Options for making negatives large enough for alt processes

I'm interested in starting to make prints using alt processes like cyanotype and salt printing. However, the largest format I currently shoot is 6x6 cm, which is obviously too small for contact printing. I guess I have a few options for making larger negatives that will produce decent-sized contact prints:

1. Buy a large format camera/LF film.

2. Produce enlarged negatives in the darkroom using ortho film/interpositives.

3. Print larger digital negatives from my analog negatives.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject of making enlarged negatives using darkroom processes, and it seems like that might be a good route to go if I want to keep things all-analog. It does, however, sound a bit complex and time consuming. Printing digital negatives seems simpler, but I'm a die-hard analog guy and the thought of using a digital printer/digital manipulations to print negatives is unappealing to me. I have been giving some serious thought to purchasing a LF camera, but I think an 8x10 will be a pain to carry around and the sheet film and developing equipment is expensive. 5x7 cameras are more palatable, but that's a bit of a forgotten format with fewer camera, film and developing equipment choices. 4x5 would probably be the best LF option in terms of size/cost, but I don't have a 4x5 enlarger, nor do I have the space for one, and 4x5 contact prints would still be pretty small. So I'm in a bit of a quandary.

For anyone who has gone the route mentioned in option #2 above, are the results worth the effort involved or does image quality suffer too greatly?

logan2z said:

For anyone who has gone the route mentioned in option #2 above, are the results worth the effort involved or does image quality suffer too greatly?

Click to expand...

You could count them on one hand

Most folks go digital internegative which is not really simpler until you have the process worked out, but less time intensive going forward.

Three thoughts...

Small prints (even as small as 6x6 cm) can have a unique charm to them given the right subject.

One big reason that there has been a resurgence / boom in alt process printing is the ability to make digital negatives. All us folks using digital negatives can't be wrong... I think!

If I were wanting an all analog workflow, I would choose an 8x10 camera over enlarged negatives. In my opinion, there is something special about contact prints from original 8x10 negatives that is likely lost with a negative made by enlargement.

You may want to reach out to @MCB18 - he sometimes has lots of intriguing things.

Number 1.
Nothing quite like a one to one print for depth and detail.

I’ve been making pt/pd prints for quite a while. I have a 4x5 and also have medium format. 4x5 make nice sized prints especially with the cost of materials constantly increasing. I also make enlarged negatives on Pictorico. I just made four today on one sheet of 13x19 but you do need a scanner and decent printer. You mentioned inter negatives. A rather easy way to make an enlarged film negative would be to use x-ray DUPLICATING film. It is a reversal film so other than putting the original negative in the carrier reversed and remember if you burn an area the duplicate will be lighter and the print you make with it darker and the opposite with dodging. The film isn’t cheap but you only use one piece and don’t need anything extra if you already have a darkroom. The film is a little more contrasty so it can be helpful when duplicating a negative that needs some punch. It works like making a positive print and is slow so you have time to burn/dodge without racing. I would cut one sheet in half to make the test for exposure time. No obvious grain. The advantage of a digital approach is that if something needs correction you can make a new negative and get back in the darkroom during the same printing session.

3 by a country mile, even if you get a LF camera. I wouldn’t go larger than 4x5 on the camera front.

logan2z said:

2. Produce enlarged negatives in the darkroom using ortho film/interpositives.

Click to expand...

It is the approach I take; beware, though, that this may be damning the method with faint praise.

I use ortho graphic arts film and reversal process it. The hardest part is keeping it in my head that if the interpositive is too dark the answer is to give more exposure and vice versa; if I don't think about it then a lifetime of making prints in the darkroom kicks in and I do things the other way 'round.

Depends on how big your final negative will be, for sake of contact printing. Large film is getting expensive. And it's a bit tricky to enlarge a small 6x6 negative onto 8X10 film, for example, and get the same quality as going out and taking a shot with an 8x10 camera directly. Of course, the logistics and expense of 8x10 photography in terms of not only film, but the camera and lenses, etc etc presents a whole new challenge of its own.

Therefore your tentative no.2 choice - an enlarged film negative, is certainly worth trying out. It's fairly easy in principle, but takes some practice to get right. You want your original film absolutely flat in the carrier - glass on both sides, preferably Anti-Newton glass. And the enlarging lens should ideally be corrected for the degree of magnification you have in mind. It is helpful if it is a little longer than "normal" for 6x6 so that you get more evenness of illumination. There are a lot of other little details I won't describe at the moment.
But you will have to learn how to develop sheet film in trays.

I prefer the double-negative method : First, generate a slightly overexposed but underdeveloped inter-positive from your original negative (all the necessary detail should be there). Then in turn, use this to make the final full-contrast printing negative. The Devil is in the details, and also depends on the specific kind of ALT printing you have in mind with it. Most UV contact printing processes are favored by a more contrasty printing neg than is typical for ordinary silver paper enlargement.

MattKing said:

You may want to reach out to @MCB18 - he sometimes has lots of intriguing things.

Click to expand...

Still have an entire roll of areal dupe film yeah…

I've done all three. #2 is much harder to get right than online descriptions imply.

For reasons of simplicity, consistency, reliability and cost, I usually scan film and print with digital negatives.

I have done all three. The winner is #3 by a wide margin for a variety of reasons but there are many, many reason to NOT use #3. The largest reason I feel is if you like to use a large camera and that is an important part of your enjoyment of the photography process. Believe me when I say that there is likely nothing more satisfying to accomplish an enlarger print in pt/pd, gum, or whatever your process is and it comes completely through analogue steps. Nothing.

But, part of the reason for that satisfaction is because making an analogue enlarged negative is pretty hard to do very well and it'll take a long time to hone in on the variables well enough to do this properly.

There are a few ways to make an enlarged negative, one being with an interpositive and then to an enlarged negative from that, so it is a two-step process and there are lots of ways to screw this up. Lots. Think over everything that can go wrong and then double it for the second step. Add to that the details of working with the contrast properly to ensure when you get to the final enlarged negative, you need to be hitting a target for contrast for your particular printing process...

The second is to do a reversal enlarged negative. This is also difficult and, while it doesn't have as many steps (no interpositive) the reversal step can be trouble. I'm not even sure there are film materials available to do this decently any more... I did this, but that was 20+ years ago. Basically you take the enlarged internegative and develop and then bleach it and then turn the lights on and redevelop the remaining silver in the film. I can't remember if I ever got it to work consistently and I did a lot of darkroom work back then mastering a variety of these techniques.

Shooting in-camera is far and away the most easy and direct way to get a large negative, but even then, it has difficulty depending on the process and size you want the image to be. You have to expose and develop for a specific process in mind and some of them overlap enough on contrast that the same negative may be suitable for different processes, but to do this well, you would really want to be targeting the specific DR in the negative for the intended printing process.

Plus, you have the problem of the final image size not being variable. If you shoot 8x10, you get an (essentially) 8x10 image. You could crop a little, but that the limit to changing the image size.

Absolutely all of those limitations and difficulties go away when using a digital negative. You do need to learn and become good at calibrating the digital negative process, but this is considerably easier than calibrating any one of the many analogue steps in the enlarged negative processes (with the exception of in-camera, where you only really need to figure out the negative contrast to get started).

And the additional nice things about a digital negative is that it is repeatable, consistent, scalable, and can be vary carefully calibrated to accomplish a very high degree of contrast control and printing speed in the negative.

The digital negative option is so superior that it is actually the reason that all these alternative processes have surged in popularity since the early 2000's... once it became relatively easy to make an enlarged negative, people of all walks of life and camera source material could access the alternative process realm relatively easily. It didn't require a LF camera, or a bunch of darkroom gear to make an enlarged negative... Just an image from either film or digital sources, and a printer that is known to be good for enlarged negatives (the Epson printers are generally used for this because of a shareware program called QTR).

Also note, back when I did this the analogue way, I was making enlarged negatives mostly from 8x10 original negatives, so these things were pretty large. They looked fantastic, but I abandoned that approach as soon as I had a decent digital negative process nailed down (around 2005 or so) because I could do the enlarged negative in about 5% of the time and for far less cost, too, and for pt/pd and gum-overs that I was doing back then, they were indistinguishable from the analogue approach (plus I could more easily and predictably build in some dodging and burning and other image cleanup in the negative).

revdoc said:

I've done all three. #2 is much harder to get right than online descriptions imply.

For reasons of simplicity, consistency, reliability and cost, I usually scan film and print with digital negatives.

Click to expand...

Yup; agreed - that is to say, I've done all three and agree on what you say about #2. It's tricky to get right and generally takes a couple of tries, which is time-consuming.

The inkjet approach is generally more consistent/predictable once you get it dialed in. That's the nice part. The problematic part is that the prints just never look quite as nice as those made from actual silver-gel negatives. From a distance they can look nice enough, but up close and personal, all too often things break down. But how badly this happens depends a lot on the printing process, the printer used, how it's calibrated etc. Lots of variables to play with.

Most of the time I do no.1, but the consequence is that I end up printing a lot of 4x5's because hauling the 8x10 around just ain't that much fun.

There's no perfect solution; just a couple of compromises. Pick the one(s) that you feel the least conflicted about.

logan2z said:

I'm interested in starting to make prints using alt processes like cyanotype and salt printing. However, the largest format I currently shoot is 6x6 cm, which is obviously too small for contact printing. I guess I have a few options for making larger negatives that will produce decent-sized contact prints:

1. Buy a large format camera/LF film.

2. Produce enlarged negatives in the darkroom using ortho film/interpositives.

3. Print larger digital negatives from my analog negatives.

I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject of making enlarged negatives using darkroom processes, and it seems like that might be a good route to go if I want to keep things all-analog. It does, however, sound a bit complex and time consuming. Printing digital negatives seems simpler, but I'm a die-hard analog guy and the thought of using a digital printer/digital manipulations to print negatives is unappealing to me. I have been giving some serious thought to purchasing a LF camera, but I think an 8x10 will be a pain to carry around and the sheet film and developing equipment is expensive. 5x7 cameras are more palatable, but that's a bit of a forgotten format with fewer camera, film and developing equipment choices. 4x5 would probably be the best LF option in terms of size/cost, but I don't have a 4x5 enlarger, nor do I have the space for one, and 4x5 contact prints would still be pretty small. So I'm in a bit of a quandary.

For anyone who has gone the route mentioned in option #2 above, are the results worth the effort involved or does image quality suffer too greatly?

Click to expand...

#2 - I did this before the advent of digital negs.

contact ortho Pan to make a low contrast dupe
enlarge dupe onto FP4 film to the size you want, - I would caution the film will be expensive

I have also done these other methods- Lambda silver negs, and inkjet negs.
the bottom line is that they are all good, the paper you print on Rag will allow exceptional prints from any of the methods and is the common resolution factor

You should choose what is the most easiest and fun way you want to proceed with your art.

Bob

logan2z said:

I'm interested in starting to make prints using alt processes like cyanotype and salt printing. However, the largest format I currently shoot is 6x6 cm, which is obviously too small for contact printing. I guess I have a few options for making larger negatives that will produce decent-sized contact prints:

1. Buy a large format camera/LF film.

Click to expand...

Do this.

logan2z said:

I have been giving some serious thought to purchasing a LF camera, but I think an 8x10 will be a pain to carry around and the sheet film and developing equipment is expensive. 5x7 cameras are more palatable, but that's a bit of a forgotten format with fewer camera, film and developing equipment choices.

Click to expand...

I work with 5x7 far more often than 8x10 for a variety of reasons, including the fact that its less costly (materials), I prefer the aspect ratio, and 5x7 contact prints are still large enough to be totally engaging for the viewer (more intimate viewing experience than a large print, IMO).

Fewer camera/equipment choices?? Not really. Intrepid Camera makes a perfectly serviceable 5x7 camera (as does Chamonix and others. I use the Intrepid model) and film choices for B&W are perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the best film for making in-camera alt process negatives is FP4+ Take a look at Ellie Young's Salt Print PDF and you'll see that FP4+ behaves better than most any other film for making Alt negs. I can confirm this from personal experience, having tried other films, including Fomapan 100 and others. Ilford FP4+ is always available in 5x7, so that shouldn't be a barrier to getting good negs made.

As far as darkroom equipment for processing negs goes, you need nothing special if you have a darkroom of some sort to work in: trays are all you need. Standard 8x10 trays are perfect for 5x7 work. If that's not an option, then a Stearman type processing tank is your answer. Film holders are plentiful on fleabay and at shops like Blue Moon Camera and KEH.

As far as I can see, there are no meaningful barriers to accessing 5x7 than there are when opting for 4x5 or 8x10 — it's just that fewer people choose 5x7 because it's a bit of a "fringe" format, and not for any good reason.

PS: I tried making digital negs on Pictorico film 7-8 years ago and absolutely hated the process. The learning curve is steep and complicated, and like you, I did NOT want to spend more time in front of an effing computer in order to pursue an Alt printmaking process.

I do all three. Out of all of them, #1. I also like copying smaller negatives onto large format film.

retina_restoration said:

Do this.

I work with 5x7 far more often than 8x10 for a variety of reasons, including the fact that its less costly (materials), I prefer the aspect ratio, and 5x7 contact prints are still large enough to be totally engaging for the viewer (more intimate viewing experience than a large print, IMO).

Fewer camera/equipment choices?? Not really. Intrepid Camera makes a perfectly serviceable 5x7 camera (as does Chamonix and others. I use the Intrepid model) and film choices for B&W are perfectly satisfactory. In fact, the best film for making in-camera alt process negatives is FP4+ Take a look at Ellie Young's Salt Print PDF and you'll see that FP4+ behaves better than most any other film for making Alt negs. I can confirm this from personal experience, having tried other films, including Fomapan 100 and others. Ilford FP4+ is always available in 5x7, so that shouldn't be a barrier to getting good negs made.

As far as darkroom equipment for processing negs goes, you need nothing special if you have a darkroom of some sort to work in: trays are all you need. Standard 8x10 trays are perfect for 5x7 work. If that's not an option, then a Stearman type processing tank is your answer. Film holders are plentiful on fleabay and at shops like Blue Moon Camera and KEH.

As far as I can see, there are no meaningful barriers to accessing 5x7 than there are when opting for 4x5 or 8x10 — it's just that fewer people choose 5x7 because it's a bit of a "fringe" format, and not for any good reason.

PS: I tried making digital negs on Pictorico film 7-8 years ago and absolutely hated the process. The learning curve is steep and complicated, and like you, I did NOT want to spend more time in front of an effing computer in order to pursue an Alt printmaking process.

Click to expand...

Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the subject, much appreciated.

After much thought, I think a 5x7 LF camera is the direction I'm headed. I will use LF mostly for shooting landscapes and that aspect ratio is one I like. I only shoot B&W film and FP4+ in 120 is my current go-to for landscape work, so this sounds like it should work out well for alt processes too.

The next decision is which camera to go for...

You could always get an 8x10 Intrepid, with 5x7 reducing back. Very cost effective.

The 5x7 cameras with 4x5 reducing backs are also very flexible.

Andrew O'Neill said:

You could always get an 8x10 Intrepid, with 5x7 reducing back. Very cost effective.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I haven't heard great things about the Intrepid cameras, other than their price. I'll probably opt for something else.

MattKing said:

The 5x7 cameras with 4x5 reducing backs are also very flexible.

Click to expand...

That sounds like a good option.

Besides my old Deardorff 5x7 I had a Chamonix 5x7 horizontal. Fine camera.

GregY said:

Besides my old Deardorff 5x7 I had a Chamonix 5x7 horizontal. Fine camera.

57N3 — Chamonix View Camera

For the 5x7 format, Chamonix produces 3 models: 57N, 57Fs-2, and 57W-d. The 57N is a horizontal-only model for photography in landscape orientation. The 57Fs-2 and 57W-d models have convertible backs for photography in either landscape or portrait orientation. The cameras in the 57 series are

www.chamonixviewcamera.com

Click to expand...

I’ve been looking at the Chamonix cameras. I don’t think I could live with the limitations of the horizontal, however, because I do often shoot landscapes in portrait orientation. I do wish their 5x7 cameras weren’t so much more expensive than their 4x5 models.

logan2z said:

Honestly, I haven't heard great things about the Intrepid cameras, other than their price. I'll probably opt for something else.

Click to expand...

Everyone has their own likes and dislikes so do what makes sense for you. Far be it from me to tell you how to spend your hard earned money, and there are prettier cameras out there, but Intrepid makes excellent equipment and stands behind their cameras if something goes wrong.

I am getting ready to buy my 3rd Intrepid (a 5x7) and I still own and use the other two. One of them is an original Kickstarter and it is still going strong. It just made it back from a hunting trip with my grandson in Nevada. They have all worked out great and I certainly do not regret owning any of my Intrepids, especially when I'm working my way up a tough and steep trail, or picking my route over a high ridge in the Rubies.