looking for upswept curve film/developer combo

[michael_mutmansky1]

Greetings group,

 

I have made great strides on my tests for making enlarged negatives,

and I finally have a combination of films and developers that are

working to my satisfaction.

 

These are enlarged neagtives (mostly from 8x10 originals) for use

for pt/pd printing. Due to the inherent nature of pt/pd, I need a

high contrast internegative, and APHS litho film fits the bill.

With a bit of work, it can be made to have a very good, repeatible

response curve with no graining.

 

I have been using Ilford Ortho for the interpositive, and that is

working fine, but I now want to explore ways to modify the response

curve in the interpositive to improve shadow seperation in the final

print.

 

This brings me to the desire for an UPSWEPT response curve. Yes, I

mean UPSWEPT, because the interpositive has the densities reversed,

so the highlights will be low in density, and the shadows wil be

high in density. With an upswept response, I'll get more contrast

in the shadows when the final internegative is made.

 

Looking through the archives, I have seen a comment regarding HC-

110, so I'll try that a bit, but I want to see what other developers

should try. I'd like to keep using the Ilford Ortho (very similar

to FP-4) due to the obvious ease of use it affords.

 

Any suggestions on developers to try? I recall reading about

infectious hydroquinone development in some developers, but I don't

know whether that would come in handy here, or what developers this

occurs in (other than lith developers)...

 

Thanks,

 

---Michael

[mike_scarpitti]

You seem to be doing it the hard way 'round. Kodak make films for duplicating negatives.<p>

 

<a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/business/docimaging/globalPages/tabbedContent.jhtml?id=3100020&show=3100131>Kodak link 1</a><p>

 

<a href=http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=Store&cc=US&lc=en&product=Diazo+Duplicating+Films&bu=1>Kodak link 2</a><p>

 

<a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/health/productsByType/medFilmSys/film/dup/raDup.jhtml>Kodak link 3</a><p>

[dk_thompson]

There was a copy film made that would do just that--Kodak Pro Copy. Unfortunately this was discontinued about 2 years ago. It had an upswept curve on the shoulder, and would let you control the contrast of the highlights by exposure. This in turn, was great for copying b&w originals--and good for volume work too, because you could set aside different types of images by contrast ranges and then use one main batch run to process them....some folks used it for making interpositive and dupe negs as well in 2 stage duping of glass plates and older negatives--and they could control the curve pretty much as you describe...

 

these other films listed above are mostly for microfilm reformatting--you may be able to find an ortho dupe film in sheets or wide-rolls if you look at aerial supplies...but I don't believe there's a substitute available for Pro Copy--short of selenium toning the interpositive, or doing it selectively. You could always try using paper developers like dektol, or going with a developer like D19, D11 etc. I dunno--good luck all the same.

[lex_jenkins]

You might possibly find something in the archives of the Large Format forum. I seem to recall a similar issue coming up there during the past year. Good luck.

[ole_tjugen]

So you basically want a film/developer combination that is "all toe"?

 

I've seen something like that, using monobath processing with FP4+. But this is very close to "lith developing", with highlight density building rapidly and uncontrollably! I believe one reason for the dense highlights in this kind of processing is that the fixer activates the silver halide through dissolving it, unlike "ordinary" solvent developers which dissolve the silver.

 

I decided (after one try) that monobath processing should only be used if you need weak shadows and bulletproof highlights - which seems to fit your requirements quite well.

 

Oh by the way - monobath also increases grain size. Drastically!

[pascal_miele]

Michael the good film for this work is (was) the Kodak copy 4125, but it's too late. this is a discontinued film.

 

It was the ONLY film on the market with hight contrast shadows.

[michael_mutmansky1]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I'll do a little looking on the mentioned products.

 

I did an initial test of HC-110 last night and it refinately has an upswept curve to it, but I don't think it has enough to make a real difference. I need to get some TMAX RS developer, and try that, and then mix up a few others from scratch and see what I can come up with.

 

---Michael

[mike_scarpitti]

Pascale: he wants to make duplicate enlarged negatives. Pro Copy was not for that.

[pascal_miele]

Michael says

"I now want to explore ways to modify the response curve in the interpositive to improve shadow seperation in the final print."<p>

 

Mike: the copy 4125 was the perfect film for this use.<p>

 

A copy film is an "inter-negative" between two paper positive, you need a highter contrart for the shadows (of the original) you need also hight contrast for HL but it's not possible with a classical system (need a HL mask).<p>

 

The copy film as interpositive is a good way to improve shadows in the 2nd negative<p>

 

<a href=http://wwwfr.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/catalog/kodakProfessionalCopyFilm4125.jhtml?id=0.2.10.22.28.26&lc=en>4125 data</a>

[dk_thompson]

Pro Copy *was* used for making duplicate negs. It was probably more widely used than SO-132 because of the amount of control it would allow. The preferred method is a 2 step duplication--with either a contact or enlarged interpositive and a contact duplicate neg. Just as Pro Copy would give you control over the highlight contrast in copywork, it could do just the same with dupe negs. SO-132, 336 etc--all had problems with contrast control, and the curve was a bad match for alot of films. Older versions of the film (336 etc.) had problems with long-term storage as well.

 

2 step dupes give you control over the interpos as if it were a print almost--dodge, burn etc. You can use pan films and filter out stains. The IP becomes the master--for longterm storage. The dupe neg can be made on ortho films and if the contrast index of the IP is maintained uniform--then the dupe negs can be knocked out in a similar way...you can make as many as you need, and if they get messed up, the master IP is always there filed safely away. This the way it's done in alot of archives, and some of the best labs in this country that do the contract work, use 2 step dupes. One of the largest uses an Agfa film called P330p for the interpos and Ortho Plus for the negative.

 

BTW--I use alot of Ortho Plus with TMAX RS in a deeptank--and don;t expect much of a contrast boost. "normal" ranges are about 5-7 minutes at 75 deg. F with this combo. I break my runs down to 2 batches--high contrast originals (copywork)--at rated slower in speed and developed at 5 min. Normal is 6 min. Flat originals are underexposed by half stop and run for 7. Real flat & some line-art are under by one stop and developer in LPD 1:4 for 6 minutes. To get more contrast, you'll need a developer like D19. Hope this helps. p.s. I use it for dupe negs too, as well as SO-132. If you get hold of any old SO-132, you need to selenium or brown tone the film for longterm storage and don't use a hypo clearing agent with it. Again, hope this helps.

[mike_scarpitti]

DK: there is a difference between a 'copy neg' and a 'duplicate neg'. A 'copy neg' is in a sense a 'duplicate neg' since the original neg is lost or unavailable, and so a neg has to be made from an existing print. But that is not what the term 'duplicate negative' ordinarily means, nor the way that I understood the OP to be asking. He wants to make enlarged duplicate negatives to make contact prints from. In other words, he want to go negative to negative.

 

Pro Copy film was to go from an existing positive print to negative. Completely different application. Pro copy film had an unusual H&D curve to gain contrast in the highlight area, where normal films look flat when used to make copy negatives. I sold tons of Pro Copy in my day, and I had to explain how to use it to customers.

 

He wants to make 8x10 negatives from 35mm negatives to use with slow printing platinum and palladium materials. These papers are too slow to use for enlargements.

 

Am I understanding you, Michael?

[mike_scarpitti]

Michael: Please tell us in more detail exactly what your source is (print or negative) and what you're wanting to end up with. I'm not sure I understand you. You seem to say two differet things.

[michael_mutmansky1]

Sorry for the confusion everyone!

 

I am not involved with the commercial reproduction industry, so I may have used some incorrect language in my original post.

 

I have 8x10 negatives that have been developed for pt/pd printing. I want to make some larger negatives occasionally, so that I can print larger than 8x10.

 

Currently, I am using the two step process:

 

original negative-->interpositive-->internegative

 

The interpositive is a contact print of the original negative, and the internegative is enlarged from the interpositive.

 

As I've said, the process is working out well, and I do what DK indicates; I will do some dodging and burning on the interpositive to correct the image a bit. Sometimes I'll do some additional dodging and burning on the second step, because it is a larger image, and it affords a little more control over the detailed adjustments.

 

However, I want to have some options available so that I can make adjustments to the image based on my impressions of how the print should look in the end. If a print of the original negative has flat shadows and I want to bring up the contrast in that area, an upswept curve in the interpositive will do just that. If I have an image that needs a bit of highlight taming, a long toe in the interpositive will help compress the highlights a bit.

 

So, my interest right now is primarily in making response curve adjustments in the interpositive that will affect the final image in a desireable way.

 

---Michael

[dk_thompson]

Michael--we seem to be missing each other here. I AM talking about going from a negative to negative--through multiple generations--NEG>POS>NEG. First making an ENLARGED INTERPOSITIVE onto an ortho or panchromatic SHEET FILM. Then, processing this and making a CONTACTED DUPLICATE NEGATIVE. Believe me, this is the way negatives have been duplicated with PRO COPY in the past.

 

 

" He wants to make 8x10 negatives from 35mm negatives to use with slow printing platinum and palladium materials. These papers are too slow to use for enlargements."

 

Yes, this is my understanding of what he wants to do as well--only you recommend he use a duplicating film for microfiche & microfilm, so I don't see how this is of much help, really. Practically every archive in this country that does duplication of negs uses a 2 step method like I desribed above. Using sheet film, or 70mm film.

 

Over the summertime, I played around with cyanotypes and made enlarged interpositives using Ortho Plus, and Dektol as the developer. I used a densitometer to nail down my CI's and made the dupe negs on Ortho Plus by contact. cyanotypes need a higher CI than regular printing paper. With dupe negs, usually the problem is the reverse. Trying to tame the contreast of older negs and plates--trying to match them to modern printing papers, when the originals were meant to be printed on POP papers or DOP contact papers like Azo, Velox etc.

 

I don't understand your insistence that I am wrong here, when I'm only trying to help the guy, and I've worked with these materials as part of my job. TMX100 and TECH PAN might not have been "made" for duplicating negatives in your exact definiton, but these are the two products Kodak recommends using for duplicating negatives now. With the use of selenium toner for the highlight contrast. In Kodak's excellent book, "Copying and Duplicating B&W and Color" they outline a 2 step method using Super-XX and Commerical Film, both of which have been discontinued as well. Ortho Plus, is very close to Commercial Film and has replaced it for this application. Others use Agfa N330p, Plus-X and Delta 100 along with Ortho Plus.

 

FWIW--I fully understand the differences between duplicate negatives and copy negs, I shoot a couple of cases of Ortho Plus a year on copywork alone, and make dupes of nitrate film and glass plates.

 

So let's agree to disagree here with each other and try to get back to helping the original question, okay?

[dk_thompson]

Meant that for Mike, not Michael...

 

fwiw, here's a good reference for duplicating negatives:

 

 

http://www.archives.gov/preservation/archival_formats/duplication_black_and_white_negatives.html

[mike_scarpitti]

To DK:

 

1. I'm not sure why a two-step process would be inherently superior, especially since Kodak makes positive-working films precisly for direct duplicating in radiography, motion picture work, etc. My opinion is that the two-step process would probably be inferior. Perhaps a lack of awareness of these films has caused the two-step process to be used instead. Duplicating an X-ray is exactly the same sort of thing, and the need for preserving even the subtlest tones is important there too. Someone's life may depend on it!

 

2. These direct-process films could be dodged and burned too.

 

It seems to me these films should be explored first before resorting to an elaborate two-step process with its inherent tonal distortions.

[dk_thompson]

Mike--two step duplicating is the standard more or less used by archives in this country for b&w negs and plates. It's not for lack of understanding of materials or processes. There was a film made by Kodak--Professional Black and White Duplicating film--aka SO132, 336 etc. that was used for duplcating negs and plates for many years until the film began to suffer in longterm storage. It can shift in density and tone--goes to a cyan/blue color almost and darkens with age. I work in an agency that has several photo labs--encompassing records reformatting with microfilm, and technical labs doing copywork, and in-house photo services. I've worked with negs made on these duplicating films from the 50s-70s and they haven't aged well. Most archives (including this one nearby) quit using SO336, 132 etc about 20 yrs ago.

 

The bigger factor that did it in was it's incompatibility with the tonal ranges of older negatives. so the one-step films just wound up not being used for preservation work. When commercial labs went digital in the past few years--the demand ceased for SO132 and it dropped out of production.

 

Two step duplicating is not that much unlike microfilm reformatting. In a reformatting project--and every gov't has them, even down to the county level--the original is copied as a camera master on microfilm. The master is then used to make "surrogates" and is kept in secure, controlled environments--most likely a vault. Both the master and the surrogates--which are used to access the information--are brown toned (sulfide) or toned in a proprietary toner such as Silverlock. If they are processed according to ANSI/ISO standards and stored the same, they are rated at 500 yrs. This is the pretty much the standard for longterm storage. In some cases, the originals are then destroyed and the master becomes the longterm record.

 

It's not that much different for duplicating negs, although usually the originals are saved unless they are deteriorating badly. The master is stored safely away and the duplicates become the surrogates. This gives you layers of protection.

 

Here are 2 more links to insitutions & organizations that do negative duplicating on a large scale:

 

http://www.nedcc.org/welcome/phodup.htm

 

http://www.albumenworks.com/duplication.html

 

FWIW--I use SO132 on & off for duplicating nitrate roll film. It's a finicky film to use and contrast control is difficult. I'm beginning to work with some 900 glass plates that need to be duplicated down to 4x5. I have few options--mainly prints & copy negs--but I also plan on making IPs by camera and contact duping for the negs.

 

When SO132 was discontinued--I contacted both Kodak and CAW. They both replied with lengthy recommendations. Kodak's involved Tech Pan and TMX100. CAW used Agfa N330p and Ortho Plus, or Delta 100, PlusX and Ortho Plus. I wound up trying out Plus-X and Ortho Plus. In CAW's reply they told me they never could get a good match with SO132 and quit using it years ago. I spoke with another photo conservator at this time and he told me the demise of SO-132 didn't surprise him either, and that the film basically "sucked" for making duplicate negs. His favorite film was Pro Copy....

 

Of course, YMMV, as they want me to say:Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my agency. Email to me & from me will probably be monitored by third parties including law enforcement.

[mike_scarpitti]

Does this apply to the radiograph duplicating materials too?

[dk_thompson]

nope--I have no experience with radiographic duplicating films, and I can't really see an advantage to using them in this aspect.