Historical applications of black and white slides and reversal processing

[Existing Light]

I am taking a historic and experimental photography class. For our final "exam," we have to make and present a historic or alternative camera or processing method. Most of the people in my class are building camera obscuras and kaleidoscopes, and one group is making a stereoscope. Since I suck at building stuff, I decided to make black and white slides by reversal processing negatives.

My instructor likes the idea, but he thinks it's more "alternative" than historic. He's wanting something with more historic value. He did tell me that if I could find some info about the historical uses of black and white slide film that I could do it. I guess "There are no more black and white slide films left(to my knowledge)" isnt a good enough argument for the process being historic.

My problem is I cant find much info about black and white slide films. I can find a good bit of stuff about Scala and how Fomapan R100 is a very good choice for reversal processing. I've also found a bunch of good reviews of DR5.

Does anyone know any websites or books that talks specifically about black and white film or has a section devoted to the subject? Obviously, I'm going to keep searching myself, but if someone can point me in the direction of a good resource or two (or three or fifteen), I'd really appreciate it.

BTW, I did find recipes and instructions on how to reversal process negatives, so I dont need links to those sites unless they also talk about historical uses of B&W slide film. Also, I do have to process the film myself, so I cant send them off to DR5 (although I would like to try DR5 one day. MAybe I'll send a roll or two there to comapre home processing vs professional processing )

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I'm in my early 50s; I'd like to think that anything "historical" is older than I. That means, to me, B/W reversal films like Scala are rather contemporary.

Not to derail your intentions, but how about a project using paper negatives in a box camera? I mention this only because that's what I do. Although I'm using commercial B/W printing paper, I'd like to think of it as a modern version of Kalitype (salted paper).

One historic angle, something I'm familiar with, is that when you study 19th century landscape images you'll notice the skies are blown out white, rather than the more contemporary style of dark skies with white, fluffy clouds. This is because many of the 19th century emulsions were not red sensitive, just like paper negatives, tending toward blue/UV-only sensitivity. This lends a 19th century "look" to contemporary landscapes exposed onto paper; there's also an anthropological connection, too. You'll notice, when studying 19th century images of Native Americans, that their skin tones are very dark, almost negroid in appearance. This is due to the blue/UV-only sensitivity of the emulsions in use at the time. This had, I believe, a side effect of associating Native Americans, politically, with other dark-skinned cultures in the popular press, an unintentional side-effect of the photographic process that was politically exploited.

I think there's some merit to my recommendation of exploring paper negatives as a neo-Kalitype, and the role they played in 19th century culture. Regardless, keep us posted on your progress.

~Joe

 

[Ian Grant]

Almost all B&W films can be reversal processed although some films have a coloured base, like Fomapan 100 & 200, which makes them less suitable. The first dedicated stills B&W reversal 35mm film was from Gevaert and with their later merger with Agfa became Agfa's Dia-direct.

Reversal processing is well over 100 years old and can be found in many old technical books. Autochrome although a Colour film/plate is actually a B&W emulsion reversal processed. Some lantern slides were reversal processed although most were made by enlargement/contact printing.

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

Glass reversal transparencies were a part of popular culture in the late 1890s--every church group, chataqua, etc. used them. "Slides" of the Holy Land were particularly popular. So, in addition to making your slides, photograph something "historical" where you are.

 

[Existing Light]

Thanks for the quick replies, guys. I'm not opposed to trying something else, Joe. I actually may end up doing something different. I've had a fascination with color slides since I started taking photo classes. Unfortunately, we dont have a color class at the university I go to now, but we did at the community college I recently graduated from, and shooting and projecting slides was my favorite part of the class .

I've got the reversal processing black and white negs idea in my head, and it'll probably stay there until I realize it's too complicated or unpredictable. If that happens, i guess I'll build something boring like a camera obscura

One thought that just popped in to my head is how did older black and white slides (or reversal processed negatives) compare to early color slides? I've only dealt with new slide films, and they're pretty amazing, but what about older slide films that used the E-3 or E-4 process? How would a black and white slide or reversal processed black and white negative compare to those color slide films? *presses the post button and does some more google searches*

 

[Rick A]

When I was in school, back in the stone age, teachers used "film strips" which were B&W reversals, but were not clipped and placed in individual mounts. I'm refering to the 1950's and 60's.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Existing Light,

I am not aware that the reversal processing of monochrome has an historical context as such ( except obviously within the cinematic genre ). As Anscojohn suggests probably the best route is to the 'lantern slides' of the 19th and early 20th century. I often see them still in antique shops in the UK and the odd brass 'candle' projector as well !. 95% were commercially produced and not 'reversal' processed.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Rick A]

You could buy a tintype kit and make old time looking tin photos, the same kit on glass will give you an ambrotype. Modern kits are available from Rockland Colloid.

 

[greybeard]

One use of b/w reversal that should probably qualify as "historic" now is their employment in scientific and technical presentations. This goes back at least as far as the 1920s, and by the 1960s the preferred format was still 3-1/4x4-1/4. With the advent of automated, tray- or carousel-fed projectors, 35mm started taking over sometime between the 1950s and 1960s. The infamous request, "Next slide, please" arose when the speaker wanted to move on, and had to have an assistant to change the slides for him. (It's funny to hear someone using a digital projector nowadays refer to "my next slide..." Sort of like "dialing the number" on a cell 'phone )

This usage of reversal materials was sufficiently widespread that Polaroid made reversal transparency film in the 3x4 format, and the combined copy stand/camera was probably more extensively for making presentation slides than for general photography. There was even a Polaroid 35mm reversal system (late 1970s or early 1980s) partly because of the long-standing market for presentation aids.

I'm fairly certain that Kodak once marketed a 35mm reversal kit for technical use, both for speed (one process instead of two) and for elimination of the dust and defect problems with contact-printed 35mm negatives.

I don't know where you are in Alabama, but if you are near Huntsville, Auburn, or Tuscaloosa you should be able to find a professor old enough to remember, and possibly still have, some of the large-format reversal slides. If you do, ask him or her who did the "Rapidograph" work for the titles!

 

[Existing Light]

I don't know where you are in Alabama, but if you are near Huntsville, Auburn, or Tuscaloosa you should be able to find a professor old enough to remember, and possibly still have, some of the large-format reversal slides. If you do, ask him or her who did the "Rapidograph" work for the titles!

I'm in Decatur, which is pretty close to Huntsville. I'm actually going to school at UAH

Your whole post is very interesting, and I may send an email to the art departments of nearby universities if I dont find anything more useful on the internet or local libraries. Right now, I'm finding stuff about how to reversal process black and white negs and very basic overviews of old color slide processing processes on google and the yahoo search engine. I'm about to go out and try to find whatever I can at the Decatur public library and probably search the Huntsville library tomorrow before classes

I'll try to find some stuff about how black and white slides were used in scientific and technical presentations. That sounds interesting and "old" enough to keep my instructor happy. I guess the loss of Scala is too recent to be "historic"

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

A few things to think about--

"B&W slide film" in most cases, like Scala, is really B&W neg film that has been optimized in certain respects (like having a clear base and low base fog) for reversal processing, and most B&W neg films can be reversal processed.

Another issue is that a clear positive image isn't necessarily the result of reversal processing. Color films for lightbox displays like Duratrans, for instance, are "print films" meaning they are negative emulsions like RA-4 paper for printing from color negatives, but they are on a clear base instead of a paper base. I'm not sure about the history of B&W print films, but I suspect that some of the possibilities mentioned, like B&W movies, B&W filmstrips, and B&W lantern slides may have been produced more often by a negative/positive process rather than by reversal processing.

In recent history, the attraction of films like Scala and DR5 processing was for media photographers who would be submitting B&W work to editors (mostly for slick magazines) accustomed to working with color transparencies, evaluating images on a light table with a loupe for publication, and then having the slide as a stable reference for the printing process.

 

[steven_e007]

Hi,

In my darkroom I have several packets of glass plates intended for making lantern slides. They are probably 50 years old, but unlike fast films and plates seem to keep remarkably well. I have made a few slides myself, just for curiosity value. Rather than reversal processing, I used them under the enlarger like paper and projected negatives onto them. They also contact print well with a 2 1/4" square medium format neg. The plates are approx 3" by 3" so they wouldn't have been used in a camera, I doubt. There are lots of formulas available for lantern plate developers and so forth - it really wasn't at all difficult. If you can find a source of glass plates on eBay (haven't looked, but should be possible) then I'm sure that would certainly count as a "historical process!"

 

[greybeard]

I'm in Decatur, which is pretty close to Huntsville. I'm actually going to school at UAH

Small world, isn't it? I remember watching the first permanent buildings at UAH being built!

You might consider contacting the physics or engineering folks there, as well as the library. And there may be some "slides" of historical interest accessible to you at the MSFC library. Redstone Arsenal has been reorganized so much that I wouldn't know where to look now, but I can remember mounting 3-1/4x4-1/4 b/w reversal transparencies for a presentation at the Missile Command Laser Laboratory in 1968 (I was a summer student, and the physicist who needed them was really impressed at my tape-corner-mitering skills. Of course, if he had ever tried glass-mounting 35mm slides, he would have known that the 3x4 format was duck soup). If you find those slides, the fingerprints are mine!

In 1967, I was at Auburn for a summer program and had occasion to rummage about in the attic of one of the chemistry buildings. Among other artifacts were boxes of 4x5 glass plates that had been reversal processed (things like tomato seedling root systems, and some graphs and tables) for projection in a lecture hall. These dated from the 1920s and 1930s---I wish that I had preserved a few of them. If you think about it, for a long time there was simply no other good way to present graphical information to a large audience, if you were doing a one-off, locally produced presentation.

Incidentally, if you find some historical artifacts to examine, one way to distinguish contact-printed from reversal-processed slides is that negatives were frequently labeled with India ink or by scratching the negative; the markings on the print show up as white. On the other hand, a reversal-processed slide would have been written on after it dried, and the writing would be black instead of white. Commercially-produced media such as filmstrips and slide collections would have been duplicated from a master negative, just as movies are today. Academic presentations, however, were rarely duplicated.

If I can remember, I'll look this evening to see if I still have the data sheets for Kodak Fine Grain Positive and for High Contrast Copy that have the reversal processing instructions. These are what I used to make presentation slides when I was in graduate school, and I may still have my binder of data sheets.

It would be interesting to know how widely used slides were in the arts and humanities---I've seen references to "departmental" slide collections in art, medical, and architecture schools, but I don't know what they were like. Anyone?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

In art history the Frick Collection in New York and the Getty in L.A. are the major collectors of things like slide libraries and reference images of artworks.

I used to have a neighbor who once said his father had been a photographer for one of the large midwestern universities like U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign or U. of Indiana in Bloomington, and mentioned that he had taken thousands of stereo slides with a Stereo Realist, I think for the archaeology collection, but those may have been Kodachromes.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Try this link to a 1900 copy of the Photographic Times:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jQ...page&q=lantern slides smoky mountains&f=false

It shows how to make lantern slides as was contemporarily done in 1900.

So go up into the Smoky Mtns, talk some shots, make some lantern slides, and then give a presentation on the nature of the area and how it needs to be preserved by making the area into a national park. If you can dress like a vinatage park ranger, you should get extra credit.

 

[Existing Light]

I'm in Decatur, which is pretty close to Huntsville. I'm actually going to school at UAH

Small world, isn't it? I remember watching the first permanent buildings at UAH being built!

You might consider contacting the physics or engineering folks there, as well as the library. And there may be some "slides" of historical interest accessible to you at the MSFC library. Redstone Arsenal has been reorganized so much that I wouldn't know where to look now, but I can remember mounting 3-1/4x4-1/4 b/w reversal transparencies for a presentation at the Missile Command Laser Laboratory in 1968 (I was a summer student, and the physicist who needed them was really impressed at my tape-corner-mitering skills. Of course, if he had ever tried glass-mounting 35mm slides, he would have known that the 3x4 format was duck soup). If you find those slides, the fingerprints are mine!

In 1967, I was at Auburn for a summer program and had occasion to rummage about in the attic of one of the chemistry buildings. Among other artifacts were boxes of 4x5 glass plates that had been reversal processed (things like tomato seedling root systems, and some graphs and tables) for projection in a lecture hall. These dated from the 1920s and 1930s---I wish that I had preserved a few of them. If you think about it, for a long time there was simply no other good way to present graphical information to a large audience, if you were doing a one-off, locally produced presentation.

Incidentally, if you find some historical artifacts to examine, one way to distinguish contact-printed from reversal-processed slides is that negatives were frequently labeled with India ink or by scratching the negative; the markings on the print show up as white. On the other hand, a reversal-processed slide would have been written on after it dried, and the writing would be black instead of white. Commercially-produced media such as filmstrips and slide collections would have been duplicated from a master negative, just as movies are today. Academic presentations, however, were rarely duplicated.

If I can remember, I'll look this evening to see if I still have the data sheets for Kodak Fine Grain Positive and for High Contrast Copy that have the reversal processing instructions. These are what I used to make presentation slides when I was in graduate school, and I may still have my binder of data sheets.

It would be interesting to know how widely used slides were in the arts and humanities---I've seen references to "departmental" slide collections in art, medical, and architecture schools, but I don't know what they were like. Anyone?

Really cool story. That makes me want to search through the storage closets where they keep those things. I'm really tempted to send off some emails about what I'm doing and see if I can look at or borrow some old slides and plates. I dont know if Auburn or the Arsenal would let me just come and look around at that stuff (assuming they still have old slides and plates), but maybe UAH will (again, assuming they still have it).

My art history instructor told us the first day of class that the art history department has digitized all their slides and installed digital projectors. The classroom still has two Kodak slide projectors in the closet, but I dont know if they still have the slides. I'm sure they have them stored somewhere or have sent them somewhere where they will be kept safe, or maybe they dumped them. I dont know. I'll try to remember to ask tomorrow

 

[Existing Light]

Try this link to a 1900 copy of the Photographic Times:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jQ...page&q=lantern slides smoky mountains&f=false

It shows how to make lantern slides as was contemporarily done in 1900.

So go up into the Smoky Mtns, talk some shots, make some lantern slides, and then give a presentation on the nature of the area and how it needs to be preserved by making the area into a national park. If you can dress like a vinatage park ranger, you should get extra credit.

Thanks. I just saved it as a PDF on my flash drive. I've skimmed over it and it looks pretty cool. Maybe I should do lantern slides instead. They look pretty cool

 

[Larry Bullis]

Lantern slides

Dear Existing Light,

I am not aware that the reversal processing of monochrome has an historical context as such ( except obviously within the cinematic genre ). As Anscojohn suggests probably the best route is to the 'lantern slides' of the 19th and early 20th century. I often see them still in antique shops in the UK and the odd brass 'candle' projector as well !. 95% were commercially produced and not 'reversal' processed.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Among my ragged collection, I have a case of hand colored lantern slides of a garden somewhere (as I recall) in Ohio. The photographer was Asahel Curtis, the brother of Edward S. What he was doing in Ohio, I don't know; that certainly was well out of his region. I was hoping I could easily find one of the cibachrome prints that a friend of mine made of them; I saw them recently, but can't lay my hands on them right now. The originals are in storage, not hard to locate, but not just now. Curtis also sold similar slides, of which I have a couple - notably views of Seattle, the mountains, and other gorgeous Pacific Northwest landscapes such as the Okanagan apple growing region (now pretty much converted to wine grapes) around Penticton British Columbia. At his time, around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, there was a good market for these slides.

It seems very unlikely, though, that Curtis and his cohort would have used reversal processes because by using a negative, he could make as many transparent prints on film as he needed, where had he processed the film as positive, he'd have had to shoot as many original slides as he expected to sell.

The slides are 3-1/4x4-1/4 inches, sandwiched between two pieces of very thin glass (or more probably, made as plates and sandwiched together with plain glass) and taped with black fabric tape around the perimeter. I'm sure that projected they must have been incredibly beautiful.

Also, checking my 1953 Photo Lab Index, I was reminded of the special film that Kodak made for reversal processing. It was "Direct Positive Panchromatic". I believe that I still have a few rolls of it. When I started in photography in the early 1960's, it was really the hot stuff. Many photographers were shooting landscapes with it because it had very fine grain and was capable of great textural rendition. To do this, they didn't use the five step Direct Positive Reversal chemicals that Kodak sold for the purpose, but used standard black and white chemistry. I suppose that you could consider it used this way as the precursor to Technical Pan.

Oh yes, and an addition added in edit. I see mentioned "Fine Grain Positive" - that too. In fact, I may have mixed up the two films concerning the landscape use.

 

[AgX]

I held collodion transparencies in my hand.

 

[greybeard]

Oh yes, and an addition added in edit. I see mentioned "Fine Grain Positive" - that too. In fact, I may have mixed up the two films concerning the landscape use.

Fine Grain Positive was apparently developed for making release prints from black-and-white motion picture film. I recall that the emulsion was actually quite similar to Kodabromide #2 paper. It was practically grainless, and with a surface developer it was capable of remarkable sharpness. I can remember making in-camera pictures with it, and being surprised at the odd color rendition of the blue-sensitive emulsion.

Back on topic: it was easy to reversal process; develop, bleach, clear in sulfite, and redevelop in full-strength Dektol, all under a regular printing safelight. I didn't have access to a densitometer back then, but dmax must have been up around 2.5 or so. In a decent slide projector, the dynamic range of the image was really impressive.

Direct Positive Reversal film was definitely one of the preferred media for making presentation slides, since it eliminated a lot of processing and also helped to avoid dust on the final positive.

 

[2F/2F]

FWIW, black and white "slide films" are just negative films that were optimized in contrast for reversal processing. You can use any black and white transparency film as a negative (which is what I do any time some Scala comes my way, because it makes a unique negative film that is outstanding in certain applications), and you can use any black and white negative film as a transparency...because they are all black and white negative films to begin with.

So, just to be clear, what you are really talking about is a process, not a material.

If you know you will be making enlarged litho negatives for contact printing, starting with a transparency removes a generation, which improves quality and makes for a less labor-intensive process.

You can also, of course, project.

You would also shoot b/w transparencies for when you needed black and white litho printing to be done. In analog litho printing, reproduction is easier and higher in quality from a transparent positive original than from a reflective one (AKA a photographic print). The printer can enlarge directly from the original instead of photographing a second-generation print. This is one of the main reasons transparency film was so dominant for so long as the professional photographer's medium of choice. It had to do not only with "work flow" (speed of getting positive images back) on the photographer and client's end, but also with the technical facts of life in the print industry. Now, with most printing being done digitally, even if shot on film, whether something is a positive or a negative out of the camera does not matter as much.

The print industry/work flow angle is the angle I would probably take. Two soon-to-be-totally-antiquated considerations for photographers who shoot transparency film for these reasons.

 

[greybeard]

So, just to be clear, what you are really talking about is a process, not a material.

True, except for one minor quibble: most negative film bases are tinted to help reduce halation, and color negative base has color correction dyes that may or may not be easy to remove. Films intended for reversal processing and direct projection tend to have neither. For the OP's purposes, the distinction is almost certainly immaterial.

 

[Existing Light]

FWIW, black and white "slide films" are just negative films that were optimized in contrast for reversal processing. You can use any black and white transparency film as a negative (which is what I do any time some Scala comes my way, because it makes a unique negative film that is outstanding in certain applications), and you can use any black and white negative film as a transparency...because they are all black and white negative films to begin with.

So, just to be clear, what you are really talking about is a process, not a material.

If you know you will be making enlarged litho negatives for contact printing, starting with a transparency removes a generation, which improves quality and makes for a less labor-intensive process.

You can also, of course, project.

You would also shoot b/w transparencies for when you needed black and white litho printing to be done. In analog litho printing, reproduction is easier and higher in quality from a transparent positive original than from a reflective one (AKA a photographic print). The printer can enlarge directly from the original instead of photographing a second-generation print. This is one of the main reasons transparency film was so dominant for so long as the professional photographer's medium of choice. It had to do not only with "work flow" (speed of getting positive images back) on the photographer and client's end, but also with the technical facts of life in the print industry. Now, with most printing being done digitally, even if shot on film, whether something is a positive or a negative out of the camera does not matter as much.

The print industry/work flow angle is the angle I would probably take. Two soon-to-be-totally-antiquated considerations for photographers who shoot transparency film for these reasons.

Thanks 2F/2F. I believe David Goldfarb mentioned the same thing about black and white slide films earlier. thanks to both of you for clearing that up for me. I was unaware that it was a negative that was supposed to be developed as a slide. Wouldnt that make Scala similar in function to Fomapan 100R? If so, I was obviously wrong in my assumption that Scala was the last of it's kind

I have been studying up on reversal processes througought the history of photography, and I think if I broaden my research past the "black and white only" mindframe that I've been working in, I can make this project work.

Earlier this week, my instructor gave me a "Kodak Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit for reversal images on Kodak Direct Positive Film 5248." Everything seems to be included except for the instructions. Has anyone ever used this kit? Would it work on FP4+ or Delta100 (Or hell, even TMAX )? Well, I guess I dont have a choice about trying it on one of those films since I think the Direct Positive film 5248 has been discontinued. One thing I noticed is the glass bottle (part B of the first developer) is almost empty. There's probably about 5ml left in it, so I assume that's been used before. the front of the box says there's supposed to be 30ml in the bottle. The bags of powder chems are all there, it seems, even though they're a bit faded and stained.

If the bottle of first developer has been used up (or went bad), I assume I'll have to use something else. What would be a good first developer? Dektol? Rodinal diluted 1:10 or 1:5? There's 5 bags of redeveloper, so I guess I'm all set there.

I've shot a roll of FP4+ today, and I'll process it in my instructor's kit as soon as my TF-5 fixer comes in. I have to call Photographer's Formulary tomorrow to fix an error in my address, so it should be here wednesday or thursday

 

[Existing Light]

So, just to be clear, what you are really talking about is a process, not a material.

True, except for one minor quibble: most negative film bases are tinted to help reduce halation.

Just out of curiosity, does the reversal process get rid of or reduce the tint? I think I might can live with the tint if it's not overbearing. If it is, I might have to grab some Fomapan 100R or something since I've read it has a clear base

 

[Existing Light]

Well, this thread has made me interested in the magic lantern. I've been doing a bit of research, and I've decided to build a magic lantern. I'm still sketching a design, but I should have something ready to build by thursday.

I think I might have to replace an oil lamp with a lightbulb, though, since we're going to have to use this thing inside. At the moment, I sketched a plywood box with a lightbulb at one end and my enlarger lensboard at the other. I dont know if I'll have a bellows or not: I'll probably just focus the image by moving the lantern closer or farther away from the focusing screen (or wall, or whatever). That'll work, right? I dunno (it's 2:15AM here, so my mind is blown right now ).

Behind the lens will be a negative carrier for 35mm or medium format film. I'm planning on using black and white slides because I dont feel like messing with glass plates. Maybe next semester I can upgrade this contraption to use glass plates or maybe large format negs (or both)


Well, I'll try to keep this thread updated just in case anyone is interested in the shit that I build