Traditional Enlarged Negatives

[photomc]

David, I agree - I think the subject could become a forum topic if it wanted to.

 

[inthedark]

I have had great success with two options. If the enlarged negative is to be 10" X 12" or less, then I use a direct duplicating orthochromatic film and post-flash it to produce the base mask (I think that is what it is called). If the enlarged negative is to be larger than 10" x 12" then I use direct duplicating mylar or duplicating paper with the same post flash. Works great, and none of the back and forth. Just do it. by the way all of this processes in regular Dektol.

 

[photomc]

Clay, Thank You for your input. Will check out the link and YES, familiar with the acid and will head the advice...

 

[b&wisbest]

Making contact negatives

I hope that this is the appropriate forum for this query.
I am about to do a project in alternative processes, (two colour gum dichromate) requiring enlarged 10" x 8" contact negatives using two identical negatives but different exposures. I will use orthochromatic sheet film.
Can anyone advise me on which developer/fix combination I should use?
Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Since this is a question that comes up often, I've made this a sticky thread and merged today's query with it.

 

[jeffreyg]

Consider x-ray duplicating film. It is a reversal film with simple chemistry. Enlarge as you would be making a print on paper except have the negative in the negative carrier with the emulsion up (not facing the easel). The film is very slow so even at full aperture opening exposures will be long. Also the opposite is done when burning or dodging ie if the end product contact print is to be "darker" the negative you are making needs more exposure. Like transparency film over exposure yields a "lighter" slide. The film itself has super fine grain so the grain if noticeable will be from the original film. Kodak has 8x10 and the chemistry is GBX. I believe Agfa still has some different sizes and also works with the GBX chemistry. The whole technique is very easy. I have been using it for pt/pd printing for years with excellent results. The learning curve would be to determine the exposure necessary to achieve the density needed for your final process.

 

[ic-racer]

Anyone use this stuff?

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulcotodufi.html

 

[mcfactor]

What about printing an interneg onto postive paper (now that ilford and efke both make it)?

 

[Peter Schrager]

I'm with Jeffrey on this....currently using fuji direct dupe film and HC110 diluted 1:3
and getting great results...have already made enlarged negs from 35mm and then made palladium prints....have an entire stack of enlarged 120 and 4x5 negs ready to be printed in platinum. Why go the xtra steps where there is nothing but DUSt and imperfections...this is a direct one step process!!
Best, Peter

 

[gmikol]

Anyone use this stuff?

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulcotodufi.html

ic-racer...That stuff is re-packaged x-ray duplicating film. It's a direct positive film, so processing is the same as sheet film or paper. Like jeffreyg said, it's really slow. I don't have my notes in front of me, but exposure time was something like 4 minutes under a D2 dichroic head on the "high" setting, either wide open (f/5.6) or f/8.

I tried processing in dilute HC-110 (either Dil. H or Dil. D) or in Formulary Liquidol paper developer. It needs a good pre-soak (with agitation), or else all the anti-halation, etc. dyes cause some mottling during development.

Due to the blue tint of the base, the visual density of the base is about 0.2, but the blue channel of my color densitometer reads 0.06 on the base. I think this will be good for UV-based alt-process, or graded papers, but the blue might mess with VC papers.

I went with T-Max interpositives with final negs on Arista-II litho film, for a current project, because it gave more flexibility in adjusting final D-range for alt-process. The x-ray dupe film can be manipulated a little bit with developing time, but I never got it dialed in. I'll probably try again at some point in time, though.

Hope this helps some.

--Greg

 

[cchisena]

Peter,I have a box of this film in a blue base tint.Is this what you have? I need an idea of how long an exposure and how long a developing time. I like the one step,but have had trouble getting enough contrast,Best regards,Chip

 

[gmikol]

I dug up my notes, and here's what I have for the Ultrafine Continuous Tone Duplicating film that ic-racer linked to:

2x enlargement factor (4x5 to 8x10)
4 minute exposure with a 135mm lens f/5.6 "HIGH" setting on D2 (250W halogen bulb)
1 min presoak 70F water. Constant agitation
6 min develop Formulary Liquidol (paper developer) 1+9 70F Constant agitation (it looks like I never tried HC-110 with this film)

NOTES:
-- This actually might be a bit over-exposed. 3 mins might have been closer to the proper exposure.
-- The usable exposure range for this film looks to be about 2.6-2.8 logE. It didn't capture all the steps in a 31-step Stouffer wedge
-- The development time I used resulted in a slope of >1 (logD/logE). 4 min dev gets closer to a 1:1 slope, but seemed to have some mottling, perhaps from incomplete development?

Keep in mind that if you're starting out with a smaller negative, your exposures could be greater, since the enlargement factor is larger.

--Greg

 

[ledom]

Oh - well I just order the Ultrafine duplicating film and didn't realize that it takes a really long exposure. I will be getting it early next week so I'll give it a try and report back. I have high hopes for it though the long exposure time could be a deal breaker. BUT, I just tried their Ortho Litho product and after a preliminary test I am very stoked about it! It seems to work exactly like the Arista Ortho Litho I used to get from Freestyle. This is very good news for me. I teach alternative printing techniques and there was a semester that I was just at a loss for a film to use that my students could afford.
http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulorlifi8x102.html

 

[keithwms]

I make enlarged b&w negs from colour slides on panchromatic b&w film (e.g. tmax). Works nicely. Easy.

 

[holmburgers]

Keith, how do you meter those exposures, or have you gotten to a point through trial & error where you just know where it needs to be?

I had the idea of taking an incident reading at the baseboard using the ISO of the panchro film, and using the exposure time at f/1.0.

I intend to do just what you've described in the future and any way to minimize film wasting would be good (for me at least... )

 

[Klainmeister]

I make enlarged b&w negs from colour slides on panchromatic b&w film (e.g. tmax). Works nicely. Easy.

Hopefully these aren't silly questions....but:

1) To get proper exposure, could you possibly just meter the enlarged image on the easel (white) and get proper exposure?

2) Is it possible to use a color head to have more contrast control?

 

[jeffreyg]

As I mentioned above the x-ray duplicating film is like making a paper print. Obviously the better the negative you start with the less you might have to burn and/or dodge. Most of my exposures are also in the 3 minute range (depending on the density of the original). Make a test as you would a test print. The GBX chemistry is available from dental supply houses and is good for about a month once diluted to make the working solution. A few years ago I enlarged and printed a limited edition - 12 numbered prints each of 4 images for the photographer Mario Algaze from his 2 1/4x2 1/4 negatives. He is an internationally known and collected photographer. It was quite an experience but the results were exquisite.

I don't do photography for a living and doubt that I will print for someone else again ... who needs that stress. I'd rather just have to please myself.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[jeffreyg]

I forgot to mention they were pt/pd/au prints.

 

[keithwms]

Hopefully these aren't silly questions....but:

1) To get proper exposure, could you possibly just meter the enlarged image on the easel (white) and get proper exposure?

Yes, I suppose that you could, but what I do is just sacrifice one piece of film and make test strips from it. And then I determine optimal exposure and development just like I would for paper.

2) Is it possible to use a color head to have more contrast control?

Not for contrast control. It won't work like MG paper, if that's what you're asking. But there are many other ways to control contrast, e.g. by fine-tuning exposure and development, by dodge and burn, by bleaching and SLIMT (which I haven't done, but why not). Colour filters will allow you to play with with tones correspond to particular colours, so a colour head will be nice to play with (I don't have one).

 

[keithwms]

Keith, how do you meter those exposures, or have you gotten to a point through trial & error where you just know where it needs to be?

I had the idea of taking an incident reading at the baseboard using the ISO of the panchro film, and using the exposure time at f/1.0.

I intend to do just what you've described in the future and any way to minimize film wasting would be good (for me at least... )

Not sure why you'd pick f/1, but otherwise it sounds good. As I just mentioned, my own approach is just quick trial and error. Your approach will be better, once you work out the details. I had the idea just to take a camera in the darkroom, project the slide on a standard surface (grey?) and meter accordingly. But in practice I find that I waste very little film in doing a few tests and it's a good safety check for developer and fixer too.

This is really easy, and it gives a lot of new possibilities. I won't name them all now but let's just say that you can be very creative with enlarger and your wet processing.

Note that if you don't use a pan film then good tonality will be hard to nail down. For some images it's okay, for others... blah. I have been using tmax.

 

[Klainmeister]

Yes, I suppose that you could, but what I do is just sacrifice one piece of film and make test strips from it. And then I determine optimal exposure and development just like I would for paper.



Not for contrast control. It won't work like MG paper, if that's what you're asking. But there are many other ways to control contrast, e.g. by fine-tuning exposure and development, by dodge and burn, by bleaching and SLIMT (which I haven't done, but why not). Colour filters will allow you to play with with tones correspond to particular colours, so a colour head will be nice to play with (I don't have one).

Sounds solid. I do have a color head, so I was wondering if you had experimented with it. Just was curious because I know for different alt processes, one needs different contrast curves.

 

[keithwms]

You could be more meticulous than I and do step wedge tests and nail everything down very well. I should do that, as much as I blab about this. But I honestly haven't had much difficulty getting good enlarged negs just by exposing a few test strips. Granted, I am probably more interested in seeing unexpected results than generating reproducible ones, that is just the way my head is shaped.

 

[Klainmeister]

Well, I am of that same family. Meticulous, repeatable, and technical are not words most people use when they see me work (say it about the end result, though). You should see me cook or brew beer!

As a note: I will be performing both enlarging negatives, enlarging positives, and enlarging positives onto wet plate in the near future and will hopefully have a bunch of insight for those looking to do the same.

 

[holmburgers]

Not sure why you'd pick f/1, but otherwise it sounds good.

Well, f/1 is effectively no aperture, which is what you'd need at the baseboard; as though you were metering at the film plane in a camera instead of the scene.