Copying Minox images to 35mm

[reportsfromluke]

I plan on using a Minox mask to enlarge a minox negative image to 8x10

(hopefully it'll be that big) and then use a copy stand to copy that image to

a 35mm negative. I think the procedure is pretty straightforward, and if the

results are good, I might use this technique to make Minox images a bit more

versitile. Any insight, experience, or discussion is welcome. Thanks.

 

-R

[MTC Photography]

Interesting idea. However I think you may lost quite a bit resolution

by going thru two more lenses, the enlarging lens and the 35mm camera lens.

[robert meier]

I wouldn't make an 8x10 to do the copying from -- a 3 1/2 x 5 print would work better with much less grain showing than an 8x10 would have.

[jtdnyc]

Making an 8x10in enlargement from an 8x11mm neg requires an enlargement of

approximately 25 diameters. That's hard to do in a home darkroom; and, even in a pro

lab, you would want a lens optimized for enlargements that size in order to get the most

from the small negative.

 

I have made 5x7s from Minox negs (Agfa 25) and they are almost comparable, in terms of

grain and resolution, to shots of taken on Plus X in 35mm. I limited myself to 5x7 because

that's the biggest enlargement I could make on the baseboard of my Focomat with a

40mm lens.

 

While a 3,5x5in print will look less grainy than an 8x10, the smaller print will not reveal all

the detail in the Minox negative, especially if you were using Agfa25 or TMX.

 

Transferring the Minox shot to 35mm sounds like a good idea for greater flexibility, but I

think the best way to do it would be a direct copy of the Minox neg onto a 35mm positive

copy film, assuming such films are still available. Then your copy neg would be a only one

generation down from the camera original and would contain as much of the original

information as possible.

 

I am always shocked by the amount of detail that can be captured by a Minox and fine-

grained film, and I've never even tried anything exotic like Tech Pan or Spur developer.

Good luck with your project!

[robert meier]

You're right -- 5x7 would probably be better. I have a Minox enlarger and it makes prints that are a bit bigger than 8x10 and are very sharp. It really is the best way to go to print Minox negatives.

[mark_hahn]

ok, I'm not entirely sure what your intention is... but...

 

If you are going to do anything with the negative you are better off shooting as large a print as you can, period. If your final image is smaller, great, if not, you retain as much detail as possible. Making smaller print makes no sense whatsoever.

 

But what do you intend on doing with the negatives that you can't do with the original Minox negative? In any tradition procedure you are losing detail every step of the way.

 

If you are trying to get the images into a digital format, this would be one possible way to do it, but then why not just scan your 8x10's on a flatbed? This works very well, but scan as big a print as possible. In my experience, scanned prints can barely be doubled in size without too much degradation in image quality.

[reportsfromluke]

I am merely satisfying my curiousity. Many times on these boards people think that photographic experimentation needs a finite end. However, this is just playtime...How big can I get a Minox negative?...Can I put that on a 35mm negative?

[paul_osullivan]

You will lose too much resolution. I have tried it with digital maco lenses, you name it. Better way is a negative scanner.