Prints from prints?

[Cheryl Jacobs]

I've got a bit of a desperate question, and I'm hoping you all have more creative solutions than I've come up with.

I took my two most important negatives to be printed, as I needed sizes larger than I can do in my darkroom. The printer, unfortunately, has lost them both, and before the prints were made. Pretty devastating, to be honest.

I have good small prints of each (8x8). I also have a good large print (20x20) of one and an acceptable 16x16 of the other. I realize I could just scan these and print digitally, but that is just not an acceptable solution for me. I need to find a way that I can make traditional prints of these images.

Any ideas on the best (or any) way to go about this?

These are the two images. Thanks in advance for any help you might be able to give. I should mention that I browsed around through hybridphoto.com looking for some options, but didn't really find what I was looking for.

- CJ

 

[Doyle Thomas]

All you are left with is to re-photograph the Prints. Hang them on a wall outdoors on a bright but overcast dry day with the camera on a tripod.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I can't really offer much advise but damn, I'm really sorry that happened. Is there a chance they could still be found by the lab? Sure hope so. Good luck. Shawn

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Those are two really fine images. It would be a real shame if the negs were permanently lost.

Dupe them with a larger format. Use a film like TMX with a fairly neutral response. For images of that size I usually use two strobes at 45-degree angles to the work. It's straightforward copy work. This is what Adams did to make his Special Edition prints so that they could be reprinted easily by assistants, and these prints have often created difficulties for collectors, because they weren't easily distinguished from original prints.

If you want a lab to do it, Kenneth Taranto in New York does excellent B&W repro work. When I used to shoot headshots they occasionally had shows of many of the local NYC headshot photographers with originals and dupes side-by-side, and it was often difficult to pick out the dupe.

 

[SuzanneR]

I'm not much help... but I will offer my sympathies. Let's hope the negs turn up. (I've had two favorites missing for some time.. I get heartsick thinking about it! ) Hope they turn up.. sounds like David has some good suggestions for you.

 

[catem]

Cheryl - that's awful. I've copied prints onto film both when I lost a negative and also to copy old family photographs. Best way as David says is to find a good copystand with lights that you can borrow - or get it done. Go for the smaller prints as they should have more detail. The good thing is you can do it until you get it right. Just take care the copies don't go too contrasty. The repro of my print didn't turn as well as the original - but it was a (purposefully) grainy print enlarged to 12 x 16 from 35mm. The repros of the old (contact printed) photos were extremely good. Do it on larger size medium format at least. Good luck.

 

[bdial]

Is a digital negative a solution you're willing to consider? Aside from that, Doyle's solution is pretty much it, especially if you don't already own a copy stand. You will want to do the best you can at making sure the film plane is parallel with the print, though for these images, if you're off a little it shouldn't be noticable.
Finally, I'd make the biggest negative your equipment will allow.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, make the biggest negative you can actually use to make the enlargement you want. I'd usually dupe to 4x5", because I have a 4x5" enlarger, and I'd have to rent darkroom time to enlarge from an 8x10" neg, and would have to have someone else enlarge from an 11x14" neg, because I don't know of any rentable darkroom in NYC with an 11x14" enlarger.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Thanks much, all.

Bdial, I'm willing to consider anything that would still allow me (or someone else) to make traditional prints. If digital negs are the best quality option, I'd have no problem using them under the circumstances.

If I go the copy neg route, I'll definitely have someone else do that for me. It's a skill set I've never had to acquire, so I think it would be best to leave it to the experts. I think the ballerina image will fare better than the umbrella image, though -- it's fairly grainy already and pulls apart noticeably over 16x16.

Hopefully I can get this resolved quickly. I've just missed out on selling four prints of the umbrella image for Christmas. Bummer.

- CJ

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Kodak used to make a b/w sheet film intended for making copy negatives of prints. Now, of course, probably one of the Tmax films would be most suitable, but equally important, if not more so, would be to have someone who is skilled at making copy negatives do the work for you.

 

[tim_walls]

This is not a suggestion as such, more a musing... But if the prints were on RC paper (i.e. relatively thin paper,) I wonder if it would be possible to 'contact print' the print onto sheet film. I.e. make a sandwich of: [ Sheet film (emulsion side up,) print (emulsion side down), glass ] in a contact printing frame. Then take a suitably bright and even lightsource (i.e. enlarger) and expose the film through the print.

OK, your exposure time would probably be rather long - but having exposed Ilfochrome paper upside down under the enlarger and being amazed to get a recognisable image out of it, I wonder if it would be possible!

 

[nze]

I use to do this when I had to print a large series( over 50)(often postcard) I take time to make a good print with all the dodge and burning. then I make a 4x5 copy of it and use the 4X5 to do the series.
If you intended to do relly large I will consider 2 ways
- make an 8x10 copy of the large print and use the 8X10 negative to make new print
- use the digital way by scanning the large print and make an image setter output that you will contact . Even if you don't appreciate this way I would say that any problem need a level of solution and this big problem need a big solution.
Image are more important than the way you create it.

hope you solve the problem and hope your negative may reapper as they disapper.
chris

 

[Harrigan]

I guess you’re not going back to that lab or they should be willing to make copy negs and print them in reparation for losing your negs. They should have already offered to do this.

You can make a decent print from a 4x5 copy neg but I’ve never seen one look quite as good as an original print. However scanning and digital printing done by caring hands should yield almost identical prints to the originals. I’ve done film copies hundreds of times in a professional setting and printed the copy negs many times. IMO scanning the prints and reprinting them is easily the highest quality way to go. Digital negs involve an additional stop, another possible loss of quality and are very hard to get output properly. Even when film recorders were booming it was hard to find a lab that could output a decent neg. Scan and print would again be my first choice followed by my 2nd choice 4x5 copy negs and printing those.

 

[Jim Noel]

Copy negatives made on 4x5 TMax 100 are your best answer. If you intend to do this yourself and don't have a 4x5 camera, use roll film if possible. The last choice would be the same film in 35mm. If copying and you don't have lights, hang the prints against a north facing wall on a sunny day. This gives soft, even light.

I think there very likely is a studio in Denver which can do this for you in large format if you don't have the equipment. My very last choice would be a digital negative - USE FILM!

 

[gr82bart]

Cheryl,

OMG! Reading your OP pained me. I like Christian and others' answer and was going to suggest something like that. I hope you got compensated by the printer.

Regards, Art.

 

[Jon Shiu]

Bob Carnie at Elevator Digital can output a digital file onto Ilford Fiber based paper which is then processed in the traditional manner.

Jon