Kodak 5302/ D-76 combo

I'm trying to make negs using Kodak 5302 after I photographed my Scala slides with a slide duplicator.

I've read the past threads on making B&W slides, where a print developer such as Dektol was recommended. However, when I used PQ developer, I found far too much contrast. Anyway, for slides the recommended contrast index is 2.1 and above, but for me to get printable negs, I'd like to keep contrast below 1.5.

Any recommendations on using D-76 with 5302? The data sheet says it can be used if the original negs are high-contrast, with a developing time of 4-10 mins continuous agitation. That's such a large range-- anyone has recommendations?

PS. I can't get D-97 here, which is the recommended developer.

Let me get this straight, you are trying to make negatives of your b&w slides?

Will these negs be inter-negatives for other slides or for prints?

Either way, you really need to use 5234 Dupe Neg Stock processed to a .50 to .70 gamma range; probably .50 gamma. I don't know why you'd be using 5302 unless it is the only film you have on hand.

As for D-97, you should find Dektol practically the same developer.

In reading your post, I think you may have it mixed up; the Dektol is recommeded for making SLIDES from negatives, not the other way around.

You should search the forums for MHV's postings on making slides from negatives on 5302.

Also, the formulas for D-96 and D-97 are freely published on Eastman Kodak's website in their motion picture section.

This is one area where I think you're going to have to experiment... it's got to depend somewhat on your exposure and what results are acceptable to you.

Thank you Kino. I've read your past posts on your experiences, and I've Googled all over.

Yes, I am trying to make negs of my slides so I can print them in the dark room. Scala is so beautiful, but ilfochrome printing is way too expensive and inaccessible.

Well, it will probably take some experimentation, but with a little math you can get sort of a guideline to start with (and feel free to double-check my math, it's been a while ):

- from this link it's suggested 5302 can be developed with Dektol (I'm assuming 1+3 given that the post talks about "standard paper developer", and I believe 1+3 is the usual paper dilution) for 3 minutes

- from the Massive Dev Chart, you can get a baseline for both Dektol and D-76 for Tri-X @ 400 - assuming there's a fairly similar relationship between the 2 when developing 5302, you can use this to calculate a similar time for D-76

So, Tri-X @ 400 in Dektol 1+3 is listed as 3.5 min at 24 degrees. The times for the same in D-76 are all at 20 degrees, so looking at the chart here (towards the bottom of the page), the Dektol time would correspond to 5.5 min at 20 degrees.

Tri-X @ 400 (new) in D-76 1+1 is listed as 9.75 min at 20 degrees.

Thus, we're looking at: (3:x) = (5.5:9.75), and therefore x = 5.32, or just about 5 min 19 seconds in D-76 1+1 at 20 degrees.

Mabman,

Dektol is too high an energy developer for a dupe neg unless you dilute the heck out of it.

D96 (negative) has more Elon (metol) than Hydroquinone and the D97 is equal parts Elon and Hydroquinone, so the latter is the most energetic.

Waileong,

Here from the Kodak site; download the PDF which has the chemical formulas for the each developer and there is nothing exotic in either one really.

Believe me, I setup and duped several million feet of release prints for film restoration and if you use a positive developer and print stock to do this, you won't be happy with the results -- unless you don't like full Greyscale images...

Our dupe neg tanks were over twice the length of our positive processor tanks, so that gives you an idea of the energy difference -- that and a shot of sodium hydroxide for the postive -- that makes a difference!

If you need some 5234, I have several hundred feel around here somewhere; short ends I managed to abscond with when I left work (routinely threw out any short end under 100 foot anyway).

I just did it. First time I tried D76 1+1 @ 7 mins, I felt it was too contrasty, I shot the transparencies again, and did 5:15. Still slightly too contrasty, but I'll give it a shot on my enlarger first, maybe resort to split grade printing if I have to before I reshoot if necessary.

Wai Leong
===
PS -- For info, I also developed a strip of 5302 in an open beaker using D76 1+1 to see how long it would take to get maximum black. It took more than 8 mins! So 5:15 is already on the safe side.

Kino said:

Mabman,

Dektol is too high an energy developer for a dupe neg unless you dilute the heck out of it.

D96 (negative) has more Elon (metol) than Hydroquinone and the D97 is equal parts Elon and Hydroquinone, so the latter is the most energetic.

Click to expand...

I'm certainly not disputing your experience, just offering a starting point for solution for D-76 based on what I could find. Interesting side-note, some people have reported using 5302 in-camera shot at about 6 ISO with interesting results (being orthochromatic with no anti-halation layer).

Just to add a little: I use 2302 (similar to 5302, but on an estar base) to make B&W slides and as an all-purpose negative. When I make slides (from normal B&W negs) I use Dektol stock for the highest possible contrast. That's not what you want.

When I use 2302 as an in-camera negative (cf. in my gallery (there was a url link here which no longer exists)), I use Rodinal 1+100 for about 11 mins. That gives me negatives that prints easily on grade 2-3, so the gamma is somewhere around 0.6.

The useful thing about Rodinal is that you can use it at very high dilution to tame the contrast of the film. HC-110 at similar dilution would probably yield similar results. You can just tweak the concentration to achieve the proper contrast, keeping time constant.

mabman said:

I'm certainly not disputing your experience, just offering a starting point for solution for D-76 based on what I could find. Interesting side-note, some people have reported using 5302 in-camera shot at about 6 ISO with interesting results (being orthochromatic with no anti-halation layer).

Click to expand...

Whoops! Sorry, misread your post. D76 certainly might be pressed into service with testing.

Actually, the 5302 has a yellow dye that acts as a rudimentary anti-halation layer for blue light only; which makes sense!

I have same tests with B&W positive film in-camera like negativ and slide.
Negativ have 3 - 4 ISO – see images.
Slide have 50 ISO.

Hey, that's great! You should try a portrait now and see what the skin colour looks like.

What method did you use to do the slide? Reversal processing?

Michel, B&W positive film in-camera like negative have only 3 - 4 ISO and a spectral sensitivity very little and is incredible the images you see with the positive film. I like the quality of images and I work very much for discover the developer and the parameters. Is not an easy work, but when I see the pictures I can go before. If you want see the crop with picture of dog: http://membres.lycos.fr/georgegrosu/11 inalta rezolutie.htm .
B&W positive film in-camera is difficult with peoples (see pictures).
With the reversal processing me don t has a similar quality like the negative processing (for B&W positive film), but I have a good sensitivity (25 – 50 ISO) and I think I can change same think. Reversal images are not bad, but the scan is not good.
The negative and reversal processing I work with chemicals (not kit).
George

I recently used 5302, developed in Agfa Multicontrast liquid developer, to make high contrast internegatives from high contrast interpositives (made from a low contrast B&W negative), which were used in a multi-enlarger multi-image print. The Multicontrast developer was diluted 1:9, which is 2x the dilution recommended for paper, namely 1:4. High contrast was what I was after.

If I wanted to make a normal contrast internegative from a normal contrast positive transparancy, I would try a low contrast developer, like Kodak D-23. It should be noted that 5302 was designed to make motion picture release prints from negatives, which would (or should) have been developed to a Contrast Index (CI) of something like 0.55 to 0.60.

I don't know for sure what the recommended CI for the 5302 is, but one way of thinking of it is that if you had a B&W negative, with the above CI (0.55-0.60) you wished to print on B&W paper, the paper is developed to (by film standards) a very high contrast. If you start with a transparency, which has a very high contrast, something like a CI of 1.2 to 1.4, then you will need a low density range (low contrast) internegative.

The contrast of the final product (your B&W print) is the product of the CI of the original (the Scala slide), multiplied by the CI of the internegative (on 5302 film), multiplied by the CI of the B&W paper you print the internegative on. If all of that sounds like a lot, it is. I made internegaives and interpositives for years, for very picky clients, from a range of originals, for a whole universe of different applications. The uses ranged from press release photos, to large murals made from aerial negatives. Sometimes (not often) we got originals with embedded gray scales, which made the development adjustments for contrast control easier to calculate...but not easy to calculate.

analogfotog said:

.........

If I wanted to make a normal contrast internegative from a normal contrast positive transparancy, I would try a low contrast developer, like Kodak D-23. It should be noted that 5302 was designed to make motion picture release prints from negatives, which would (or should) have been developed to a Contrast Index (CI) of something like 0.55 to 0.60.

I don't know for sure what the recommended CI for the 5302 is, but one way of thinking of it is that if you had a B&W negative, with the above CI (0.55-0.60) you wished to print on B&W paper, the paper is developed to (by film standards) a very high contrast. If you start with a transparency, which has a very high contrast, something like a CI of 1.2 to 1.4, then you will need a low density range (low contrast) internegative.

.........

Click to expand...

The 5302 should be developed to a CI of 2.6 for theatrical release print. It is because original negative has a CI about 0.6 and the printing processing will give 0.6 X 2.6 to about 1.5 viewing contrast of the release print.