Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Alternative Process Negatives. |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Alternative Process Negatives.
This suggestion of making negatives for alternative processes in the link below, opens up opportunities even for 35mm film users.
For example, make an enlargement onto 8"x 10" glossy resin-coated papers such as Ilford Multigrade IV and then make a contact onto 8"x 10" orthochromatic film-sheets such as Ilford Ortho-Plus. This article might help photographers who want to try such processes, but only have 35mm cameras. I hope I am being helpful by including this link and apologies if someone else may have already done so else where. http://www.thewebdarkroom.com/?p=675 Andrew Sanderson is certainly a clever fellow. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the link, Keith. I suppose that on the first ever occasion of doing this, you might have to sacrifice the 8x10 ortho neg to get the exposure right by using various exposure steps but thereafter any alterations to each neg from each print would be small and guessable?
Initially would it be possible to get close to the right exposure by simply treating the neg as the reverse of the 35mm contact sheet process on Ilford MG paper. So if for instance my 35mm contact sheet time was say 8 secs at f8 then the ortho neg exposure would be the same? Or is this too simplistic? If so, any tips on how to get the right exposure other than trial and error and sacrificing a 8x10 ortho neg? Thanks Mike |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Alt process negatives.
Dear Mike, your exposure would be the same if you were printing a contact from the Ortho neg onto the same paper (well roughly anyway, as most 35mm films have a base fog which is absent in ortho sheet film).If you mean your exposure through the paper onto Ortho being the same as the exposure from negative onto paper, then no, it could not be the same, as your first is from a film negative and your second is through paper.
Is that any clearer? or have I made it more confusing? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Andrew fir taking the time to try and help. My understanding of what you have said is as follows:
If I contact print say a 36 frame sheet of negs onto Ilford MG using the light from the enlarger through an empty neg carrier which I do, then the exposure that gets me good contacts of the 36 negs will be about the same or maybe slightly less as will be the case when I contact print the 8x10 ortho neg from a 8x10 Ilford print again via the enlarger light through an empty neg carrier. So I can use my current " 35mm negs to Ilford MG sheet" exposure as a good starting point for the time needed to contact print the ortho neg from the positive paper sheet. Have I got this correct? Thanks Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
From what I've read Mike, I think you have got a little confused...
If you basically think of BOTH the paper and the film as having ISO's they would be TOTALLY different, so the exposures would be too! Say the paper for the sake of arguing has and ISO of 1 (ONE) the film would more than likely be a lot faster. Not knowing what the ISO of the FILM is, but let's say it's 10 (TEN), the exposure would be totally different. A bit like the difference between FP4 and HP5, but in this case we DON'T know the ISO's. So really, when you put the PAPER print onto the FILM to make a LF neg, you would have to do a TEST STRIP, as you would when making a print, otherwise you could end up wasting a lot of the film by PRESUMING an exposure. I hope this makes more sense now to you? PS Just looking at ONE site, it seems that the FILM at 10 x 8" is RATHER expensive = about £5.25 a sheet!!! So, guessing the exposure would DEFINITELY be an expensive business and a good old fashioned test strip or two would definitely be in order I thinks!!! http://www.silverprint.co.uk/Product....asp?PrGrp=243 Terry S Last edited by Terry S; 23rd March 2013 at 09:40 AM. Reason: Updated with a web link. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks Terry. Being a Scotsman I was hoping forlornly that there was a quick and easy way to translate the contact sheet exposure time to an ortho neg but as you and others have said there isn't, so it means the sacrifice of at least one sheet of 10x8 orthofilm as a test strip.
However is the good news that once done and the right exposure arrived at then this becomes a standard for other prints or in fact is it the case that on each different print from which an ortho neg is needed another ortho sheet has to be sacrificed to get the right exposure right? If an ortho sheet is needed for a test strip each time a different print is used then there might be an argument for using 4x5 sheets as test strips to establish correct exposure in the same way that using the Paterson test printer with a 4x5 paper sheets gets you the correct time even if the print you have in mind is a 10x8, provided of course that the test strip is set up as if it were part of a 10x8 in terms of enlarger height Does this sound right? Thanks Mike |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
You've got it spot on with the second part, in that yes, it is ideal to do new tests for each print / neg, as the tones and contrast will vary, although probably not a lot in most cases.
But using 5 x 4" bit of film rather than a full 10 x 8" sheet, is perfectly fine. Just try to use it on an area that has a good range of tones rather than just a large area of the same tone, like the sky. Getting lots of variety of tones in the test should give you a good average. Also, with practice, you may well be able to do without the test strip films, especially if they do all have the same type of density but again that will depend upon a lot of factors. Good luck on your endeavour. Terry S |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Has anyone tried a paper negative instead? I have not tried myself, however have read articles where the paper negative is soaked in hot wax to make in transparent. Even seen olive oil used. It maybe worth exploring.
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As a student I made paper negs from single weight FB which was common then. Best would have been the old "airmail" paper which was thinnest. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Since my last post I recently picked up very cheaply a pack of transparent leaves for inkjet printers which I'm considering using to make 10x8 negatives from either scanned and inverted prints or scanned negatives.
These are branded IBM and have no white backing paper. The stationery brand Conqueror do (or did) them with a backing sheet. I've used those in Xerox copiers in the past. |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alternative photographic processes | les dix | Books | 7 | 12th June 2012 05:44 PM |
Alternative Photography | Neil Smith | Alternate printing processes | 0 | 12th October 2011 10:07 AM |
An alternative way of thinking about exposure | NStepien | Photography in general | 15 | 12th January 2011 08:29 AM |