F would be much less suitable. If you find an old pre-digi Kodak Copy text it will give a lot of useful clues and illustrations. As David already pointed out, you can "see through" flaws and stains to some degree with ordinary contrast filters.
I've recovered images from even partially burned old prints in this manner, though once things get really bad, it is nice to have extended
red sensitivity like Tech Pan and even IR films did. But that's necessary only in severe cases or for forensic applications.

 

[PinRegistered]

Contrast increases with copy negs. I would scan because you are not starring out with a good original.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[john_s]

Contrast increases with copy negs. I would scan because you are not starring out with a good original.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I've done a bit of copying. There will be some distortion of the contrast distribution. This can be reduced by using a more linear film, as advised by previous posters. The increase in contrast can be reduced by generous exposure and less development. The trick is to get the range of the original onto the straight part of the film's curve. I found it tricky to print some of the negs due to excessive density: bracketing exposure helps here.

 

[Fall]

Thank you everyone. I have been very busy recently, but all of the information provided is exactly what I was looking for. Will post results at later date.

P.s I've decided to go the tmax copy route. If anyone has any questions to my set up, feel free to message me, or reply to this thread.

 

[removed account4]

i agree with the tmax ( last time i did this i used plus x or maybe it was fp4 ) and they turned out fine
but you might also think about making a paper negative copy negative ..... if you can that is ...
you just put the print on top of a sheet of photo paper and do a test strip
and burn / dodge adjust the contrast using filters &c .. then make your negative print
then do the same thing for your positive ..
i've done this on occasions ... jsut make sure there isnt' writing on your paper, or the print you are copying. ...
and if you do it right, it has the potential of being even better than the original ..
and like anything, else ( including making film negatives and prints from them )
it has the potential of looking terrible.

 

[Fall]

jnanian,

What paper would you recommend for this procedure?

 

[removed account4]

i use RC paper without a watermark on the back.
don't be cheap with your test strips, use the whole print instead
of a strip that way you will get a better idea of the exposure ( and if you have to adjust your contrast )
receiving paper print rc or fb it doesn't matter vc makes it easy .. it helps you adjust your contrast as needed.
to see if this paper to paper process works for you you might take one of your own prints, make a paper negative
and the print the same way i described to see how it does ...
when i was a student a friend was in a bluegrass band and had a print ( 5x7 ) a friend of the band made which was pretty nice.
she has lost the negative or something, so i made a contact negative and a handful of prints and gave her the paper negative ..
the final prints(repros) looked just as good ( she said even better ) than the originals ... so there is potential

good luck !
john