Printing a (very) thin negative?

Oscar Carlsson · Feb 29, 2012

I'm trying to print a very thin negative on a large paper (30x40 cm). I thought using split grade printing would ease the process but my initial attemps were not very successful - I found no highlights but shadows everywhere.

I'm printing with geometrical time scales and went down to quarter exposure steps but still...No midtones.

How should I go on? What is a good way of tackling a thin negative?

I have access to dektol and also some selenium toner, but not very much more than that.

Jon Shiu · Feb 29, 2012

Not knowing what the subject is, I would print with just a gr. 5 filter and see what you get. Then if you need some brightening up in areas, try to get some ferri for local bleaching on the print.

Jon

cliveh · Feb 29, 2012

If it is important to you, which suggests it is, if you wish to print at that size, perhaps you should think about chromium or physical intensification.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 29, 2012

Intensification is a really good idea, and can be done with something as simple as selenium toner, but there are other ways, like cliveh alludes to.

When I print thin negatives, I always start with the Grade 5 / maximum magenta. It works well for me. Split grade printing usually adds very little with very thin negatives. You basically don't have enough contrast in the negative to benefit from the Grade 00/0/1 or whatever filter you prefer.

Gerald C Koch · Feb 29, 2012

If you decide to intensify the negative be careful of the method you choose, Some methods are archival others are not.

jp498 · Feb 29, 2012

grade 5, dodge where you can. FB paper will make the dark tones and blacks look a little more impressive since you'll have plenty.

John Austin · Feb 29, 2012

I recommend Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner, unfortunately no longer made, but there is quite a bit about - Use 1:2 water for about ten minutes with regular agitation at 20 - 25 degrees C

If the situation gets desperate don't go for Monkhoven's intensifier, there are too few silver gelatine photographers

keithwms · Feb 29, 2012

If the neg is really thin, then what about making an interpositive on film first. You can play more curve and compensation tricks with film and film developers than with paper. What you want to do is take all that detail compressed in the shadows and spread it over the linear portion of the interpositive. Then you'd make a dupe neg.

Just a thought.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 29, 2012

keithwms said:
If the neg is really thin, then what about making an interpositive on film first. You can play more curve and compensation tricks with film and film developers than with paper. What you want to do is take all that detail compressed in the shadows and spread it over the linear portion of the interpositive. Then you'd make a dupe neg.

Just a thought.

Orthochromatic film and develop by inspection too.

cowanw · Feb 29, 2012

jbaphoto said:
I recommend Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner, unfortunately no longer made, but there is quite a bit about

Do you have a reference for this being discontinued?

keithwms · Feb 29, 2012

KRST won't do squat for a very thin neg. Neither will chromium (I have some and can attest). Neither is particularly good for "saving" a very thin neg, they will merely make a thin neg more easily printable.

Know the curve; become the curve; use the curve Paper has a narrow range and you'll bang your head against a wall trying to rescue something with that and dektol.

There is a impure, filthy, disgusting, sacreligious, non-analogue solution as well, and I will mention it only once in this analogue forum so pay attention! What you do is scan at the highest bit depth you can, auto-level, inkjet print a positive image to a glossy paper with no watermarks, and contact print that back to film to make a contact-printable enlarged neg.

John Austin · Feb 29, 2012

cowanw said:
Do you have a reference for this being discontinued?

My Australian seller told me it is no longer available, if it is available in Canada or south of the border it will reinforce my belief that Australia is a third world country

Please let me know
John
Quinninup

tkamiya · Feb 29, 2012

I had what appeared to be very thin negative that actually printed just fine with a grade 2.5 filter. My suggestion is to print as normal and see what it looks like. (shorter exposure time, of course)

Is it thin because it was under exposed or is it because it was under developed? (or both?)

wblynch · Feb 29, 2012

I have a friend who told me he used to put a blank, developed negative over the thin one to tame it down. He says he got a flatter result and that he had to play with contrast a bit but got the prints.

I haven't done this but he sounded convincing.

Jon Shiu · Mar 1, 2012

In my experience, the Ilford RC pearl or glossy paper will give a brighter, contrastier print than FB.

Jon

Oscar Carlsson · Mar 1, 2012

Thanks everyone!

I think that grade 5, a careful straight print and some dodging/burning is the way to go. Sadly I don't have access to any bleach and the negative isn't mine, so intensification is not really an option. Maybe it's time to read some more on bleach however, is it tricky to put together with household chemicals or should I go for more commercial alternatives?

Edit: As for the negative - it's severely underdeveloped (we tried developing two tanks with the same caffenol in the same sitting, the first negatives came out too dense but printable and the second batch came out almost blank) but I think it's decently exposed. I remember we used the same exposure and the day was overcast and gray, and my negatives came out dense but printable and a few of them printed beautifully on an old glossy Orwo-paper I found in the darkroom.

Doremus Scudder · Mar 1, 2012

Oscar,

Severely underdeveloped means low contrast. Shadow detail should be less affected, however. Check your shadows to see if there is detail there. Even if the underdevelopment slowed the film way down, you need to build contrast. Here's what I'd try:

First, even before trying to print with grade 5, I'd bleach and redevelop in a staining developer. That means using a rehalogenating bleach (I use potassium ferrocyanide and potassium bromide), and bleaching the image away. The image silver turns to silver bromide, which can then be redeveloped. Using a staining developer like PMK for the redevelopment will add an additional stain image to the silver one there already, thereby increasing contrast and adding a bit of detail to the shadows. I've used this with good results in the past. I know you don't have bleach, but the above works well and is easy. Read up on it if you are interested.

Toning the negative in selenium toner will give you about half a grade of contrast increase. It will also make bleach-redevelopment impossible, so it's one or the other, since toning a stained neg in selenium removes the stain... Anyway, KRST 1:2 for about 5 minutes should do the trick.

Then, grade 5,and the contrastiest light source you can find. If you're using diffusion, try a condenser enlarger. Use your Dektol straight. All this will help you build contrast.

If none of this works, maybe it's not worth it. If it is, then I'd go to hybrid next...

An interneg is also a possibility. You can contact print onto film or paper and see what you get by varying development times. Unfortunately, if there is no shadow detail, you really can't save what's not there.

Hope this helps some,

Doremus

www.DoremusScudder.com

cowanw · Mar 1, 2012

Grumpy Old Man said:
My Australian seller told me it is no longer available, if it is available in Canada or south of the border it will reinforce my belief that Australia is a third world country

Please let me know
John
Quinninup

As you said there is lots available. And there is nothing on the web or at Kodak about discontinueings. Maybe your dealer was confusing toners

Printing a (very) thin negative?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency