Making Internegatives - Which is better?

[bvy]

Understanding there will be a tradeoff either way, I'm wondering which of the two would be better for making internegatives from slides:
1. Using expired dedicated internegative film, reputed to be kept cold-stored since purchased. (I'm looking both at Kodak Vericolor sheet film, and Fujicolor IT-N roll film.)
2. Using fresh Portra 160 (or equivalent), using the pull method (i.e. overexpose slightly then pull during development).

Thoughts?

 

[MartinP]

The Portra should be more consistent I should think? A stable, fresh product, stored in a known way since new - and most likely repeatable for others too.

Somewhere here there is a thread where someone (PhotoEngineer?) suggested a starting point for a small amount of filtration for exposing the interneg, but that would also depend on the original transparency and the light-source. My memory has faded over the exact procedure of what I (infrequently) did thirty years ago unfortunately. It would be very useful if you recorded your progress with either method of course! Good luck

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak recommends #2, Portra and I have used it exclusively since the demise of Interneg film. I overexpose and pull process as recommended using either 2' 45" or 3' instead of the 3'. I use a 100C and 50 M on my enlarger with an f22 aperture and 1/2" exposure to get the appearance of "daylight" with my system.

PE

 

[Dr Croubie]

I've been meaning to ask this same question myself, but with a third option: How about paper RA-4 as an interneg and then contact-print?
I know the Crystal Archive that I've got right now has 'FUJIFILM' printed all over the back which might come out in a contact print, but surely there's some brand of RA4 without backprinting?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Using paper, the interneg will be very unsharp!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

I also don't think there is any RA4 paper without back printing. There's another thread here about this and shooting RA4 paper in LF cameras then inverting (or not) in...ah, verboten post exposure methods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bvy]

Kodak recommends #2, Portra and I have used it exclusively since the demise of Interneg film. I overexpose and pull process as recommended using either 2' 45" or 3' instead of the 3'. I use a 100C and 50 M on my enlarger with an f22 aperture and 1/2" exposure to get the appearance of "daylight" with my system.

Awesome. Thank you. So that exposure works for you for most slides. Interesting. I would have thought each one would have to be tested at various exposures, kind of like making a print.

Do you have an example of a print made using this method that you'd be willing to share?

 

[snapguy]

Yore

Back in the Days of Yore when dinosaurs roamed the earth and Film Was King, I worked for a major international wire photo service and we would make internegs from slides on RC paper. You might be surprised how good they came out. Good enough to make a 7x9 inch print and send them by telephone wire all over the country.

 

[Roger Cole]

Awesome. Thank you. So that exposure works for you for most slides. Interesting. I would have thought each one would have to be tested at various exposures, kind of like making a print.

Do you have an example of a print made using this method that you'd be willing to share?

And...are those contact printed onto the film or projected? Any advantage one way or the other? Sheet film is easier to handle but given the price of Potra in sheets that's an advantage for contact printing, if you are going to make very many anyway.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I also don't think there is any RA4 paper without back printing. There's another thread here about this and shooting RA4 paper in LF cameras then inverting (or not) in...ah, verboten post exposure methods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Post exposure using anything you can use in the darkroom is permitted AFAIK. So, color balance, density, and etc, is OK.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Awesome. Thank you. So that exposure works for you for most slides. Interesting. I would have thought each one would have to be tested at various exposures, kind of like making a print.

Do you have an example of a print made using this method that you'd be willing to share?

Sorry, no uploads right now. The files are huge being 4x5s so I have to reduce the size before I can upload. Some of them are 20M or larger.

I've done Kodachromes and Ektachromes this way. They are a tad high in contrast due to the lack of the upsweft shoulder that true Interneg film had. Otherwise they are quite good. Better than old interneg film!!!! It did not keep all that well.

PE

 

[bvy]

Sorry, no uploads right now. The files are huge being 4x5s so I have to reduce the size before I can upload. Some of them are 20M or larger.

Guess I'll have to come to Rochester...

 

[Photo Engineer]

You are most welcome! I can show you the original slides, the 4x5 negs and some proof prints.

I'll also show you the tiny darkroom where it was all done!

My home town is Pittsburgh but I have not been there since 2008 for a variety of reasons. I love the hills (and the sound of music!) but most of all I love being home again. I always drive by our home back there and there is a road and a park named after us due to the long history of my family there.

PE

 

[bvy]

You are most welcome! I can show you the original slides, the 4x5 negs and some proof prints.

I'll also show you the tiny darkroom where it was all done!

My home town is Pittsburgh but I have not been there since 2008 for a variety of reasons. I love the hills (and the sound of music!) but most of all I love being home again. I always drive by our home back there and there is a road and a park named after us due to the long history of my family there.

PE

Oh, I'd love that! I could even bring you some pierogie. Maybe I can sell it to my wife as a trip to Niagara -- with a (cough) detour...

 

[Roger Cole]

Post exposure using anything you can use in the darkroom is permitted AFAIK. So, color balance, density, and etc, is OK.

PE

Yeah but - I meant people were doing the S word to them then reversing in the evil PS word...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheToadMen]

Post exposure using anything you can use in the darkroom is permitted AFAIK. So, color balance, density, and etc, is OK.
PE

WOW, I can use my laptop in the darkroom for other things than playing music??

Yeah but - I meant people were doing the S word to them then reversing in the evil PS word...

I don't get it ... what has an evil Play Station got to do with this? Or does it make you loose track of time, thus overdeveloping everything and making you say Shit again ??

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[TheToadMen]

I also don't think there is any RA4 paper without back printing. There's another thread here about this and shooting RA4 paper in LF cameras then inverting (or not) in...ah, verboten post exposure methods.

Did you see these threads on RA4 paper used as negatives?
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
and
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


I have made paper negatives with B&W photo paper for contact printing (sandwich style) before and it works fine. Never done color paper though. If there is an imprint on the back, you can carefully remove the plastic back layer. I have done this with B&W photo paper:

I normally do this when the paper has almost dried. I cut an edge with a surgeon knife and pull off the plastic layer slowly.
I then rub the back in slow circles with linseed oil until all the oil is absorbed. This will make the paper negative more transparent.

Has anyone done this with RA4 paper as well?

 

[darkroom_rookie]

I use Portra 100T. That film is no longer made, but managed to source quite a few boxes (dated 2008) from a large and reputable lab, so it's as fresh as possible. Works really well. I also overexpose and pull, in Digibase chemicals. Only minimal M filtration is usually required. Did several internegs from Velvia 50, also developed by myself, and the results were fabulous. Printed exquisitely well on latest version on Ultra Endura N (no backprint, paper base made in Germany, sensitized in England).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Well, my scanner feeds directly to Photo Shop and it inverts automatically if I click on scan negative. The color and density are almost always correct. i make a tiny color or density change and I'm ready to go. But no, I don't use my computer in the darkroom unless I use a green screen or yellow screen print while making emulsions. It would be too costly to have an accident though with all that water around even with my dry area.

As for the internegatives, they make great prints, but I've said before that the toe is a tad distorted when compared to the "real" interneg film. The real interneg film had an upswept shoulder.

And, regarding Pittsburgh, how about a Friday fish fry with Halushki? Or stuffed cabbage? We cannot get even the frozen stuffed cabbages here anymore! Yeah, I miss the place. But there is still the Rege Cordic site on the internet with Olde Frothingslosh Beer and Ale and all of his other goodies!

PE

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've made internegs with Kodak 4x5 interneg film. Some amazing results. But sometimes I had to struggle with a magenta/green color crossover. I did it in an enlarger.

 

[darkroom_rookie]

I've made internegs with Kodak 4x5 interneg film. Some amazing results. But sometimes I had to struggle with a magenta/green color crossover. I did it in an enlarger.

Did you use "commercial internegative 4325" film? I'd be interested in the filtration and times you used, as well as the lens and bulb power.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's been a while

Did you use "commercial internegative 4325" film? I'd be interested in the filtration and times you used, as well as the lens and bulb power.

Let me do some research to see if I have notes on what I did. What I do remember is the stuff is tungsten balanced and slow like RA paper.

Best,
Don

 

[Bob Carnie]

Balancing colour interneg film would shift from one workstation to another, I used the density difference method which do not ask me to explain as I forget. Also we used a graduated grey background image once we were dialed in close. The cross curves would show themseles visually by eye from the highlight to the shadow and one would do a final correction based on this very subtle approach.
Also the best internegs are those that are done by contacting the source film to the interneg film emulsion to emulsion .

Let me do some research to see if I have notes on what I did. What I do remember is the stuff is tungsten balanced and slow like RA paper.

Best,
Don

 

[DREW WILEY]

The best internegative film currently on the market would appear to be Portra 160. I've done some tentative experiments with it, but have all
the fine-tuning yet to go (low priority on my current schedule). Basically, you're on your own. To make high-quality printable internegs from
slides, you also need to become proficient at contrast masking first. This is all an advanced skill set, and you're on your own. Don't expect to
find anything serious in print or on the web. I don't really think anyone has pinned it down yet with current materials.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here are the curves of the "real" internegative film. If you do not balance and expose properly, you get crossover due to the upsweep on the right of the curve. Regular Portra has no upsweep, but is straight with a shoulder and that is why use a just a tad of pull process. Stay off the shoulder of Portra 160.

The left photo "Birds of a Feather" was made on Portra from a 35mm Kodachrome, and the right one "Tower Rock" was made from an Ektachrome original. Both are about 2" x 3" on 4x5 Portra and used the exposure and process described above. The photos strained the upload, but I made it. The Kodachrome is just too contrasty for me. No Kodachrome has turned out as well as I wanted, but the Ektachromes were just fine.

PE