Making Internegatives?

Hello everyone. I've been steering clear of this forum now that it

has gone digital crazy, but I guess there are still a few

knowledgeable color shooters here that haven't migrated over to

APUG.org, so I'm going to ask the question here as well as there. I

want to know how to make a decent internegative now that internegative

film has been discontinued. I know that there will be those of you

that will tell me I oughta scan and all that shit, but frankly, I feel

that an internegative gives me far more of what I want than any sort

of digital manipulation does. The prospects I see for making

internegatives include: using 35mm MP negatives and either getting

them processed in ECN-2 or trying some sort of cross with C-41, but

I'm worried that since these films are designed more for making

positive film images (which is the opposite of what I'm trying to

accomplish as I intend to use these internegatives to make RA-4

prints) they won't be suitable to my needs. Also, I'm thinking of

using the finest-grained, lowest-contrast color neg film made for

C-41. Does anyone know who does this (Kodak's stuff is all too

high-contrast IMO)? Finally, there is some sort of flashing of film

that I've heard is helpful. Would this enable me to use a regular ISO

100 film with good results?

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

P.S. If you want to say something about digital, don't bother

responding because there is nothing that can match the control and

consistancy that I get from hand enlarging RA-4. Period.

Ron Mowrey recommends Kodak Portra 160NC. Fine grain and quite low contrast. (It's only the consumer films that have ridiculously high contrast.) Contrast will be higher than with the old internegative film. Processing could be pulled a little bit. Or use a low contrast RA-4 paper, like Kodak Portra Endura.

Also, boxes of 4x5 Kodak internegative film are showing up on eBay, from freezers.

Karl;

Internegative films tend to go bad with keeping rather more quickly than camera films. At least this is MHO.

I have used Portra 160 VC and I have reduced contrast just slightly by a pull process of 2' 45", but you will have to determine what is best for you.

Remember that Porta is a daylight film and you will have to use a daylight balance when you make the exposure. This will vary with enlarger, but will use cyan and magenta filtration as well as very short exposures with small lens opening.

Good luck.

Ron Mowrey

In a crunch, we used standard VPS III and NC sheet film, although the filtration was kind of wicked. Fuji NPS is actually the lowest contrast of the bunch, but I-negs from VPS III and NC looked more neutral than NPS. Then again we were doing it the <i>right</i> way back then by using 4x5 sheet films and APO corrected enlarging lenses and not 35mm to 35mm dupes.<P><I>

If you want to say something about digital, don't bother responding because there is nothing that can match the control and consistancy that I get from hand enlarging RA-4. Period.</i><P>I'll respond if I want to along with anybody else who has an opinion on the topic. If this is problem, please don't post here.<P>While you can claim you have more control with RA-4 optical printing over digital scanning/printing if you want {the assumption is laughable at best}, I'll even give you and Rowland that claim just for grins since I know neither of you will ever post actual images showing your claims. <P>Where the interneg process falls short is it 'dumbs down' the saturation and density range of the original transparency something terrible, and even upscaling the optically made duplicate to 4x5 or even 8x10 sheet film won't save this from happening because you are essentially converting the original dyes of the slide to 'wedding dyes' in color neg film. Obviously you've never compared a properly scanned 35mm slide and corresponding LightJet print to the same interneg like I have so many times, or, you just don't care.

Scott;

Here is an internegative from EPP onto Portra 160VC pulled 30" or about 1/3 stop. Filtration was about 100C 20M, exposure 0.5" at f16 from 35mm to ~4x5. I have lots of them.

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

Scott;

And yes, I know it is not the sharpest in the world. But that is the original, and the flatbed scanner at work here. The tone scale and color are just fine thanks.

Ron Mowrey

I must have missed something while I was taking my afternoon nap. Looking at the last dozen threads on this forum I see<P>

Making Internegatives?<BR>

Rating very old film<BR>

My first roll of Fuji Fortia . . . <BR>

Rates to charge for scanning a large number of slides? <BR>

compensation for E-6- 1 minute exposure <BR>

Tetanal color negative chemistry<BR>

Kodak 400 Ultra Color Trial packs. Has anyone else bought this?<BR>

Australian Photographers <BR>

medium format transparency storage and scanning <BR>

Shot Astia at 400 - what to do?<BR>

fuji frontier <BR>

Are fluorescent bathroom lights dangerous?<BR><P>

Where are all these digital threads?

James;

You deleted them while we were not looking.

Anyhow, Scott is going to post whatever he feels like.

Ron Mowrey

Scott;

In answer to your comment above about internegatives, I decided to post a comparison. The two following photos are first the original slide scan and then the internegative made from the slide.

Both were scanned and then the density and color balance were matched as closely as possible. The sizes were also adjusted so that the final images were nearly the same size on my screen.

First the original slide.

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

And now, the internegative on Portra 160VC, pull process.

Ron Mowrey<div></div>

The interneg shot has less contrast (to be expected), the color balance is more yellow, yet the oranges are less saturated. Also there appears to be less detail in some areas - the white papers handging from the eaves is an area the most evident.

I've never really like images from internegs, and only used them when there was no other alternative. As a way to make prints, it (in my opinion) is not the best process. Either shoot negs to begin with or handle transparencies in a way that doesn't degrade the contrast, color balance and sharpness.

It does provide a process to get that nice '50's look to images that can be used creatively for some types of work.

Steve;

If I could get internegative film, the results would be even better.

If I manipulated this in PhotoShop, or did on-easel corrections, the images would be better. All I did was roughly match density and color.

However, I feel that the contrast in the internegative is higher, not lower. Please take another look. I have them on-screen and in 8.5x11 prints right here, and I would say the internegative contrast is slightly higher.

Ron Mowrey