"reverse hybrid" printing

[tmbg]

My family wants me to try to reproduce some photographs they have of my great-great-grandparents, they want 11x14" prints. However, I suspect all they have for source material is 2000x1600 scans. Is there a workable technique I can use to print those optically? Something along the lines of maybe printing to transparency and enlarging from that?

I have a 45MXT, so perhaps I could reverse the scans digitally and print a 4x5" transparency...

anyone have any experience with a process like this? I'm hoping I'll hear back from them and they'll tell me that they have negatives to work from, but I'm not sure I'm that lucky!

 

[Snapper]

There is such a thing as a digital optical enlarger, which projects a digital source onto photographic paper. They are a bit pricey, but you may be able to hire. There's one down this way available - where are you based?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not sure you can get a good 11x14 print from files that small, but what you might wish to try is to post a thread over at http://www.hybridphoto.com - they can answer all sorts of questions like that there.
Digital negatives and contact printing, for example.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, this is off topic for APUG, but there is fairly extensive discussion of this kind of hybrid technique at APUG's sister site, http://www.hybridphoto.com .

You could also dupe them on film conventionally, if you can obtain the original photographs.

 

[tmbg]

what would be the conventional way to do that if i can get original prints?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Copy on a copy stand or using a tripod with a horizontal copy arm, two lights 45-degrees to the lens axis, about 4 feet from the work to be copied.

Use a relatively neutral film like T-Max 100, ideally the largest format that you can enlarge.

 

[Ian Grant]

Copy with a large format camera using a film like Ilford Ortho Plus then conventional B&W printing.

If they are Scans & B&W then send the files to APUG sponsor Ilford and they'll make RC prints for you. The links are on their website.

 

[Snapper]

But with a 2000x1600 px file, you'll only manage a 7x5" print. You'd need to get a bigger scan.

 

[removed account4]

hi tmbg

you can photograph the photographs
it isn't hard and can be done outside in overcast-sunlight on
a black cloth if you don't have lights.
use whatever camera you have, 35mm mf or lf,
the bigger the negative the better the print some say.
i did this same thing for my inlaws. i believe i used ilford hp5 35mm film.
i shot down on a cloth, and used a 135 or 100mm lens and a tripod ...
it is easy to make 11x14 enlargements from 35mm and larger film.

good luck!
john

 

[tmbg]

I mostly work with 645... I have a Mamiya m645 outfit. If I can get ahold of the original prints I'll try rigging up a copy setup.

If no originals, I guess I'll try printing a 4x5" transparency and enlarge from that. It'll likely have some amount of visible pixelation at 11x14, but I can't put detail back!

Thanks for the ideas!

Ian

 

[frobozz]

Copy with a large format camera using a film like Ilford Ortho Plus then conventional B&W printing.

If they are Scans & B&W then send the files to APUG sponsor Ilford and they'll make RC prints for you. The links are on their website.

Hmmm, the site doesn't mention whether they'd ship to the US and for how much. I assume they will if you're willing to pay?

Duncan

 

[Ian Grant]

Hmmm, the site doesn't mention whether they'd ship to the US and for how much. I assume they will if you're willing to pay?

Duncan

I think there's a couple of US suppliers/labs offering the same service now. Someone in the US maybe able to give you a link.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If no originals, I guess I'll try printing a 4x5" transparency and enlarge from that. It'll likely have some amount of visible pixelation at 11x14, but I can't put detail back!

I don't think this has been done successfully. Not that that should stop you from trying... There are other ways.
You can also have your files recorded to film. Or you can make some really nice prints via an inkjet and then photograph them, etc. But like told at the beginning, it really is a matter for Hybridphoto.

- Thomas

 

[greybeard]

what would be the conventional way to do that if i can get original prints?

The answers that you already have are correct, but a bit of elaboration might help:

If the originals are large (say, 11x14) they you will need quite a bit more light-to-subject distance in order to obtain uniform illumination. Extended sources (like softboxes) help with the uniformity but invite difficulties with glare unless the originals are perfectly flat. Also, prints on textured paper (very common with studio portraits a generation or two ago) are difficult to copy without using cross polarization to suppress local reflections. (This is a problem with the hybrid route as well, and something of a nightmare with silk-finish RC prints.)

Keeping the contrast of the final print faithful to the original takes some care in exposure and development of the film; if you can find one of the Kodak publications on the subject it will give you insight into the problem even if the materials referred to have been superseded.

Finally, if you are going to make 11x14 prints from snapshot-sized originals, you will want to either go the hybrid route or develop quite a bit of skill in retouching; every scratch, dent, and dust particle on the original will be magnified along with the image!

 

[jeffreyg]

I don't have an answer to your question but you might want to check with BWC Photo Imaging in Dallas, Tx. I have used them for processing transparencies with very good results and I believe they offer a number of professional services. They were easy to work with and very prompt with completion.

 

[tmbg]

thanks for all the great info, everyone!

I finally got an answer back from my mother, and she's got the 11x14 originals, and wants 11x14 warmtoned copies of them. I'm going to try the copy route, all analog.

The prints are of my great-great-grandmother around age 16 and her parents; I believe that puts the prints somewhere circa 1910-1915. I don't have a LF camera sadly, but I'll see what sort of results I can get with my 645. I know it's less than ideal, but it's mostly for experimenting's sake!

 

[tmbg]

Would it be worth my while trying to pick up something like this:

http://atlanta.craigslist.org/sat/pho/1614077350.html

for copying?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If it's not too far a drive, $60 is a good price for that type of copy stand, and it should be sturdy enough for 645.

Do you have a light meter, preferably an incident meter with a flat disk? With a copy stand that has lights close to the copy work, a meter with a flat disk is very handy for making sure the light is even across the whole surface. You may find with this type of stand that it works best to feather the light somewhat by aiming each light toward the opposite corner, depending on the size of the work to be copied relative to the size of the baseboard and distance of the lights. If you've got strobes, you may find it easier just to use the strobes on stands farther away from the work, like 4-6 feet.

 

[greybeard]

Your camera should be fine for this---I once did exactly the same thing with a print of about that vintage, using a Yashica Mat and a close-up lens. The biggest problem was the surface texture of the paper. The next biggest hurdle was getting a tonality in the finished print that was a good representation of the hand-tinted original.

The copy stand in the ad is probably too small to handle an 11x14 original easily; using only two lights, well away from the object plane, will give you better uniformity at the expense of intensity, but you can make long exposures with no difficulty (and you don't need a small aperture, since the required depth of field is essentially zero).

One advantage to strobes is that you can use relatively small polarizers in front of the lights: the sources are small, and there is no heat problem. On the other hand, small sources will emphasize the paper texture by shadowing, so there is a tradeoff between easily suppressing glints and easily hiding texture (by using broad sources). The best of both worlds would probably be two softboxes with polarizing film in front of them and a crossed polarizer on the camera; the film is the sort sold by these folks Dead Link Removed (I have never done any business with them, but they appear to offer a suitable material at a reasonable price.)

It may take some experimentation to get the contrast and density right, but you should be able to make a copy that will easily pass for an original when viewed from across the room.

Good luck!

 

[Anscojohn]

thanks for all the great info, everyone!

I finally got an answer back from my mother, and she's got the 11x14 originals, and wants 11x14 warmtoned copies of them. I'm going to try the copy route, all analog.

The prints are of my great-great-grandmother around age 16 and her parents; I believe that puts the prints somewhere circa 1910-1915. I don't have a LF camera sadly, but I'll see what sort of results I can get with my 645. I know it's less than ideal, but it's mostly for experimenting's sake!

*******
I did considerable work of this type years ago, using a Pentax 6x7, Verichrome Pan, souped in d23. With 35 mm, I used Adox KB-14 souped in Rodinal 1 in 100 with sodium sulfite; or Edwal FG-7, 1:31, also with 9 % sulfite. Feathered flourescent circular tubes in el-cheapo shop lamp reflectors gave even enough illumination. That lighting and developers which would not build up too much contrast often produced copies "better" than the originals, while still retaining authenticity.

 

[naugastyle]

SO glad this thread was posted. I have been wanting to print old family photos as well, and really didn't like the digital negative route--not because I care that it's digital, but because it sounds really expensive and uses equipment I don't have. I never even considered this option, and it's so simple! I might try the outdoor-overcast light approach rather than trying to set up lights.

 

[Jim Noel]

My family wants me to try to reproduce some photographs they have of my great-great-grandparents, they want 11x14" prints. However, I suspect all they have for source material is 2000x1600 scans. Is there a workable technique I can use to print those optically? Something along the lines of maybe printing to transparency and enlarging from that?

I have a 45MXT, so perhaps I could reverse the scans digitally and print a 4x5" transparency...

anyone have any experience with a process like this? I'm hoping I'll hear back from them and they'll tell me that they have negatives to work from, but I'm not sure I'm that lucky!

If they have scans, someone has prints. In fact, isn't it more likely they have original prints? IF SO JUST COPY THEM AND PRINT THE NEW NEGATIVE.

 

[c.louis]

Am I suppose to reply to old threads?

Anyway... There are transparent film for inkject. People use it to print digital images then use it for cyanotype... Van dyk Brown.... Some of my classmates print in 4 image in 4"x5" on8.5x11" inkject transparency then cut it individual 4x5 neg for enlarger.


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_search.php?q=transparency&rfnp=3000&&sp=d

 

[richard ide]

Garbage in; Garbage out! That is a digital, not analogue method.

 

[jp498]

I used to a great deal of copying with a copy stand. If you don't have or can't get a copy stand, you can do it with a tripod over the artwork, just as long as you setup the lights not to cast a shadow of the tripod legs. 2 aluminum clip-on work lamps from the hardware store is all you need for light. I shot the images with tmax 100 on 35mm with a macro lens. Exposure should not vary from image to image, but sometimes bracketing was useful if you need to bring out shadow detail not well represented in the original. That was plenty of quality for 11x14 and smaller prints and often exceeded the quality of the originals, which weren't usually high end imaging. They tended to be scenes of local historical importance or small soft portraits. I'd then process and print them as normal. Sepia toning the finished print was often a desirable way to make prints for display.

If you need to use a computer, I'd suggest using a quality dslr+lens, inverting/touching it up in PS, etc...and printing onto clear film like pictorico for contact printing.