Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,900   Posts: 1,584,394   Online: 681
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27
  1. #1
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16

    Looking for a good way to do internegs for postcards

    I'm sittin' here mounting, chopping and annotating my way-late run of postcards, reflecting on what took so dang long (aside from the fact that I underprinted my first run, so I had to do an additional run). One of the things is that to print the image I picked close to the way I wanted required numerous burns and dodges, which tends to get somewhat mind-numbing and inconsistent when you're trying to fill your papersafe with exposed postcards before batch processing runs.

    To avoid such lateness again, I'm want to start working on the second-next postcard exchange (June) within a week or two. If I pick an image for this next run that likewise requires numerous burns or dodges, I'd like instead to generate an internegative that incorporates all the burns and dodges I want and just contact print all my postcards.

    I've never done internegatives before, and I'm not interested at this point in digital interneg processes, so to my mind this leaves two alternatives: printing the image to my satisfaction once, copying it photographically and contact printing that neg; or enlarging the print onto film, burning and dodging that, then (I guess) contact print that (positive?) to another sheet of film and use THAT for my contact prints.

    If I do the copy stand thing of a print, I won't be able to go any larger than 4x5, shooting with my crown graphic. Also, I suspect that if I project the neg directly onto film, I could end up with a better result than photographing a print. I'm not positive about that, though. The print on a copy stand would be made using split filtration, but since film (all film?) is likely to have a way bigger dynamic range than any paper, perhaps an internegative made by projecting onto film wouldn't need what split filtration on paper provides.

    Finally, if projecting onto film and either processing it into a direct positive(negative) or doing a subsequent film-to-film contact exposure to produce the neg is the preferred route, I'd love to use something I could process with Ansco 130, so I don't have to buy Yet Another Developer.

    As an aside, I'm looking at these postcards and thinking they'd make a dandy deliverable as either product or present in the future, but to do so, I'd have to have spot on consistency from card to card, which I'm beginning to think could be done with a divided developer & use of a contact printing interneg.

    Ideas anyone?

    -KwM-

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    540
    Hi there,

    Why not a contrast mask positive sandwich. What format neg?

    Just a thought

  3. #3
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by phfitz
    Hi there,

    Why not a contrast mask positive sandwich. What format neg?

    Just a thought
    Most negs I have are 35mm. I'm still trying to nail down a problem with one or both of my grafmatics that's keeping me from really digging in and generating more 4x5s.

    Care to outline what a contrast mask positive sandwich is? If there's a previous thread, just let me know and I'll search later and post a pointer to this thread.

    -KwM-

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    hi there -

    how about take one of your just made post cards, and make a contact print with IT onto another piece of photo paper. you can get the paper wet to make a good contact emulsion to emulsion ..
    you will now have a "negative print" find out your exposure ( might be the same as it was to get the negative ) and have fun making postives.

    i've done this method when i was given a print and other people wanted copies of it, and i didn't have a negative, the person who made the actual print gave me her blessing to make copies since she was a few states away and i didn't really have any other options ( didn't want to make a copy negative).

    --- paper negative/ internegatives work well

    good luck

    -john

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    540
    Hi,

    A 'contrast mask positive' is a contact print of the original neg. developed very lightly, 30sec., 1 min., 2 min. depending on how much masking you need. It's usually used with Cibachrome printing but works well with any printing.

    Any B&W film can be used and any shutter you can fit to your enlarger. Light meter a gray card and bracket both exposure and developement. Larger formats are easier to do, for 35mm I use a Weiss 'Super Duper' rack, it peg-registers the socket holes making it easy to register the film. Then just print the 'sandwhich' like a regular neg.

    Back to back will make it an un-sharp mask which is easier to use. Emulsion to back will also work for printing. Emulsion to emulsion works to make positive slides but it's a bear for printing.

    Hope it's a help.

  6. #6
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by phfitz
    Hi,

    A 'contrast mask positive' is a contact print of the original neg. developed very lightly, 30sec., 1 min., 2 min. depending on how much masking you need. It's usually used with Cibachrome printing but works well with any printing.

    Any B&W film can be used and any shutter you can fit to your enlarger. Light meter a gray card and bracket both exposure and developement. Larger formats are easier to do, for 35mm I use a Weiss 'Super Duper' rack, it peg-registers the socket holes making it easy to register the film. Then just print the 'sandwhich' like a regular neg.

    Back to back will make it an un-sharp mask which is easier to use. Emulsion to back will also work for printing. Emulsion to emulsion works to make positive slides but it's a bear for printing.

    Hope it's a help.
    I'm thinking a contrast mask positive is something that has a given effect uniformly througout the image, rather than being an expressive process I can add or subtract in various spots. Also, I'm looking to do this on the cheap, investing at the most in one or two kinds of sheet film, so getting a shutter in my enlarger and a pin registration setup, while each being things that might be useful in the long future, shoot this out of my ballpark for now.

    WRT the idea of making an expressive reversed print and contact-printing it (wet contact-printing?) onto the paper used for the final postcards, I'd been under the impression that paper-to-paper contact prints aren't likely to give as good results as a film interneg. Am I mistaken?

    -KwM-

  7. #7
    Robert Brummitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,043
    Images
    78
    I've done internegs commercially for over 25 years. I still not sure what you're wanting to do. You have to balance the shadows and highlights with the neg film. So, You still have to dodge and burn when printing.
    If you want to skip this then do a copy neg. That's what Eugene Smith did. At lease thats what my instructors have told me. Like you he hated darkroom work.
    Anyways, he would make a master print and photograhed it. I'm sure that he made sure that the copy neg contained all the information he needed. So you too will have to do some home work to produce the results you desire.
    You'll need to find a film that very flat and controllable.
    Kodak made a film that I used but now that film maybe long pass. Ektapan Film 4162. It was a pan film that I used HC 110 for many uses. Copy, I-neg, contrast negs, and regular processing.
    If you want to contact print then look for a 8x10.
    "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit"
    Aristotle

  8. #8
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert8x10
    I've done internegs commercially for over 25 years. I still not sure what you're wanting to do.

    I want to take the results of a single expressive enlargement with various dodges and burns and put it on something with which I can do a straight contact print.

    If, for instance, the way to do what I want is to project my neg onto a very slow film, burn and dodge as necessary, then process it and use a resulting negative for contact prints, I obviously won't have to burn and dodge for every single print -- just in the production of the internegative.
    You have to balance the shadows and highlights with the neg film. So, You still have to dodge and burn when printing.

    Yes, but if I'm using an interneg that's been exposed like paper under an enlarger and dodged and burned, I presumably won't have to dodge and burn for every contact print made from that interneg. Doing straight enlargements for every single postcard, regardless of how much care I take, will result in subtle differences between cards if I have numerous burns and dodges on each card.
    If you want to skip this then do a copy neg. That's what Eugene Smith did. At lease thats what my instructors have told me. Like you he hated darkroom work.

    Actually, I didn't mean to give the impression I hate darkroom work. I find it one of the most pleasurable things in life. If photography is my religion, then I'm not sure which is more the church: shooting or working in the darkroom, especially printing. If I didn't love working in the darkroom, I'd just plant myself in front of Photoshop and be done with it.
    Anyways, he would make a master print and photograhed it. I'm sure that he made sure that the copy neg contained all the information he needed. So you too will have to do some home work to produce the results you desire.

    I totally agree that research is called for, the first step of which is to sound out APUG for their own personal best practices.
    You'll need to find a film that very flat and controllable.
    Kodak made a film that I used but now that film maybe long pass. Ektapan Film 4162. It was a pan film that I used HC 110 for many uses. Copy, I-neg, contrast negs, and regular processing. If you want to contact print then look for a 8x10.

    8x10 postcards -- now THERE'S an idea.

  9. #9
    Canuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Great White North
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    201
    I may get hate mail for this () but what about making digital negs for contact printing?

  10. #10
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Canuck
    I may get hate mail for this ()

    Not from me... (:
    Also -- there's plenty of folks here who've rolled the hybrid analog/digital processes into their workflow. There's actually a topic here for such discussions. Unless you've requested otherwise, though, it's exempt from new post notification.
    but what about making digital negs for contact printing?

    For me, there's a couple of reasons. First, I find the experience of darkroom work MUCH more pleasurable than sitting at a computer [this from someone with 15+ years in IT, yet.] The most I want to do on a computer right now WRT photography is commune with other photogs on APUG & the like. Does that qualify as metaphotography? The second reason is that I get a sense that Mark Nelson's Precision Digital Negative system might be the best method around right now for doing DCNs. The fact that he's patented the process and charges various licensing fees has me in a permanent state of worry that anyone doing any kind of digital contact negs is a potential legal target or at the very least could be tied up in court for years trying to prove that either their license fees are up to date or documenting the way their own DCNs were produced is completely pure of influence from or exposure to the Precision Digital Negative process. Carried to a hopefully rediculous extreme, if commercially-produced film goes away one day in the far future, I can see the Mark's patents resulting in a compulsory tax on all images that cross the digital/analog divide.

    Anyway.. I've obviously got a bug in my bu.. uh... bonnet WRT the concept of this kind of patent. It's got me paranoid enough to avoid any kind of DCN process, even if I was inclined to get out of the darkroom and in front of Photoshop long enough to do it.

    I've been meaning for a few months to try and engage Mark into a discussion of these issues on APUG, but haven't gotten around to it yet, and I'm not really intending to sidetrack what I hope will be an otherwise productive thread with this rant -- but I had to stick a blurb in here to qualify my paranoia about doing any DCNs.

    -KwM-

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin