comments from previous article system:
By Kino - 12:48 AM, 07-17-2006 Rating: None
Very nice! Well done!
By Clueless - 08:54 AM, 07-17-2006 Rating: None
Another human victory...Huhr-rah!
By Hans Borjes - 09:36 AM, 07-17-2006 Rating: None
'Finally, this procedure is not practical if one wants to copy a 120 negative.' True. A 120 slide photographer certainly does not want to copy 120 negatives onto 135 film. As far as the effort is concerned, this process looks simple, but in the end it makes more effort to develop the negative film and copy each frame separately on copy film, where each copied frame needs separate handling. From that perspective a film reversal process is easier. And potassium permanganate bleach in the kitchen is not a problem at all. The reduced contrast that you are describing is most likely contributed by light diffusion in the sandwhich.
By Kino - 03:10 PM, 07-17-2006 Rating: None
Hans brings up a good point about how contrast in contact Vs projection printing varies. Most motion picture printing is contact-based and the industry is geared toward that reproduction gamut to produce good looking images from contact printed dupe negs NOT projection printed negs, so if you want snapper positives, you have to process the print or the neg and the print to a higher gamma to obtain that. It is not a defect, but a DESIRED property of the stock to avoid generational build up of contrast.
By mhv - 01:30 AM, 07-18-2006 Rating: None
Hans-- that's a good point, but because my primary purpose is printing, I develop my film as negative first, and wanted an easy procedure to create amusing slides. A slide photographer would either fine-tune his negatives for this purpose, or simply work with direct reversal, but I wanted to have an opportunity to reuse my favorite negatives in a different medium. I wonder if rephotographing would change the contrast of the final print, given that it's a projection, not a contact.
Kino-- so it DOES make sense that the film develops to completion once it's in the soup. By doing so the number of variable to control is reduced, just like when one prints on paper. Having too much flexibility would amount to opening the door to more problems.
Thanks for reading, guys!
By Hans Borjes - 10:39 AM, 07-18-2006 Rating: None
mhv-- that is the key point: what is the primary usage. For me it is slide projection, i.e. all parameters including contrast need to be optimised for the projector (not for the light table). Because my secondary usage for a small fraction of the shots is printing, mounting and hanging on the wall, the slides need to work in a scanner as well (I never want to hand over a slide to a lab again, all come back with fingerprints or scratches - if they come back at all). Besides: the golden rule in analog technology is to keep the number of copies to a minimum, i.e. the number of lenses in the chain, taking the picture and projecting is already two.
By glennfromwy - 01:44 AM, 07-20-2006 Rating: None
I have a very old 100 foot roll of Fine Grain Release Positive that I make black and white slides with, on occasion. I contact print them. Develop in Dektol 1:2 for 3 minutes. The base is crystal clear, with creamy white emulsion. Maybe 5302 ? It can be worked with under a red safelight and is enlarging speed, so easy to work with. The results are quite good. They don't seem all that great just to look at them but they project nicely.
By Kino - 01:52 AM, 07-20-2006 Rating: None
Yep, that sounds like 5302, which is exactly the same as 2302 except for the base is acetate instead of estar/polyester. If you want more contrast, you could use one of those slide copiers or copy tubes like the Testrite; of course, assuming you want to do 35mm @ 1:1.
By Jordan - 04:15 AM, 07-20-2006 Rating: None
There are also slide copiers that let you "zoom in" and crop. A little more finicky.
Have you guys seen Luca de Alfaro's page?
http://www.dealfaro.com/home/bwslides.html That's where I first learned how to make copy slides on 5302. It works well. You can "tone" the slides in KRST for more kick.
By mhv - 05:50 AM, 07-20-2006 Rating: None
One thing I noticed with Estar or polyester base films is that they tend to be more finnicky to load in a camera. My Spotmatic's taking spool tends not to grip on 2302 as well as it does on acetate base films. You need to be very careful with the first advances of the film.
Selenium toner sounds like an interesting idea for putting in more contrast. I was also thinking about using D-19, given that it's an off-the-shelf high contrast developer. The only reason I didn't try it was that because when I looked at Kodak's contrast indices for Tech Pan, Dektol gave a higher contrast than D-19. I don't know if 2302 would react differently, though.
