Old Print Yellow Stains

[lee]

mos:
<<< Just to clarify few thinks. You have the right to take pictures of
anybody or any building but you need permission for exhibition or any
commercial use. I have never seen any photographer in the street taking
photos of buildings even with a tripod being in trouble. For people it is
different as any where in the world you should ask if they agree to take
some photo it is always more friendly.
I have taken hundreds of photos in Paris without any trouble ( do not
try photos in hot district with prostitutes)

Daniel Bouzard>>>

 

[lee]

last message:
<<<Take it from someone who was thrown out of a London Underground station,
unsuccessfully sued for $1500 for an innocent shot of a public building but
charged several times for taking pictures inside churches, chased off the
parking lot of a hotel in Scotland, attacked by Detroit residents and many
other incidents, ANYTHING BUT 35MM WILL ATTRACT ATTENTION.

I have gone to 'take the shot and move on' and have learned that it is
easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Sad but true.



Regards

Ralph W. Lambrecht>>>

There you have an idea of what I was talking about.

lee\c

 

[chrisl]

Thanks Lee for all that information. Quite unbelievable...sheep lol

At least I know now at least re. shooting people as well. Again, Thanks for asking the net group Lee.

 

[tintinnabulation]

Chris, while the stain remains try scanning the photo into your computer and then on your image program take away the color. At least you might be able to save it in digital form.

 

[Aggie]

..

 

[inthedark]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lee @ Apr 11 2003, 05:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I think Doc is\was talking about copying them with a yellow filter. The theory is that the yellow filter will filter the yellow and photograph it as white then you will have copy negs to print on fiber. If it were me I might not want to spend too much time on this project. Live and learn. BUT, if I were I would use my big camera and make 4x5 negs.


lee\c </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
This exactly what my pre-press cameras are for. I can present you a perfect negative up to 24 x 36 inches. Wow! Go for contact. But really an 8 x 10 with a 760mm lens is sweeeeeet. Let me help. Sorry, this wasn't supposed to be a sales pitch, it really is what these cameras were built for.
Now another technique for the really ruined is going to a full size negative (allowing for contact reproduction). The benefits are two fold, one being the standard reasons for large contact rather than enlargement, but another is that when yellowing is very bad, a combination of the yellow filter and hard line film and half-tone neg at 133lines or better, usually clears even the worse. And should there be a minor problem after that; a simple round of pointilism with a film marker usually remedies that in a jif. Since you're already at full size, you know if the half tone is in any way offensive. Usually it is not.

Now I have to mention I cannot find a supplier of line screens so what I have is all I have, so some limitations might apply. But I'd love to knowif anyone does.

 

[inthedark]

I guess I better start using word pad to edit because I clicked and poof it was gone.
Uhm I was going to suggest a way you can duplicate this technique with your labs. Get your hands on something called b&w diapositive film, Agfa and Kodak both sell it. Now it is a clear negative printing film, continuous tone, orthochromatic. What you do is use the concepts of half toning on the continuous print. You will need a yellow flash light (I don't have the filter number handy but will get that and reply) with a timer. First find your exposure based on what you think a good slide would look like. Now cut that time to 75% or so (testing will be necessary) at the end of exposure flash the negative with the flashlight about 12 to 18 inches away from the negative. Time should be roughly (again test) 10-15% of your original "slide" exposure time. This steps lays down the mask found in normal b&w film and lays in the density for the whites and the yellow pretty much disappears because the shortened exposure usually isn't long enough to register but the worst of yellows.
I apologize and ask patience now and forever for my long winded-ness.

 

[inthedark]

Oh, I forgot to mention the other nice thing about diapositive film; it is processed in normal Dektol or whatever. Your choice of developer will effect the outcome almost exactly as it effects VC paper, the main difference being that the film takes longer to develop, so don't rush it, or your tests. About twice as long as you usually develop paper should work. It will take a little testing to get it just right but us a exist negative of accepted print as a comparison for your results. And of course test, test, test,. . .record your results for later. Your percentages should level off fairly quickly if you do not alter your lighting. Be sure to record that too and take into account normal reduction issues.

 

[lee]

What is the Kodak Number of the diapositive film, if I can ask that? What camera are does your shop use? I have been in the pre-press business for 25 years as a tech rep not a user. I don't remember who makes the 1/2 tone screens but I will call my former employer and ask one of the supply girls if they know and will post here.

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

Jill, If you are looking for a niche that needs to be filled. I suggest looking into providing enlarged negatives for those who want to do any of the alternative processes. You will need to become familiar with reading film densities and probably densities of negatives which have been developed in pyro developers. That will require a densitometer with a UV channel. I have encountered a fair number of people who are looking for a job shop that will handle negative enlarging without going to the expense of creating digitally enlarged negatives for themselves or the bother of enlarging negatives for themselves using conventional darkroom processes. The reason for a thorough familiarity with film densities is that the alternative processes do require densities that are higher then silver densities. There is some information available, if you are interested, on Ed Buffaloes site www.unblinkingeye.com...additionally, a search under platinum printing will bring up a couple of fellows in the New Mexico area that have information on enlarged negatives on their site. The next question, when and how are you going to spend all of the extra money???

 

[Jorge]

There is a guy who does enlargements from ULF negatives, but he only uses RC pearl b&w paper (seems like a silly choice to me to choose this paper) so, if you are willing to deal with some very demanding people, making huge enlargements from 8x10 and bigger negatives would also be another nieche are you might want to explore. I would really want to have a 3 feet by 6 feet enlargement of some of my 12x20 negatives.

 

[lee]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ May 4 2003, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> additionally, a search under platinum printing will bring up a couple of fellows in the New Mexico area that have information on enlarged negatives on their site. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
IF this is Bostick and Sullivan, I think one of them is the woman. Bostick is definitely a man and Sullivan is a female and his main squeeze. I am not sure if they are married but definitely significant others. =8^).

lee\c

congratulations on the camera.

 

[Donald Miller]

Lee,
I hadn't thought of Bostick and Sullivan, but I imagine that they would be able to direct one to those making enlarged negatives. The fellows that I was thinking of were David Michael Kennedy and John Rudiak. I think that they are either New Mexico or possibly Arizona based. Their sites mention enlarged negatives and some information on what they do and the materials they use.

 

[inthedark]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lee @ May 4 2003, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What is the Kodak Number of the diapositive film, if I can ask that? What camera are does your shop use? I have been in the pre-press business for 25 years as a tech rep not a user. I don't remember who makes the 1/2 tone screens but I will call my former employer and ask one of the supply girls if they know and will post here.

lee\c </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Lee- I usually get online at home so my catalogs are at work, but I will get those cat numbers today if possible (sorry I went into a minor disaster this weekend and will be "fighting" with someone for a while.) I have two ACTi cameras out of Ontario, California. I just love them.

I would absolutely appreciate if the gals still know a supplier of screens. I have always treated mine with respect, but the previous owners were not so careful, not terrible but definitely some damage on some. For 11x14 or smaller there are numerous screens still good and usable but the 24 x 36 or larger only one 133 ls is still usable.

BTW, nice to meet you.

 

[inthedark]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dnmilikan @ May 4 2003, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> The next question, when and how are you going to spend all of the extra money??? </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Thank you, Mr. Milikan, this comment sure makes me chuckle. Looks like this week will be unexpectedly expensive and unrewarding as I have received a roll of film costing about $10,000 I had shot last month of our valley which is grossly over-exposed in my opinion. The shop that flew it has no intention of caring whether my print exposure time has gone from 5 sec to over 50, and the colors won't settle because everytime I just about get it right, it all goes monotone. ERRRRRRR. Anyway the chuckle was very good for my morning.

I will check out the site and idea you have mentioned, and as of yesterday, I happen to be on the road to being able to accurately evaluate films.

 

[inthedark]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jorge @ May 4 2003, 09:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> There is a guy who does enlargements from ULF negatives, but he only uses RC pearl b&amp;w paper (seems like a silly choice to me to choose this paper) so, if you are willing to deal with some very demanding people, making huge enlargements from 8x10 and bigger negatives would also be another nieche are you might want to explore. I would really want to have a 3 feet by 6 feet enlargement of some of my 12x20 negatives. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Hey jorge, I can manage an enlargement that size.

As I was thinking about my earlier posts, I realized that I forgot to mention that the same techiniques can be used to create a very nice paper negative and I do use the satin finish paper for that. When I am reprinting the large aerial b&w (so far) mosaics, I find that the paper neg is easier to store, provides is own diffusion filter and stores with less concern for damage. I use them for contact printing only.

My negative capabilities are. . .printing negatives up to 24 x 36, and able to enlarge from negatives 35mm to 12''x18" negatives. Is that big enough. However with the paper neg concept, I can make an enlarged negatives from slides or film using the enlarger. Actually I suppose I can even get continuous tone b&w negative film up to 42" wide as well so I am not be limited to paper negs when over sized.

Sorry now my lingo ignorance kicks in, what is ULF?

 

[lee]

Jill,
Did you get my post on Caprock screens? You will need to contact them soon as they are trying to discontinue all their screens. From the email I got urgensie is most important.

Here is the guy that contacted me yesterday.

George Johnson
E-mail Address(es):
george@gwjco.com

good luck as not everything is still available.

lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

Jill,
In response to your question on ULF, this is ultra large format. Usually large formats in photography are divided into "large" and "ultra large" . Large format would describe a film format beginning at 4X5 inches and include 5X7 and 8X10 inch negatives. Ultra large format begins with 11X14 inch and includes 7X17, 8X20, 12X20, 16X20 and 20X24 inch film negative size. My earlier post about enlarging negatives is addressing the fact that many photographers use one of the smaller "large format" cameras. Because pt-pd, carbon, and other alternative processes are contact printing process the size of the print is limited by the camera negative. Thus if one is able to enlarge the negative to a larger size from a smaller camera negative, a larger contact print is then possible. This process of enlarging negatives is being done by several people. However, indications that I have are that there exists a need for a source to output these enlarged negatives. If you have the time and the inclination it may be a source of income for you. Good luck to you.

 

[Jorge]

The other way around Lee, it is Melody Bostick and Richard Sullivan.
Although using ortho film to produce continous tone enlarge negatives is not that hard, I am totally ignorant about the use of half tone screens etc. But I have seen the cameras that do this and it seems like a good idea, of course the screen would have to have a very small dot pattern for the negatives to be useful to alt printers.

Jill, what would be your prices for enlargement and what kind of paper would you use?

 

[inthedark]

Okay, I'll try to answer all at once here. Mr. Milikan, Thank you I guess ultra large format does make sense. My point is that except for the education I will need for "film analysis," which no one has suggested before, I already do this proceedure. Since I have return business I am hoping that my lack of specific analytical expertise hasn't harmed me yet. But you are wise in suggesting and I will do that ASAP.

The diapositive film cat for Kodak seems to be

Kodagraph Continuous Tone Mapping Film. CTMA/2490. Also comes in translucent white.
This is for b&w.
159 6204 for 24 x 36, hmmm, for Agfa I can get 10 x 10 and 42 x 100. Kodak has this and rolls 24, 36, and 42 inch wide with cat #'s 125 7195, 174 1115, and 178 4461 respectively.

Also they have Duplicating RA film

Kodak Aerographic RA Duplicating Film 4425
Cat #831 1557 and these are 10x10 no other size is listed.

Thank you. Lee, for the email address I will do that directly as you suggest.

Jorge, I try to keep my pricing simple for paper prints/negs, color and b&w are the same. Base price for just the usual amount of attention, dodging, burning in etc, is $15 sqft for print #1, $12 for multiple copies 2-4, and $9 for prits 5 and over.


Thank you all for all of your attention, I am so much more relaxed now that I have some "friends" who have a clue about what interests me.

 

[inthedark]

BTW, if Kodak or Agfa won't let you folks buy this stuff or the quantities are too large for your tastes, let me know, we can work out something of a group purchase for a bunch you.