Internegative from color slides for darkroom printing

[Kduck]

Has anyone had any experience making a negative from a color slide for printing in the darkroom? How would I do this?

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes, I used to do that, and it was quite common for commercial labs to make an inter-negative. You could use a slide copier attachment and shoot onto colour negative film. There used to be special inter-negative films but thet've long gone but depending on the contrast conventional film can often be OK.

Ian

 

[mnemosyne]

Do a forum search, this topic has been discussed here before, including the question which materials and workflow to use now that the dedicated internegative films are gone. For example recently (there was a url link here which no longer exists) and in many other threads.

 

[georgegrosu]

Cine intermediate film is found in two versions:
- for copying from the film;
- or copying from digital.
The intermediate film tratement is in ECN II procces.
Some varieties of intermediate film have backing layer of graphite.
Color intermediate film is made to obtain a contrast factor from 1.0.
Cine intermediate film have a good color reproduction.

George

 

[fdonadio]

Cine Color intermediate film is made to obtain a contrast factor from 1.0.
Cine intermediate film have a good color reproduction.

Just to check I got it right: you mean using cine color intermediate film for making internegatives is a good solution, as long as one has access to ECN-2 processing and RemJet removal?

Flavio

 

[ic-racer]

For best quality I project the slide onto 4x5 panchromatic sheet film (TMX) and process that. You could also use a 'slide copy' attachment for your 35mm camera and copy the slide to negative film that way. that way.

 

[mnemosyne]

For best quality I project the slide onto 4x5 panchromatic sheet film (TMX) and process that. You could also use a 'slide copy' attachment for your 35mm camera and copy the slide to negative film that way. that way.

As we're in the "color" part of the forum, I was under the impression that the OP wants to make color prints from his slides?

 

[DREW WILEY]

It's easy to make a lousy interneg, and surprisingly difficult to make a good one. Nearly all commercial labs did it the lousy way, and that was what gave internegs an unfair bad rap. But yeah, I have a clue how to do it. Use those slide copier gadgets if a Holga camera is too precise and high tech for your taste. If you area serious, you'll need to spend some money and be willing to spend a lot of time practicing the chords before you can play a symphony. Since official interneg films are either extinct or some old by now as to be useless, your best option is going to be Portra 160 sheet film. Controlling the contrast of the original chrome is done via unsharp masking. And you need a good colorhead, preferably enlarging the original precisely onto stable Portra sheet film. If the original is Velvia, pray.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Do not use a cine film. You will have a contrast mismatch.

See the reference above for my method.

Here is an example made on Portra from an Ektachrome slide.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

It's easy to make a lousy interneg, and surprisingly difficult to make a good one. Nearly all commercial labs did it the lousy way, and that was what gave internegs an unfair bad rap. But yeah, I have a clue how to do it. Use those slide copier gadgets if a Holga camera is too precise and high tech for your taste. If you area serious, you'll need to spend some money and be willing to spend a lot of time practicing the chords before you can play a symphony. Since official interneg films are either extinct or some old by now as to be useless, your best option is going to be Portra 160 sheet film. Controlling the contrast of the original chrome is done via unsharp masking. And you need a good colorhead, preferably enlarging the original precisely onto stable Portra sheet film. If the original is Velvia, pray.

I always had superb results from the two labs I used when they made Inter-negs before making RA-4 prints, often better than R3 or Cibachrome prints.

The reality is you're far better off using a pro lab who scans your slides and converts and prints the images to RA-4 paper. That's the way the lab I used does it, (my main lab closed).

If in doubt ask Bob Carnie He can do it for you.

Ian

 

[wildbill]

If I could talk about hit here, I'd say drum scan the neg and output to lightjet for a superior result. That's what I do but I don't talk about it

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

If I could talk about hit here, I'd say drum scan the neg and output to lightjet for a superior result. That's what I do but I don't talk about it

Yes indeed. +10.

 

[ic-racer]

As we're in the "color" part of the forum, I was under the impression that the OP wants to make color prints from his slides?

B&W is what I do but the OP would use color neg sheet film.

 

[fdonadio]

Do not use a cine film. You will have a contrast mismatch.

You mean cine film would need contrast adjustments just like Portra, so we should just go for Portra anyway?

Just out of curiosity, I ask: what is the main characteristic of an internegative film?

Flavio

 

[MattKing]

You mean cine film would need contrast adjustments just like Portra, so we should just go for Portra anyway?

Just out of curiosity, I ask: what is the main characteristic of an internegative film?

Flavio

Lower than average contrast, and

A curve that is optimized for creating negatives from transparencies.

Portra 160 is the closest current option.

The curve isn't perfect, but the contrast isn't bad.

 

[fdonadio]

Lower than average contrast, and

A curve that is optimized for creating negatives from transparencies.

Thanks, Matt!

I am still a little confused, trying to make sense of different films and their characteristics.

I've just read this and found that Kodak recommends preflashing internegative film for contrast reduction.

I still don't understand what PE meant by "contrast mismatch".

Flavio

 

[MattKing]

Thanks, Matt!

I am still a little confused, trying to make sense of different films and their characteristics.

I've just read this and found that Kodak recommends preflashing internegative film for contrast reduction.

I still don't understand what PE meant by "contrast mismatch".

Flavio

That link you refer to is to 2273/3273 , a motion picture product.

You use 2273/3273 to make an internegative of a movie - either one shot on reversal colour motion picture film, or one printed on to motion picture print film (the stuff movies used to be most commonly distributed on).

Those two materials - reversal colour motion picture film, or motion picture print film - have contrast characteristics that are a bit different than slide film for still photos. Most importantly though, 2273/3273 is intended to be printed on to motion picture print film, not on to the colour photo paper we use to make still photos. Motion picture print film has radically different contrast when compared to colour photo paper.

 

[fdonadio]

That link you refer to is to 2273/3273 , a motion picture product.

(snip)

Motion picture print film has radically different contrast when compared to colour photo paper.

Yes, Matt... I've read those documents and some more about motion picture film.

I am shooting stills with Kodak Vision2 and Fuji Eterna and developing those on ECN-2. Contrast is very low and negatives are really hard to print, just as explained numerous times in different threads here.

I also have a lot of 35mm slides I shot years ago that I would like to print. They were shot on different films from Kodak and Fuji, including Velvia. I am trying to stick to "analog" processes here.

In my research about making internegatives, I came to know about 2273 (which is an internegative film) and thought it would would be nice to ask about it here. I know it is a motion picture product, but I want to understand why (or why not) use it with still photographic materials.

One more question: considering still photography films (in general) have high contrast, using these for making internegatives would increase contrast even more. How can one avoid this contrast increase — besides using unsharp masks?

Flavio

(Edit: I would like to avoid unsharp masks.)

 

[DREW WILEY]

When commercial labs did slide duplication, or needed to quickly make volume internegatives from slides, they sometimes did pre-flash the
film to lower the overall contrast. This was all largely automated. But that's different than making a high-quality interneg specifically intended for a custom enlarged print rather than just a stack of cheap drugstore-style snapshots. I don't know ANYBODY doing commercial interneg work these days. Why would they? They scan instead. But it is still certainly feasible. You just need to pioneer your own technique. I did some experimenting a couple years ago; but it involved 8x10 contacts, with multiple steps, onto Portra 160, then onto 30x40 Fuji Super C Prints. The results were encouraging; but I still have a long ways to go to really get my own ideal of quality. It's a backburner project, since I have numerous darkroom priorities ahead of it. Any hypothetical commercial service would charge a fortune for that kind of quality due to all the time involved. Good home cooking takes a lot of time. If you just want a fast greasy hamburger, that's another story.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There's an earlier thread on this subject, maybe last year, where PE described the way dupe film was engineered in the first place. I've used
it, and am aware of its unique characteristics, whether Kodak or Fuji products. There is no direct substitute. And I believe Ektar 160 might
even do a better job IF one knows how to mask. Otherwise, good luck with flashing. Chromes a short-scale, and flashing in general in order
to lower contrast generally leads to a degree of mud in the lower tones. If you do find any interneg film still for sale, it's probably so old
that you are going to have crossover in the highlights and overall anemic hue reproduction. Most of that stuff was already worthless a decade
ago.

 

[DREW WILEY]

... Sorry for the typo. Dupes and internegs are obviously different, one generating a positive and the other a negative. But the preliminary
work to control contrast is analogous. In fact, I often made very high resolution printing dupes first, then generated the interneg from these
rather than the original.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Motion picture negative films are low contrast, and consumer / professional negative films are high contrast. Therefore, motion picture print films are high contrast to give the right contrast to the image. Color paper is lower contrast to give the same contrast range to the image.

Mixing the two systems will give a "contrast mismatch" with contrast generally being too low, and images appearing muddy.

A preflash is not needed. See my attached photo above (Ektachrome > Portra 160, pulled process then scanned). I have a scan of the print as well.

PE

 

[Paul Howell]

Motion picture negative films are low contrast, and consumer / professional negative films are high contrast. Therefore, motion picture print films are high contrast to give the right contrast to the image. Color paper is lower contrast to give the same contrast range to the image.

Mixing the two systems will give a "contrast mismatch" with contrast generally being too low, and images appearing muddy.

A preflash is not needed. See my attached photo above (Ektachrome > Portra 160, pulled process then scanned). I have a scan of the print as well.

PE

I attempted to make internegatives with several types of consumer and pro color film, Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, and even Farina, I could not find a combo that worked very well, best was Portra 400, but I gave up and just started to scan and print. I now shoot color negative film so I can print onto R 4.

 

[fdonadio]

Motion picture negative films are low contrast, and consumer / professional negative films are high contrast. Therefore, motion picture print films are high contrast to give the right contrast to the image. Color paper is lower contrast to give the same contrast range to the image.

Thanks, Ron. Now I get what you mean. I already knew about MP print film having high contrast to compensate for in-camera stock's low contrast.

I still believe that MP internegative stock could be used for still photography. If MP prints (and, possibly, reversal MP color film, not available anymore) are high contrast positives, they would need low-contrast internegative stock so to keep the same contrast as the original.

George Grosu mentioned MP intermediate film, which is a whole 'nother beast. It's meant for making a positive copy (master) of negative (in-camera) originals or a negative copy of a positive master. Based on this, I assume it doesn't alter the contrast... The bad news is that it has a red integral mask, not orange, like the negative stock.

I would definitely give MP internegative film a try.


Flavio

 

[fdonadio]

A preflash is not needed. See my attached photo above (Ektachrome > Portra 160, pulled process then scanned). I have a scan of the print as well.

Congrats for the nice job. Still, the water looks a little muddy to me. Maybe it really was...