Using BW film to create masks for RA4 print

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Hi all,

So I am starting my slow journey on creating masks. I have all the equipment for BW films and will use Arista Ortho films with Ilford MG developer at 1:130 which should give me decent results after few tries.

I have also bunch of C41 films that I’d like to create masks for and for them, I need to use traditional BW films, like Tmax100, FP4, Delta100. Apparently Foma 100 is not great as the curves are weird. I’ll probably will stick to FP4 as it is the most cost efficient option. Has anybody developed FP4 sheets in Ilford MG developer for masking purposes? Or do you recommend another option?

Many thanks,
Fatih

 

[koraks]

Try @DREW WILEY
This one's right up his alley.

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have used FP4+ for black and white masks and it works well. I also made some for Ilfochrome, but nothing yet for C41. The film is pretty neutral colored in many film developers. I was using XTOL at the time and it worked fine.

I’ve been using arista ortho litho in dektol lately and it’s working well for black and white masking.

 

[DREW WILEY]

If you plan on masking any kind of color film it's essential to use panchromatic film. FP4 is a good choice; but for small negatives the finer grain of TMax100 is nice. TMY100 is one stop faster than FP4 when it comes to masking characteristics. Exact exposure and development is a more complicated subject because it depends on exactly what kind of film you are making a mask for, and what you want that mask to do. But generally for black and white printing, you want the unsharp mask around .30 to .45 DMax above fbf. It should conspicuously be low contrast.

Contrast reduction masking for color neg originals is a little more complicated because you have to filter the exposure so as to "see through" the inherent orange mask and neutralize it. If somebody needs to know how, I could explain it later, but probably not tonite. You also want a far lower contrast, and much less DMax, than would have been done for Ciba printing back in the day. And again, around .30 to .45 above fbf is generally appropriate.

Contrast increase masking is also possible for color neg originals, but involves two steps, first a black and white inter-positive, and then the mask itself generated from that.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

If you plan on masking any kind of color film it's essential to use panchromatic film. FP4 is a good choice; but for small negatives the finer grain of TMax100 is nice. TMY100 is one stop faster than FP4 when it comes to masking characteristics. Exact exposure and development is a more complicated subject because it depends on exactly what kind of film you are making a mask for, and what you want that mask to do. But generally for black and white printing, you want the unsharp mask around .30 to .45 DMax above fbf. It should conspicuously be low contrast.

Contrast reduction masking for color neg originals is a little more complicated because you have to filter the exposure so as to "see through" the inherent orange mask and neutralize it. If somebody needs to know how, I could explain it later, but probably not tonite. You also want a far lower contrast, and much less DMax, than would have been done for Ciba printing back in the day. And again, around .30 to .45 above fbf is generally appropriate.

Contrast increase masking is also possible for color neg originals, but involves two steps, first a black and white inter-positive, and then the mask itself generated from that.

Thanks Drew, yes for C41 film I'll use FP4 and for BW films I'll use Ortho.
Yesterday I have done some testing to understand the effect of developer on Ortho film and what kind of exposure I need roughly. My developing time was 2 minutes, at the end 10s f/16 at 122cm gave me reasonably low contrast images on Ortho film.

Over the next month, I will work on negatives to create different masks and test them to understand the effect overall. Probably unsharp mask and contrast reduction mask are the one I'll use most. (I understand they are quite similar)

However when it comes to create masks for C41 film, I need to find the ratio of Illford MG developer, Lynn Radek mentions 1:15 Dektol for 4 minutes, that is nearly 7x more dilute than standard Dektol use (I believe it is 1:2). If that translate to Ilford MG (1:14), that is making roughly 1:100, however I am not quite sure all of these, not to mention Ilford MG is good for developing FP4

 

[DREW WILEY]

As far as dilute Dektol as a film developer, it's hard to control and sometimes leaves a brownish stain. I find that advice really unsatisfactory even for Ortho. And even at the dilution of it you're trying, the times are so fast as to be difficult to precisely control. Highly dilute HC-110 works way better.

The formula I use for either TMax or FP4 contrast masks is to first dilute the HC110 from concentrate to stock 1:3,
and then dilute the stock 1:31 fluid oz to get a quart of solution. To this I add 2 ml of 1% benzotriazole - just a tiny amount needed - which acts as a toe cutter, giving me the straightest line at low contrast of any formula I know of,
ideal for color neg masking.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

As far as dilute Dektol as a film developer, it's hard to control and sometimes leaves a brownish stain. I find that advice really unsatisfactory even for Ortho. And even at the dilution of it you're trying, the times are so fast as to be difficult to precisely control. Highly dilute HC-110 works way better.

The formula I use for either TMax or FP4 contrast masks is to first dilute the HC110 from concentrate to stock 1:3,
and then dilute the stock 1:31 fluid oz to get a quart of solution. To this I add 2 ml of 1% benzotriazole - just a tiny amount needed - which acts as a toe cutter, giving me the straightest line at low contrast of any formula I know of,
ideal for color neg masking.

Thanks Drew, my usual developer is Ordinal for below 400 films and XT3 for faster films.

How long does HC110 last if I acquire one?

Of course another problem is finding one

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have no experience with the latest version of HC-110, which is purported to work the same as the original. I'm still working off a bottle of original concentrate syrup at least 25 yrs old, with complete consistency. HC-110 concentrate was legendary for its keeping qualities, even in partially empty tightly-capped bottles. And it's a very economical developer to use, especially when highly diluted. The rumor is the newer variety is less thick and syrupy, so easier to pour and mix.

 

[MattKing]

It would be best to be cautious about references to "new" HC-110 - there is more than one "new" version, and there is at least some doubt that any more will be made.

 

[Don_ih]

more than one "new" version

I bought Legacy Pro L110 and used it like HC100. I think I have 1/3 of the bottle left ... and it's black.

 

[btaylor]

I bought Legacy Pro L110 and used it like HC100. I think I have 1/3 of the bottle left ... and it's black.

But does it work?

Interesting- I have an almost used up bottle of Legacy Pro L110 that's probably more than 5 years old and it's the color of a well brewed cup of English Breakfast tea. I used it last week and it was fine. I made sure the concentrate was stored without any air in the bottle if that makes a difference. I like the convenience of the stuff, I usually use it at 1:63 and use times for HC110.

 

[Don_ih]

But does it work?

Good question. Something in it has changed enough to turn it that colour - I haven't bothered to test it, yet. The thing is, while it might be the case that it will develop a negative, will it develop it as well as it should? Maybe.

 

[btaylor]

I like the convenience of HC110 very much, but I have only actually used Legacy Pro L110, I simply substitute it for the dilutions and times published for HC110. While I have watched the discussions about "new HC110" I have been on the sidelines. What I will say is that Legacy Pro L110 behaves, in my experience, just like what I have read about "old" HC110, so if one wants to stay out of all the new and old HC110 drama just pick up the Legacy Pro L110.

 

[MattKing]

I bought Legacy Pro L110 and used it like HC100. I think I have 1/3 of the bottle left ... and it's black.

I'm referring only to the various versions - past and relatively recent, of which I count up to six - of Kodak branded HC-110.

 

[Don_ih]

I'm referring only to the various versions - past and relatively recent, of which I count up to six - of Kodak branded HC-110.

And since none of those are actually being manufactured or sold at present, they're all largely irrelevant. Counting versions of a fictional item is kinda pointless.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The question would be how similarly the several generic substitutes which are currently available are to one another, and using them within a reasonably allotted period of time which might not be a ridiculously long as the storage life original HC-110 syrup concentrate. Still, no big deal. I just don't personally have the need to test them and potentially recalibrate my procedure anytime soon, if ever. And for someone starting out, fine-tuning the variables would have to be done anyway, regardless of the specific product choice. These all claim to be usable at the same dilution options and development times as former HC-110, so it's hardly the end of the world in this respect.

Reminds me of back when people were panicking when official Pan Masking Film was discontinued. But it wasn't long until a workaround with common ongoing films was figured out. And today, TMax can do it even better than the dedicated film could.

 

[MattKing]

And since none of those are actually being manufactured or sold at present, they're all largely irrelevant. Counting versions of a fictional item is kinda pointless.

But when trying to drill down as to what historical (and not so historical) products posters are trying to make comparisons with, it is kinda useful.
An answer to a question from someone asking whether a product will give them the same results and longevity as they are getting from HC-110 will depend a lot on which HC-110 they are talking about.

 

[Don_ih]

But when trying to drill down as to what historical (and not so historical) products posters are trying to make comparisons with, it is kinda useful.
An answer to a question from someone asking whether a product will give them the same results and longevity as they are getting from HC-110 will depend a lot on which HC-110 they are talking about.

Nevertheless, people can only use what's available to them. No one can compare what they have with what they've never had and never will be able to get.

 

[mfagan]

In the event that this might be useful to those interested in the variety of HC-110 dates, batches, etc.; I bought a bottle in Asheville, NC this morning (several available). Produced 2022, expires 2024/3. Batch/lot 15647. Made in USA.

 

[MattKing]

How long does HC110 last if I acquire one?

In the event that this might be useful to those interested in the variety of HC-110 dates, batches, etc.; I bought a bottle in Asheville, NC this morning (several available). Produced 2022, expires 2024/3. Batch/lot 15647. Made in USA.

Nevertheless, people can only use what's available to them. No one can compare what they have with what they've never had and never will be able to get.

Just trying to help Fatih Ayoglu.

 

[koraks]

No one can compare what they have with what they've never had and never will be able to get.

Yes, they can, and they do - that's the exact thing that Matt is warning against, I think. People will 'abduct' processing regimes documented for some version of HC110 (no longer available) and apply it to whatever they can get their hands on today. And probably be disappointed in that the outcome is different than anticipated. It's very relevant to be aware of the limits of such generalizations, even if not all those materials are available anymore. Just like it's relevant to realize that today's films are constructed differently from those back in the 1960s if you're going to work with e.g. two-bath development. What worked back then won't necessarily work today with today's materials.

Anyway, that's as far as I'm concerned the relevance of mentioning the variety of products that has existed under the same name. What certainly is barely relevant is very lengthily bludgeoning the question how significant that relevance is. I'm sure OP can make up their mind on this aspect. I'm also sure OP is probably curious about further suggestions that help them get started with masking.

 

[Don_ih]

People will 'abduct' processing regimes documented for some version of HC110 (no longer available) and apply it to whatever they can get their hands on today.

In this instance, an HC110 clone like L110 will do what Drew said HC110 will do. Perhaps the procedure will need to be adjusted to get exactly the desired results. When is that not the case?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Obtaining a relatively straight line mask at especially low contrast is a tricky task. Traditional HC-110 could be coaxed in that manner, and it is highly helpful with color neg masking in particular. One would obviously have to test and possibly fine-tune any reformulation as needed. That just comes with the territory of advanced printing tricks using supplemental film steps anyway, and alway has. Or if that fails, try Ctein's old Muir Soft-shot formula.

The requirements for unsharp masking of black and white film originals are not as fussy as for color negs. You could take a common developer like D76 and use it at 1:2 with a short development time. But you'll get a sag-like curve with a lot of toe. You can cut through that toe and its fbf by visual inspection in a white tray afterwards, using dilute Farmer's Reducer for a minute or two, following by re-fixing and washing again. But you still need to fine tune it all. The current substitutes for Kodak Farmer's Reducer like that from Formulary are a lot stronger concentration, so need to be significantly more dilute. And you mix just enough for that one brief session. No big deal. It's not like walking to the South Pole barefoot.