XXL enlargement

Would rather keep the final formulae between Bob & myself.

However essentially a PQ Universal type developer, as they are clean working and economic, a Rapid fixer - essential with large images, and a wash aid based on Sodium Sulphite.

Ian

1. Take 35mm film and enlarge onto 4x5 film to end up with a 4x5 reversed film interpositive.
2. Take 4x5 film and enlarge onto 8x10 film to end up with a correctly-oriented 8x10 working negative.
3. Take 8x10 working negative to a professional lab and have them print a 4x6 foot print from it.

When you take the 8x10 working negative to them, they will only have to do a 6x enlargement (a tiny bit more, actually).

I suggest litho film and a continuous tone developer that I use called Soemarko's LC-1. This will make the whole stepping up process able to be done in red light (as opposed to total darkness), and will make it much more affordable than using "good" film.

The formula for LC-1 calls for three parts, but in group lab periods, I often mix up a faster-working ready-to-use solution, bypassing the parts. I have come to prefer the convenience of this directly-mixed version. This is my formula for a gallon of the stuff:

1. 3 L water, brought to about 50 C
2. 5 g - 6 g metol
3. 5 g - 6 g hydroquinone
4. 100 g - 120 g sodium sulfite
5. 5 g - 10 g sodium bisulfite (The more you use, the slower the film will achieve contrast. Use more for contrastier negs, and less for flatter negs.)
6. water to make 4 L

- Let cool to room temperature before using.
- Use in a tray in red light.
-Expose for low tones. Develop for high tones. Development time will depend on contrast desired, and can range from 2 minutes to over five minutes depending on negs and contrast desired.
- Pour back used developer from tray into jar.
- Toss and make more when it loses its punch (takes much more than 6 minutes to develop)

Note: Negs will have a warm tone, but this is irrelevant, as they are not the final product.

Make your interpositive of such a contrast that it includes all detail and texture you may wish to incorporate into your final print. For the interpos, too flat - even waaay to flat - is better than too contrasty. The important thing is only to transfer all detail you want to have the option of using. You just need the raw materials for crafting the working negative to be present in the interpos. You can step up your contrast when you make the working neg, and it can again be stepped up when making the print.

When making the working negative, LC-1 may not give you enough contrast for what you want, even with extended development times. If so, there are many other developers you can use. I would start with a dilute form of HC-110, used one shot, and gradually and small amounts of A+B working solution to raise contrast if needed.

Worry more about the contrast on your working negative than on your interpos. It is what the print will be made from. I suggest using contact prints as a rough estimate of contrast required for the print.

A Rodagon G is indispensible for making murals. If you're in perfect alignment there is no reason not to use this lens at wide open. As for holding the paper flat, I find magnet's to be a PITA - the rare earth variety are too strong and the strips not strong enough. Not to mention the fact that you'll have a very hard time getting your enlarging surface planar if you try attaching sheet metal to wood - a perfect plane to project on is essential for critical printing especially when using the optimal f-stops. Instead of magnets, I prefer using 1/8" x 2" x 5' lengths of steel flat bar wrapped in gaffer's tape - so much easier. No need for a vacuum easel either as the natural curl of the paper will lie flat if weighted. Having a flat flat surface to enlarge on makes it easier to keep things sharp when working with small negs- try mdf (you can get it in five foot wide sheets) or even better yet, a sheet of covered aluminum honeycomb from either paneltec or alcore as it's much much lighter (something to consider if, like me, you do not have a commercial drkrm. with a dedicated mural set-up). Different strokes for different folks however I've honed my technique within the constraints of the space I work in. I get tack sharp murals from all formats on paper up to 60" wide so I've never felt the need for internegs. The most important thing to remember before you go mcgyver on this...K.I.S.S.

You may get some further ideas from the work of John Chiara and his Ultra Ultra Large Format camera. Some of his processing work is shown too in this video:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYWehyfFcM[/YOUTUBE]

Marco

Some math (re value of internegative for big enlargement)

DIRECT:
35mm to 4x6 feet = about 50x enlargement
f8 on lens = f416
best resolution on your printing paper is going to be about 5 lp/mm


INTERNEGATIVE:
35mm to 8x10 positive film = 7x
f8 on lens = f64
best resolution on internegative = 23 lp/mm

8x10 negative to 4x6 feet = 7x
f8 on lens = f65
best resolution on paper = 23 lp/mm which will just equal what is in the internegative and is better than the DIRECT way. Even if you stop down your 300mm enlarging lens to f11 or f16, you still will be ahead of the direct route.


(nice coincidence that with an 8x10 internegative both steps are about 7x enlargement )

I have recently used internegatives to reprint an old project where extreme enlargements were involved.
The fist attached detail is made at the maximum I could go with my DeVere 507 and a Schneider 28mm. The grain still looks pretty sharp. The second one, a few enlargement steps further, clearly shows the grain of the internegative.
If I could get rid of this effects with the chemicals that 2F/2F suggested, I would rather go for it than breaking my back trying to get a perfect alignment or focusing!

gattu marrudu said:

The grain still looks pretty sharp. The second one, a few enlargement steps further, clearly shows the grain of the internegative.
If I could get rid of this effects with the chemicals that 2F/2F suggested, I would rather go for it than breaking my back trying to get a perfect alignment or focusing!

Click to expand...

Grain is grain, it is supposed to be there... it is what forms your image in the first place. Take away the grain, and you won't have an image. I doubt if using specific chemicals will solve it all.

I think the main problem is not the chemicals, but the enlargement steps for the internegatives. Unless you manage so many interneg steps and usage of such low ISO film, so as to be able to print your extreme enlargement at an enlargement value that grain is virtually invisible, you won't get rid of the internegatives grain.

The suggested 4-7x times steps of 2F/2F and IC-racer might just make it for 100 ISO film, but maybe the steps are still to big for 400 ISO film, especially a 7x step. I think that will start to show grain very clearly.

Maybe something in the 4x times range would yield your desired result without the pepper grain of the internegative being visible. But this would require a 50x75 cm final negative to print a 2 x 3 meter mural... No enlarger for that...

I hate to say it, but I think you need to go "Hybrid" to really get rid of that internegative grain. Make a high quality drum or Imacon scan of your negative, and than have it:

- Either printed digitally as a direct positive conversion
- Or have some shop print it is as a huge, e.g. 1 x 1.5 meter transparent digital negative on something like Mitsubishi's Pictorico OHP and make a contact print on your fibre paper of that... Pictorico seems to be available in rolls of up to 59 inch wide...

Essentially, this last thing is what most alternative photographers on HybridPhoto seem to do to make their contact negatives for for example Pt/Pd prints. Going the contact print route, will also solve your alignment and focus issues, no need for that in contact printing... Nor need for an enlarger.

Marco

gattu marrudu said:

The grain still looks pretty sharp. The second one, a few enlargement steps further, clearly shows the grain of the internegative.

Click to expand...

It would also be interesting to hear exactly what steps and stuff you used to create the results you show. E.g. Original 35 mm negative, 400 ISO, HP5. Internegative 4x5 HP5? Or 100 ISO? Final size of the prints?

In an earlier post, I suggested a graphic arts film. Similar to lith film, you get infectious development which is virtually grainless. At a high magnification, you would be essentially duplicating a very high contrast image with a TOC of close to 1000:1. I do not think the duplicating film; (if done carefully,) would impart additional grain.

richard ide said:

In an earlier post, I suggested a graphic arts film. Similar to lith film, you get infectious development which is virtually grainless. At a high magnification, you would be essentially duplicating a very high contrast image with a TOC of close to 1000:1. I do not think the duplicating film; (if done carefully,) would impart additional grain.

Click to expand...

Infectious development is caused by the A+B developer as far as I know, not by the film.

That was true of lith films definitely. I stopped using lith films around 1996 as RA films had improved greatly for high contrast, high accutance work. You would need a microdensitometer to measure the halo around an image element. Even under a 50x microscope, there appeared to be an amazingly sharp cutoff with no discernable fog.
Perhaps infectious development was the wrong terminology.

richard ide said:

That was true of lith films definitely...

...Perhaps infectious development was the wrong terminology.

Click to expand...

What was true of lith films definitley?

Infectious development means those areas that have developed more are more sensitive to further development than those areas that have developed less. With A+B, this works for film and paper, and with lithography film, one can get images that are not arrived at via infectious development, so I have always assumed that it is a property of the developer, not the film or paper, that makes for infectious development.

richard ide said:

In an earlier post, I suggested a graphic arts film. Similar to lith film, you get infectious development which is virtually grainless.

Click to expand...

Is not lithography film the same thing as graphic arts film?

Up until about the early nineties If you wanted a very high contrast negative, you used lith film with A/B developer. Rapid Access papers and films were available but did not provide the density/image quality of lith materials. Every once in a while I would try to make negatives for enlarging with RA materials and was always disappointed with quality. IDK if it was coincident with the manufacture of tabular grain films or not; but in the early 1990's there was a quantum leap in RA film image quality. I could make a negative with a Dmin of .02 and a Dmax of 5 plus over a less than 2 stop range.
With the current films, I am sure some will still develop in lith chemistry but most are RA., using a 1 solution replenished developer. I used to run a minimum of 3 lith control strips per day and after switching to RA exclusively, only needed a densitometer to monitor developer activity. By varying the developer concentration, you could achieve what was called hard dot film without making additional dupes etc. to eliminate the halo surrounding image areas which was necessary for high quality half tone reproduction and subsequent printing.

I researched on hard dot film for my earlier project. Kodak makes some but I was on a tight schedule and had no time to experiment - Otherwise, lith developers & films are getting harder and harder to find. But I don't think a hard dot film would be suitable for a negative which should be printed at continuous tone.
The internerg grain shown is from an Adox Ortho 25 ISO developed with a one solution developer. Using an Ornano Lith (A+B, I don't know the formula but it smells a lot like formaldehyde) the grain was gone, but the image quality was suitable ony for further steps in the series where I needed only black and white tones.
This is the link to the complete project - don't blame me for my inexperience, it was my first real photographic project I made at 21... http://lii.cc/projects/others#project-25
I refuse using digital enlargement because it's boring and makes me think of my day job.

Marco B said:

It would also be interesting to hear exactly what steps and stuff you used to create the results you show. E.g. Original 35 mm negative, 400 ISO, HP5. Internegative 4x5 HP5? Or 100 ISO? Final size of the prints?

Click to expand...

Film used was a 35mm TRi-X exposed and developed at 640 with Ornano DX-Crowley (coarse grain developer, very hard to find, and I would have done better with Rodinal actually...). I like the grain of Tri-X better than HP5. Final prints are 30x40cm.

If you do not want grain introduced by your intermediate, I think you must treat the original negative as a high contrast negative. The individual silver grains are black with clear film so the image is really high contrast. To copy this successfully you would need a good lens and some careful testing. I did a lot of copying of halftones for big enlargements and worked on making intermediates from stoichastic screens with dots as small as 10 microns. Your elements of process are all very critical.

gattu marrudu said:

Film used was a 35mm TRi-X exposed and developed at 640 with Ornano DX-Crowley (coarse grain developer, very hard to find, and I would have done better with Rodinal actually...). I like the grain of Tri-X better than HP5. Final prints are 30x40cm.

Click to expand...

Rethinking it, the suggested steps bij IC-Racer of 4x5 and 8x10 internegatives, and 7x enlargement for each step, should get you a long way with 100 ISO film to hiding the internegative grain, just from my own experience enlarging. As I understand it, you now had just one internegative (4x5?)? Maybe it would be just enough to have 8x10 film...

And than there is of course Richards and 2F/2F useful comments.

gattu marrudu said:

This is the link to the complete project - don't blame me for my inexperience, it was my first real photographic project I made at 21... http://lii.cc/projects/others#project-25

Click to expand...

Nice to see, now understand better what you are after, and why the internegative grain is an issue.

It also started me thinking along another way: would it be of use to make a negative paper print, as an additional measure next to internegatives, by contact printing your large sized print onto a new piece of paper, and subsequently create the final positive print by again contact printing that negative print onto another piece of paper?

By printing through the paper, the paper fibres will "soften" up the edges of the printed grains, and you will have additional opportunity to use high contrast filtering or high contrast paper development. It might help hiding the internegatives grain...

Just a thought..., but you could easily try it out with a small piece of paper to see if it is of any use.

Actually, that series is not what I am after. I am using it as a basis of technical experience to make something aesthetically very different. The image I want to enlarge has a quite soft look overall, but the grain should be sharp. Unfortunately I have no scans of the negative since I am out of town.
I prefer sticking to the KISS (especially if she's pretty) - I am considering internegatives just because of the physical/optical limits which would degrade the image quality too much.

my murals are plenty sharp due to the fact that i'm using a lens that's designed for this purpose. i've never felt the need for internegs except when retouching was necessary. nor have i felt the perversion to test for lp/mm in my setup not only because i prefer to view prints without a magnifying glass but because my priority lies in making the thing instead of pondering all the various ramifications behind the technique of making the thing. In my experience there are two kinds of practitioners in analogue photography - those who like to make the thing and those who get caught up in technical minutae. I find that the latter usually end up as assistants or as gear-happy hobbyists without much work to show. What do you have to lose? A few lines per millimeter? lmfao! stop planning and go make the print!

f8 on lens = f416

Click to expand...

Sorry; can you explain what you are doing here? I'm not following.

Also, for those that project horizontally and hang the print up on a vertical surface, what enlarger do you use? My DII doesn't appear to be able to project horizontally.

frotog said:

In my experience there are two kinds of practitioners in analogue photography - those who like to make the thing and those who get caught up in technical minutae. I find that the latter usually end up as assistants or as gear-happy hobbyists without much work to show. What do you have to lose? A few lines per millimeter? lmfao! stop planning and go make the print!

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, but it seems the OP already did that...

hence his question came up as a result, as he ran into issues... So it seems a bit of exchange of thoughts about the issues encountered when doing murals, does not hurt. I for one, found remarks like those from Bob Carnie and some others useful, and may help me if I ever get into a similar position of being able to do murals myself.

BetterSense said:

Sorry; can you explain what you are doing here? I'm not following.

Also, for those that project horizontally and hang the print up on a vertical surface, what enlarger do you use? My DII doesn't appear to be able to project horizontally.

Click to expand...

You have heard of the "Bellows Factor"

The same applies to enlarging. Think of it as the magnification during enlargement making the Airy disks from diffraction bigger.

The equation is as follows:

Effective F-number = F-number on lens times (1 + Linear Magnification)

At first I thought you were talking about bellows factor, but then it didn't seem to make sense. To my way of thinking, making a larger print (situated farther away) would DECREASE the bellows factor, instead of increasing it. When you are using a view camera, moving the subject farther away results in a larger aperture, not a smaller one, so I don't understand why you think making a bigger print results in a smaller aperture.

I never thought about it before, but I guess there are tow "f-numbers" for a given system depending on which half of the lens you use as "F" and which you use as the "subject distance".

Apparently you are looking at the enlarger system backward from the way I do, so that the negative is the "subject" and the print is the "film". When you look at it this way, the distance from the lens to the paper is the "F" used in the aperture calculation. From that perspective, it makes sense that the aperture gets smaller as the print gets bigger, but why would you look at "that" f-number, rather than the one from the other side? What benefit is there to looking at the system that way, and what does "that" f/number tell you about diffraction compared to the one where the distance from the negative to the lens is the "F"?

BetterSense said:

Also, for those that project horizontally and hang the print up on a vertical surface, what enlarger do you use? My DII doesn't appear to be able to project horizontally.

Click to expand...

You don't have one of these in your darkroom???



For the CAMARA vs ENLARGER conceptualization, in your mind just put the bellows toward the light sensitive material. Now the enlarger and camera are essentially identical in terms of the physics and optical equations.

In fact, in the Durst literature what you might call the 'enlarger head' is called a 'camera.'

I have no problem conceptualizing the enlarger that way, so that the print becomes the 'film' and 'F' denotes the distance from the lens to the paper. I'm just wondering why we would do it that way. For example, most lens f/stop numbers are calculated and marked for infinity focus. In an enlarger system where the print forms the 'film' and the negative the subject, what does 'infinity focus' even mean?