PhilippReichmuth
Hello forum,
The other day, a friend and I were discussing how to make enlargements from existing 6x6 negatives on POP paper. Exposing the paper directly under the enlarger isn’t much fun and somewhat defeats the purpose of using POP paper. So there’s no getting around the need for internegatives.
So far, the planned workflow has looked like this:
- Contact print/enlarge the negative onto an interpositive
- Enlarge/contact print the interpositive onto an internegative, ideally onto orthochromatic halftone sheet film (ADOX Creativ, MACO Genius or similar); depending on the situation, you could also produce the interpositive directly on sheet film for the sake of more convenient tray processing.
- Contact print the internegative onto POP paper
This is somewhat cumbersome because of the interpositive. (Although one could, of course, contact print the interpositive onto document film with a transparent base and at least end up with a slide; well, still inefficient in my opinion).
To save a step, we have considered developing the interpositive directly into an internegative using a reversal process (Foma Diakit or similar), thereby saving a step and a lot of waste negatives. However, as there is no processor suitable for sheet film processing and, as yet, no sheet film spools available, we will probably have to do this in the tray.
Hence the question: is it possible to reverse-develop ADOX Creativ, MACO Genius or similar in a tray? Or is there another way to go from a negative to an internegative in a single step that we’ve simply overlooked?
Thanks –
Philipp
MirkoBoeddecker
Phillip,
We (that is, our partner company in the US) have found these sheet film developing tubes for this purpose in the States:
http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?PageAc...PROD&ProdID=222
They are now available from us too.
Alternatively: a second-hand Jobo paper drum (I don’t mind what you buy – we don’t make any money from the drums, it’s just a service ;-).
Best regards,
Mirko
PS Yes, the Foma kit fits in these drums or in the tray, but we’ve never tried it with Creativ Printfilm.
I’d be willing to cover the cost of a kit and two packs of film if you test it and, if successful, submit a written report so that others can benefit from it in the future.
PhilippReichmuth
Hi Mirko,
Yes, the Foma Kit works in these drums or in the tray, but we’ve never tried it with Creativ Printfilm.
I’d be happy to cover the cost of a kit and two packs of film if you’d test it and, if successful, submit a written report so that others can benefit from your experience in future.
We can do that, but we won’t get round to it for at least three weeks, as we’re off to the mountains first to produce negatives for the POP paper ;) I’ll be in Berlin the week after next and have sent you an order to collect anyway, so I could take the items with me then.
What colour is the base on the print film? I’m asking because it should be as transparent as possible for the POP paper, as it needs such strong contrasts.
Philipp
MirkoBoeddecker
The fabric is clear. Polyester.
PhilippReichmuth
The material is clear. Polyester.
It’s in the catalogue, after all. If you can read, you’ve got a clear advantage. ;)
Gast
Hello,
What effect is the filter supposed to have? It doesn’t affect the contrast in the slightest. If you put a neutral density filter in front of the lens, that only reduces the brightness, not the contrast.
Roland
SamuliSchielke
I’ve always naively assumed that it’s not about contrast, but about dynamic range. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, though. I’d be interested to know, simply because I’ve so far preferred Efke or Ilford for POP prints rather than Foma, which I usually use, precisely because the former have a clearer base.
Samuli
SamuliSchielke
Oops, I wrote that in a hurry. So, let me rephrase:
... precisely because the former have a clearer carrier. But if that doesn't matter, so much the better.
cfb_de
Base densities do not affect contrast. The overall contrast of the negative is completely unaffected by whether the base has a base density of logD 0.1 or logD 0.8. You simply have to increase the exposure time.
It is only if you fail to take this into account that the prints from a more dense base will turn out too light when exposed for the same amount of time. Classic underexposure, in other words.
Is this really new information?
Best regards,
Franz
PhilippReichmuth
With POP paper, you tend to check underneath every now and then anyway, so it’s not so easy to underexpose it. But with paper that’s exposed for anything from half an hour upwards, it’s certainly handy if the film has a clear backing ;)
Gast
Hi,
Leaving aside the issue of the base fog, my grey card suggests that POP needs at least 2 log D to display a full scale.
What films/developers do you use to achieve that?
It has to manage at least 2 log D above the fog anyway; 2.5 wouldn’t be bad to get a bit of brilliance in there. For most films, that’s absolutely the end of the curve.
Regards
Martin
Ole
Maco UP 100 in pyro? Or in FX-2, then bleach and redevelop in pyro…
MirkoBoeddecker
...that matches the experience we've had with ADOX100/PO100 in the US.
It works with pyro.
Mirko
Gast
And Tanol? I really didn’t want to put myself through Pyro again. And certainly not for internegatives.
Best regards
Martin
Gast
Paper developers!
Gast
P.S. Regarding Phillips’s initial question.
Printing from a positive onto RC paper has actually always worked really well. (Not Kodak, as that had logos on the back).
The only downside is that the tonal gradation suffers at every stage, so the actual advantage of POP or Kallis is lost. That’s why I now use Kodak 2144, or simply try to print directly from the negative (quote from Spence/Worobiec: ‘That’s the reason to finally buy the long-awaited 8x10’)
So, a quick question for everyone: could it be that the Classicpan 400 remains considerably thinner in the highlights than the Effke/ADOX 100?
Regards
Martin
SamuliSchielke
The only film I’ve managed to get over 2 log D with so far was an X-ray film. Lovely. Mind you, I didn’t develop it myself; it was done by the Mahmood Mosque Society in Cairo, where a friend of mine once had his brain scanned (everything was fine). We got passable but not quite good enough results with ADOX 400/Ilford HP5 during exposure at 800 ASA and during development at 1200. But as we (that is, Philipp and I) currently only have 6x6 and 6x9 formats available, it’s not just the density that’s a problem, but also the size. As we do not yet have the funds to actually buy the long-awaited 8x10, we will be testing two methods for producing internegatives at the end of August or beginning of September. In case we have overlooked anything, here is the procedure we have planned for discussion:
1. An interpositive is enlarged from a 35mm negative onto ADOX print film, then developed, stopped, fixed, rinsed and dried. Subsequently, an internegative is produced from the interpositive onto ADOX print film using the contact method and, to achieve the highest possible density and dynamic range, is developed in Moersch Tanol, stopped, fixed, rinsed and dried.
2. An enlargement is exposed onto ADOX print film from the same 35mm negative, which is then reverse-developed into an interpositive using the Foma reversal kit.
3. A print is produced on Retro POP paper from both negatives, and the results are scanned and made available online so that you can see them for yourself.
Oh, and what about paper developer? What does it do to the film?
Best regards,
Samuli
SamuliSchielke
Oh, in point two, it should of course read:
...reversed to an internegative...
cfb_de
Hello Samuli,
Regarding point 1), you should be able to expect a rock-hard negative with maximum density and almost no grey tones. If you tone down both reversal stages, you won’t achieve the maximum possible density and will end up with something closer to ‘medium grey tones’. I once did something like this with Agfa Ortho to salvage a completely washed-out 13x18 plate. Sometime back then, over 15 years ago.
Warning, unverified idea:
- POP is more UV-sensitised.
- Take a print, use a colour copier, have a “negative” made in bright yellow on film.
- Copy that onto POP. The experiment costs the “colour copy” plus the POP.
If it really works, that saves the hassle of copying onto sheet films and thus a fair bit of money and effort. I won’t be trying it out; the normal black-and-white process is enough for me. Just an idea.
Yellow is simply the complementary colour to UV radiation, and the base density of common toner pigments might be sufficient to block out enough of the visible light.
Just my two cents,
Franz
Gast
Franz,
Do you think the photocopiers are good enough quality for that?
I’m a bit doubtful, but it can’t do any harm to give it a go.
Roland
