negative to negative

Good Afternoon, Veke,

I agree with Martin. In addition to what he said, note that contact-printing the negatives will almost inevitably result in some dust specks. That's not a problem with ordinary contact sheets which are just used for evaluation and reference purposes, but all those specks will certainly show up on the copy negatives.

Copying prints of the size Martin suggests should provide good quality copy negatives; regardless of the film you eventually choose, a little experimentation with exposure and processing times should be done for optimum results. You may have to vary processing times depending on the contrast of the prints you're copying.

Konical

Great comments. I will test this procedure first: making a print into size 18x24cm and then shooting the prints on film. And then making a new print from the negative to check out the final result. Good to know that contrast is likely to increase and I must test other exposures and development times to get the best results. The 18x24 is a small enlargement as mentioned above but just for this testing I will settle for that. For the "best of" negatives I will make a larger print. I will also test glossy and matt prints just for comparison, or does somebody already know which is the best option for my purpose?

One thing more (sigh!). The original negatives are "correctly exposed and developed" and mostly shot on same film material and film size. At least I start with those that are. Is it enough to do the testing with 1-2 negatives and then I can continue with 100-200 negs repeating the procedure I have chosen? Or should I check after every negative? If this is a too stupid question you may leave it unanswered .

This apug.org is a valuable site, it feels that I am talking with many specialists in many countries who have the patience and understanding and knowledge to share information. Hopefully some other people can find help from this topic. There must be millions of old negatives in many homes that deserve documenting for the next generations as well. After all, what is left the from old times are mainly memories and photos, the landscapes never appear the same as they did 40-70 years ago. Let´s keep the photos alive, in some form.

Good Morning, Veke,

I think your plan to start with one or two negatives which are fairly typical makes sense. Once you have established some basic parameters, everything should get easier and easier. Copying is actually one of the simplest photographic procedures, as long as you are consistent with lighting, film, processing, etc.

Konical

dear Konical. That´s good news to start this day with. I hope that my eyes will learn to judge after some errors. My worry is now how to avoid increased contrast because I do the paper copy, take a photo of it on film and then develop the film. On every step the quality may suffer a little bit. Increased contrast is now my main worry, how to avoid it and on shich step it can be controlled the best. Perhaps the paper copy should be a little flat? Or should the final negative be over-exposed and under-developed, or vice versa....that is the question.

Good Morning, Veke,

I would try to avoid any excessive contrast in the prints from your original negatives; as long as those prints have normal to slightly soft contrast, subsequent copy negatives should be easy to produce. Aim for correctly-exposed copy negatives and tweak the development time as necessary to achieve proper contrast. It's usually easier to print from a slightly soft-contrast negative than to print from a high-contrast negative.

Konical

Good afternoon, Konical, and thank you. I perfectly agree. Later on (after 100 years) when someone starts making paper copies from my negatives he can choose suitable paper materials to get the results with nice contrast and tonality. I try to expose the negatives as correctly as I possibly can and if they still look too contrasty I will shorten the development time. Makes sense.

Konical,

Since it appears that you want to make strips of copy negatives and were planning to do it in two steps (duping the dup) why not consider x-ray duplicating film. It can be done in a printing frame or contact printer even exposed with a bare light bulb. Make a test strip to establish exposure. You may have to arrange your strips according to similar original exposures because you may have different densities on a single original roll. It's a great film and easy to work with.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Good Morning, Jeffrey,

Veke is doing the copying. I just participated in the discussion.

When I do occasional B & W copy work, I use Kodak Commercial film (4 x 5) which makes adjustment of exposure and/or processing easy to do for individual originals of varying contrast and brightness. The film was discontinued about a decade ago, but I have several hundred sheets dated 2002 in the freezer. Veke's interest in getting duplicate negatives is something I haven't often pursued; I do still have a partial box of Kodak Professional B/W duplicating film (SO-339) dated 1994 which has been stored frozen. I suppose I'd try that if I ever need duplicate negatives, but I have no idea if it's still good.

Konical

thank you for the new comments.

I will work with those materials, film,developer,paper, that are easily available here. Hopefully will be available after a year also. I have some paper packages but can´t use them in this project because there are perhaps 200 sheets of those and I will need perhaps 500. I would have to change the paper during this project and it is not good.

Controlling the contrast is a headache. Those original negatives are from different manufacturers and are of different type meaning ASA 100, 400. Perhaps something else. So the paper that I will be making the enlargements to should be "tolerable" to saving tones and giving decent paper copies. If I lose tones and details in the lightest areas of the photo there is no way to get those back later on. Dodging light from the dark end can give some details from there, I think.

Yes, many ways to do this. Some are difficult to do, some are expensive, some are slow, some gove good and some give poor results. Making an enlargement and shooting on film those paper copies is the thing I plan to do. Unless someone gives "The Best" alternative.