Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,634   Online: 767
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25
  1. #11
    dr5chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    439
    Images
    12
    The last 2 posts here [before mine] are close so use those suggestions. Basically you'll need to 'print' the neg onto film. You'll just have to find the right developer - film to achieve the right tonal range.

    The absolute best way to do it is to scan the images then output them via a film recorder.

    regards

    dw

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    789
    There is a bit of vague-ness about how to make the print on the 35mm print-film. Some time ago, I tried contact-printing in a jig made of some plywood offcuts which worked, sort of. The problem was that there was enough variation over each strip of six negs that the print-time for every one had to be adjusted individually for the best result. Developer was paper-developer (can't remember what exactly) at twice normal strength. (Edit: I forgot to point out the obvious, contact printing needs to be emulsion to emulsion).

    For a different purpose, I have also projection printed 35mm and 120 colour-transparencies on to Plus-X 5x4 film, in DDS holders, in order to make a black-and-white interneg - this worked fine. The same procedure was used with a kodak dupe film for colour internegs. These last two procedures were already standardised in terms of exposure when I started working at that place, so I had no need to figure out things for myself, luckily.

  3. #13
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,949
    Images
    148
    Kodak used to make a film that was ideal, orthochromatic and very easy to use under safe-light conditions. If you can find an orthochroatic micro-film this will allow you to develop by inspection, however as david Woods says you'll have to see what developer works best. Generally the films are so fine grained the choice of developer makes little difference to the grain size in the copy.

    Ideally a professional slide copier would give you the best results, the one I've used in the past was a Bowens Illumatron, this allowed some degree of contrast control at the copying stage.

    Ian

  4. #14
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,945
    Quote Originally Posted by dr5chrome View Post
    The absolute best way to do it is to scan the images then output them via a film recorder.

    regards

    dw
    I don't know how that would help because you still have to figure out which film are you going to put in the film recorder which is right back to where we started.

    I would just try it with any B&W film you have. To find tune things you need to find a film and developer combo that will yield a good d-max but that won't wind up being too contrasty.

    Realize that your negatives will probably have less contrast than the original scene (Gamma probably around 0.65 if they were processed with the original intention of projection printing). So if you photographed them with the same film again (with Gamma 0.65 again) your result will be around 0.42 and they will look 'flat.'

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    90
    In museum we used to contact copy black and white negatives to Agfa's Ortho. Turned out pretty good. Was speedy too.

  6. #16
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    930
    Yep 5302/2302 is the way to go, if you can find some friends to split a roll with you, or can find a movie lab willing to sell you a bit of it. Otherwise you have to buy a big roll. The film is blue sensitive so it is easy to handle. It can be developed in normal print developers and has a clear base unlike the other suggestions which have grey dye in the base for antihalation.

    You may find the 2302 easier to find as motion picture release prints almost have to be on ESTAR base to stand up to the abuse they get in theatres.

    The catalogue shows it as although The price may have changed

    KODAK Black-and-White Print Film 2302 / ESTAR Base / SP718 / 35 mm x 1000 ft roll / On Core / BH-1870 CATALOGUE 1279470 $US126.11

    EASTMAN Fine Grain Release Positive Film 5302 / FRP666 / 35 mm x 1000 ft roll / On Core / KS-1870 CAT 1928795 $US138.72
    the 5302 is also made in 65mm but you have to order 18 1000 ft rolls.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    587
    As cmacd123 says, the standard recommendation for what the OP is trying to do is to re-photograph the negs onto Kodak 5302 (Fine-Grain Release Positive) and develop in paper developer at working strength for 3-5 mins. The film behaves as if it has an ISO of 3-6. You have to bracket, of course... I've used this technique and it works surprisingly well.

    I bought a 100-foot roll of 5302 from an electron-microscopy supply company around 2001 or so. It cost $17 at the time. It goes a long way (I still have at least 30 feet of mine!) I'm sure this film is still available somewhere.
    Last edited by Jordan; 05-17-2009 at 09:38 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18
    dr5chrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    439
    Images
    12
    ..using a film recorder would involve processing the film as a positive.
    you have B&W slide output or E6 output. Either way the result is superior.
    I do it here at the lab every day. www.filmrecording.net


    dw



    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    I don't know how that would help because you still have to figure out which film are you going to put in the film recorder which is right back to where we started.

    I would just try it with any B&W film you have. To find tune things you need to find a film and developer combo that will yield a good d-max but that won't wind up being too contrasty.

    Realize that your negatives will probably have less contrast than the original scene (Gamma probably around 0.65 if they were processed with the original intention of projection printing). So if you photographed them with the same film again (with Gamma 0.65 again) your result will be around 0.42 and they will look 'flat.'

  9. #19
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Jordan View Post
    As cmacd123 says, the standard recommendation for what the OP is trying to do is to re-photograph the negs onto Kodak 5302 (Fine-Grain Release Positive) and develop in paper developer at working strength for 3-5 mins. I'm sure this film is still available somewhere.
    I guess I was not clear, the film is listed as being available in 1000 ft 35mm rolls from Kodak. They most likely will have the ESTAR base in stock (2302) In north america you would call them at 1-800- 621 -FILM to order.

    The data sheets are on the Kodak site, the 5302 family is designed to have the right gamma to make a good print from a normal B&W negative.
    http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion...Films/5302.htm
    or
    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...lab_h15302.pdf

    If anyone does order some I would not mind getting 100ft of their roll.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by dr5chrome View Post
    ..using a film recorder would involve processing the film as a positive.
    you have B&W slide output or E6 output. Either way the result is superior.
    I do it here at the lab every day. www.filmrecording.net


    dw
    With all due respect, I can't see how taking the negative image through a digital phase will result in a "superior" image; maybe a more convinient process for the lab, but superior? I doubt it.

    Most people have trouble printing good b&w transparencies from still negative images because they are used to the inherent contrast that results from projection printing and the lousy tonal scale of most papers compared to a good film positive.

    As long as the film is in good register, emulsion to emulsion and without slippage during the exposure, you should have fine results. I would suggest a diffuse light source and a thin cover class that is meticulously clean; and I DO MEAN CLEAN.

    Yes, it takes a lot to dial in a system of exposure, but if you are committed and want to do this on a regular basis, you can call the exposure by eye within a 1/2 stop very easily just by looking at the neg (with experience).

    I used to time b&w motion picture film this way; a light table, a pad of paper and a film sync. First answer print was always timed by eye and, more often than not, it was good enough to project and fine tune from the first print.

    No great shakes here, no magic, just lots of experience and lots of printing.

    So, if you don't want to put in the time and effort, and just want a few b&w slides, then maybe the aforementioned method would make more economical sense, but I can tell you with complete confidence, you can make astoundingly beautiful images with a couple of finish nails to register the film, a thin cover glass, a locked down enlarger, time, determination and good note taking.

    Don't be afraid to crank the exposure to the 5302; real timers aren't afraid of the dark...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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