Would this work?

[brenz89]

Okay, I'll explain my idea the best I can...

So you start off with a positive black and white print. Then, in complete darkness, you cut a roll of film into

long strips, and lay them on top of the print (which is dry and placed under the enlarger lens). You then flick

the light on and off (I don't know how long for, I'm guessing about 1/3 of a second or something like that,

depending on the ISO. You then develop the negatives (which will of course be tricky as there are 8 or 9 strips).

 

My question is.... will the negatives record what was on the print???

If they do, you then just contact print them and there you go, fun manipulation!

[john_shriver]

Well, you need to put the print on top of the film, and expose through it. This will work best if there's no backprinting on the print.

 

The film will just fog evenly if it's the first thing the light hits.

[swilson]

It seems like a lot of work to get a copy of a print.

 

The contrast would also be very low IMO, which would make getting the print hard.

 

Then there are the sprocket holes.

 

Why not just take a photo of the print?

 

Scott

[brenz89]

John, that makes sense. Negs under the paper, and light above it. Got it!

 

Scott, I don't want a straight print you see, I want to see the sprocket holes and see if the result will be visually interesting. It would be a super easy manip on a computer, but theres nothing like spending time in the darkroom experimenting

 

Thanks guys

[brenz89]

Sorry for the double post. I'm thinking it would be MUCH easier to have in this order, from the bottom, the dry print, the neg strips and then another piece of photo paper. Then just develop the paper, and make a contact print for the positive. Of course though, undeveloped film isn't see-through so what is the easiest way to make it blank?

This technique would be easier, but it would mean loosing the fun of the neg strips having the original picture on them. And if you so desired, with the strips you could arrange them differently, out of order, crooked etc.

Brendon

[richterjw]

I have used 35mm film in a medium format camera to achieve the exposed sprocket hole look. Not to be self promoting, but I have a couple of these in my portfolio. If you go to Flickr, you can find many such pictures as well. JR

[lex_jenkins]

Ditto, Jeremy's suggestion. I've loaded 35mm film into my old Agfa Isolette 6x6cm folder to expose to the film edges, across the sprocket holes. The I'd adjust the masks on the negative carrier to show the full effect (easy with negative carriers like the Dursts; don't know about others).

 

The technique takes a bit of practice, best done with a roll of scrap 35mm (which I usually keep handy for practice anyway). The film has no backing strip so you'll need to tape over the red/ruby window on the film door (not all MF cameras have these). As the film is taken up on the spool the number of turns needed to prevent overlapping frames will change slightly.

 

Or, you could project a positive transparency from the enlarger onto the film, taped to the baseboard. But shooting it in-camera is easy and there are plenty of very cheap MF cameras around.

[rjjackson]

you know brendon i like your proposal for mixing up the arrangement of the image. john is right that your print needs to be between your film and the light source with paper emulsion in contact with the film emulsion pressed together by a glass plate. in fact, i can say i have tried this. i made a contact sheet on a large piece of large x-ray film. results were contrasty enough and with enough resolution as expected from x-ray film. then i made a new contact print with the film. contrast may be controlled by your paper grade or filtration with an enlarger (add magenta with multi-grade paper or else use a high contrast paper with direct light). you do lose details but you gain an atmosphere that can't be accomplished in camera or immediately understood unless the process is explained. of course you can use paper as well to get a negative and reprint a positive. but again this will have different result. besides no sprocket holes, the latitude of paper will make your exposure harder to control than with film, but you can do it with some experimentation. i don't understand your suggestion for two pieces of paper and transparent (unexposed, processed) film.

 

good luck and have fun experimenting. you're on the right track.

[conrad_hoffman]

FWIW, there were some copy processes where the sensitive material was placed on top of the item to be copied. With careful exposure, there would be just enough more light where the item was reflective, to produce an image. Whether this would work with todays films is anybodies guess, and I can't imagine any good reason to do it, other than curiosity.

[patrick_gainer]

The white (or lighter) part of the material being copied reflects back some of the light coming through, increasing the exposure of the top emulsion, which is face down. With just the right exposure, the reflected light plus the transmitted light is above the threshold of the emulsion, while the transmitted light alone is not, so the resulting developed image is a direct positive of the projected image. If the original image is itself a negative, the copy will be a negative. You may be able to remove the antihalation dye from a more standard film without completely destroying its sensitivity, but like as not whatever removes that dye will also remove the sensitizing dyes. Speciaal films for the purpose have no antihalation dye and a clear base.