Copying old photographs

[robert_davis2]

I found a nice thread on this subject in the archives. It answers

basically all my questions. OTOH it is 2+ years old. So I'd like to

ask what would be the best 35mm B&W film to use today? FWIW I'm

looking at copying 30-40 year old prints that are maybe 3x3. In fairly

good to great shape. Once I've got negatives the hope is to print them

at least 5x7 but if the quality is high enough 8x10 or 11x14. Actually

considering the prints are square I may just square up the paper.

[art_haykin]

Those 2 year old data are still fresh. If the old photos are in good shape, and of normal contrast, you MAY want to overexpose a tad, and underdevelop a tad, as there is a tendency to pick up contrast in copy work.

[joey]

I'm doing the same thing right now with even older photos. My choice for film is T-Max 100, for its very tight grain structure and sharpness. Basically, the slower the film, the better.

[robert_davis2]

It seemed most people argued for Kodak Techpan but from what reading I've been able to do on that it's picky on how you treat it. So I'm leaning towards either Ilford Pan F or just using the Agfa APX 100 that is in my fridge right now.

[john_stockdale2]

I'd also like to put in a vote for extra exposure in addition to what your meter says. In prints there is generally considerable tonal compression at the dark end of the scale, and minimal exposure in copying will compress them even more. For the scale that you intend to use, TMAX100 is my favourite. My guess is that you will find 8x10 not very sharp but not because of your TMAX.

 

I had a single opportunity to copy some old prints and regret not generously overexposing. Remember, your highlights are not going to blow out!

[mark_crame1]

Kodak told me T400. Tech pan is way too contrasty. I scanned them all in the end, and glad I did as I am 450 images into 1000+ that are all being restored for a book.

 

Heres a thread of mine less old:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001qZe

[mark_crame1]

Umm, it was the follow up to that thread actually:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001z3V

 

Most of the images done so far are uploaded to this website :

 

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/609photos

 

But the gallery pages are down right now as they are being ammended (slight technical hitch, first website, and a few problems which a friend is helping me with!) The only images online right now are in the reunion gallery - but they are only a year old. Normal service should be resumed by tomorrow!

 

Mark.

[m0002a]

Kodak Tech Pan was originally called High Contrast Copy Film (I still have some negs with the old name on it). It was designed for copying line drawings or printed material, and not continuous tone images. As most people know, some photographers have used it as traditional film with special development techniques, but when doing copy work, you want to err on the side of slightly lower contrast in the copy negative, which can then easily be restored to the desired contrast in the reproduction.

 

When Ansel Adams was preparing photographs for his books, he made special prints with slightly lower contrast than his normal prints, which showed up as normal contrast when reproduced in the printing process.

[derry_bryson]

I would say TechPan in Technidol (recommended developer) is anything but contrasty, a bit flat for me usually. It is somewhat expensive, however, and TMAX 100 may do well enough. Pan F+ is pretty fine grained as well.

[dk_thompson]

Robert, I do alot of copywork in my job, and aside from the now-discontinued Kodak Pro Copy (best copy film ever made, sheets only), TMX 100 or Delta 100 would be my choice for 35mm. I have used Tech Pan in both rolls and 4x5 sheets in the past, but honestly from my experience TMX100 is about the best now. I shoot over a thousand sheets of 4x5 film yearly on just copywork, and for this I use two films mainly--Ilford Ortho Plus Copyfilm, and TMX 100--since you want 35mm, I'd go with either TMX or Delta 100...

 

TP has amazing fine grain, and an extended red sensitivity which is a plus when doing copywork, especially using filters to remove stains. But it's finicky to process...TMX handles filters really well and responds great to minor changes in development time which is a plus for adjusting contrast on your copynegs....the best book there is on copywork is put out by Kodak. It's called "Copying and Duplicating in B&W and Color", they have another one called "Conservation of Photography" that covers more about copying old photos. Hope this helps.

[dk_thompson]

One other thing...you do generally want to go over a tad...but it all depends on the contrast of the original...you may find that you need to either cut contrast or boost it---no different than shooting a scene outdoors. Pro Copy was a unique film in that you could control the highlight contrast of the original through both exposure and development. You didn't get the compression of the highlights that you get with a normal film. Most of the best films ever made for copywork have been in 4x5 sheets or larger....If you use panchromatic films and the originals are stained or have faded badly...you can use wratten filters like a 25 red or 47B blue to remove stains or blemishes, or to bring out details in faded out tones. I do this all the time with TMX and it responds nicely to a 47B which will be your best friend if you do alot of copywork and don't shoot 4x5--if you did, then Ortho Plus would be my next choice...

 

btw, don't overlook your setup--it's best to have matte black everywhere practically--the copyboard, walls & ceiling behind the copystand. Keep the flare low--no light hitting the lens etc, and this includes coming back up from the baseboard. Flare will destroy the copyneg, lower your contrast even more, and wash out tones. Get your lights as even as possible & camera well aligned--if you can, try to use a macro lens designed for copywork...I use a Micro-Nikkor 55mm and 105mm Micro Nikkor for 35mm. But I shoot 99.9% of the stuff on 4x5.... If your setup is right, you can get away with basing your exposures off a gray card for 35mm...I'd probably do a normal and a plus one stop. Since I do so much work with the same setup, I often just shoot two sheets of film per photo...often two normals....if you get a well-tuned setup, the only thing that changes is that of the original print & you adjust accordingly.

 

I do shoot tons of copywork though working in a history museum, if you get stuck & have questions feel free to contact me offline.

[robert_davis2]

I think I'm going to just try with the Agfa film that's in the fridge first. If it doesn't come out right I'll have wasted a little film and chemicals but I'll have had the chance to figure out the process. I'm leaning towards Delta if the Agfa film doesn't do an okay job. I think I need to ask a new question on tripods but that can wait. The idea of a 4x5 camera sounds great but unless I build it myself it will have to wait until next year. I do have a bunch of wood sitting around so who knows-)

[chris_waller]

I use TMax 100 rated at 50 ASA and devved in Rodinal 1:50, 20 C for 7 minutes.

[kelly_flanigan1]

DK is correct! Re"I do alot of copywork in my job, and aside from the now-discontinued Kodak Pro Copy (best copy film ever made, sheets only), "<BR><BR>We used alot of the Kodak Pro Copy in the 1970's and 1980's .The film was great to use; the Kodak books cover in much detail how to expose and develop to catch all the highlights and shadows in the prints...This film was designed only to do this job; and it did it very well!

[robert_davis2]

I wanted to say thanks. I managed to take the photos a couple of weekends ago. Developed the negatives this weekend and tonight did some printing. Not bad at all. The limitation is clearly the small 35mm negative. Renting a square format camera would have made things even better but considering my jury rigged setup things came out fairly well.