Making Enlarged Negatives

I have been researching the process of making enlarged negatives for alternative processes and see that ortho lith films are recommended. Why would they be better than using ordinary panchromatic sheet film, as I assume would be used in a large format camera? I know a red light can be used with the ortho film but is there any other reason to use ortho?

I have purchased some Arista Ortho Lith film to try but I'm unsure which developer to use. I have seem recommendations for paper developer as well as lith, pyro and some film developers such as Rodinal and HC-110. Controlling contrast seems to be an issue so I'm surprised to see lith developer recommended for lith film. I would expect pyro to be a better choice?

I will be enlarging 120 B&W positive film so this will only be a one step process to get the enlarged negative.

Insofar as it's affordable and can be developed by inspection, it's a good choice. Beyond that, you'll need lots of patience and lots of luck. It is very contrasty, and all of my research suggests that there's no consensus on a developer that gives a good, continuous tone negative.

That said, I've spent the past two weeks or so messing around with it, trying different developers and dilutions. With what I have on hand, the best results came from preflashing and devevloping in D-76 1+2 -- development times ranging from 5 to 10 minutes at room temperature (~68F). I'm rating it at ISO 6. But these are in-camera negatives, not enlargements. In any case, I plan on contact printing some of these negatives this weekend, and will post back if I come up with anything good.

As far as next steps, I plan to purchase a liter of Centrabrom S, a soft-working developer that Joe Van Cleave (a member here) claims to have had some success with.

If you are enlarging negatives for the purpose of alternative UV processes, I would highly recommend an article by Bob Herbst which appeared in the May/June 2002 "View Camera" magazine about using pyro developers . The article also appears on his web site at www.bobherbst.com. (search under "writings"). I have been utilizing his method for platinum/palladium printing, as well as cyanotype and kallitype processes, for over ten years since I first read his article, and I feel that the combination of ortho film and pyro developer is the best way to go, as the pyro stain is an ideal light resist for UV.

Take a look at Sanderson's technique. It's quite cleaver.

http://www.thewebdarkroom.com/?p=675

Hmmm, re: Sanderson's technique, I must be stupid: "This (the RC print faced down with the Lith or Ortho etc. film) is placed in a contact printing frame or under thick glass and exposed under the enlarger...." How does this work? Is the RC print on top of the film? In which case, how does the light reach through the RC print and expose the film? If it's the other way, doesn't the exposure just expose whole sheet of film?

It does work

didjiman said:

How does this work? Is the RC print on top of the film? In which case, how does the light reach through the RC print and expose the film? If it's the other way, doesn't the exposure just expose whole sheet of film?

Click to expand...

I used Fuji HRT which has my personal ASA of about 200. According to my notes, is 40 secs at f/5.6 with an 80mm lens. The film is blue sensitive so I processed the film under a safelight in Xtol. There are 3 problems I have using HRT for making copy negs. 1. The film isn't sharp 2. No anti-halation layer so the your highlights (the dense areas) can have a bit of a bloom. 3. The emulsion gets very soft during processing and it scratches easily.

But the film is very cheap. The final neg transmits UV light quite well which is important in most alt processes.

I like more control with my alt process negs so I use a hybrid process that involves using OHP film and and ink jet printer.

Not stupid, it's not obvious.

You can make a contact print through an RC print. Paper negatives work that way too, and can be contact printed onto another sheet of photo paper to make a positive.

I see, so RC paper is not "light proof"? Cool!!

I see no advantages in ortho litho other than the fact it's cheap and can be obtained in relatively large sizes. I'd much rather use a long-scale film amenable to normal developers. FP4 is one of my favorites. It's routinely available up to 8x10, but can obviously be intermittently acquired in larger sizes at considerably more cost. But if I'm going to contact a small original (6x9cm or smaller), I prefer to make the interpositive with
TMY100, then enlarge this onto FP4 for the final enlarged neg. There are a few tricks to it, but nothing difficult in theory.

thefizz said:

I have been researching the process of making enlarged negatives for alternative processes and see that ortho lith films are recommended. Why would they be better than using ordinary panchromatic sheet film, as I assume would be used in a large format camera? I know a red light can be used with the ortho film but is there any other reason to use ortho?

Click to expand...

Do you like to see what you are doing?

Pano film can be useful

thefizz said:

Why would they be better than using ordinary panchromatic sheet film, as I assume would be used in a large format camera? I know a red light can be used with the ortho film but is there any other reason to use ortho?

Click to expand...

Pano sheet film is a waste unless you need broad color sensitivity. An example is when you make in interneg. For example when you want to copy a color transparency for BW alt processes.

DREW WILEY said:

I see no advantages in ortho litho other than the fact it's cheap and can be obtained in relatively large sizes. I'd much rather use a long-scale film amenable to normal developers. FP4 is one of my favorites. It's routinely available up to 8x10, but can obviously be intermittently acquired in larger sizes at considerably more cost. But if I'm going to contact a small original (6x9cm or smaller), I prefer to make the interpositive with
TMY100, then enlarge this onto FP4 for the final enlarged neg. There are a few tricks to it, but nothing difficult in theory.

Click to expand...

If you like FP4 for making copy or enlarged negatives then try Ilford Ortho film, in many ways similar to FP4 but better suited to the purpose with the advantage of being Ortho - it does need a good safelight, many won't be safe enough. Compared to FP4 it gives slightly better shadow detail and is less prone to blocked highlights, it's as fine grained and is more suited to higher contrast (& density) negatives required for alternative processes.

I'd consider reversal processed enlarged negatives now that the direct Positive copy films have disappeared..

Ian

Sorry I'm only getting back to this now. Thanks for all the information.

One more question: Is the use of enlarger filtration necessary when enlarging negs?