|
|
|
-
Internegatives on Kodak 100T film
Could this film work well for internegatives? I have a few rolls expired in 2003 and a frame of E6 Super8 film that needs to be printed to regular Crystal Archive. What could be the starting filtration and exposure for a 6x4cm enlargement of a Super8 frame? Does it help if a lens with lower contrast (Hoya 40/3.5) is used?
-
PE recommends 160VC with lots of C and M filtration and pull process. But what about tungsten film such as this?
-
You still have to color balance your exposure or the negative will not have matched curves. You will end up with severe crossover.
There is a device that fits on the front of a 35 mm camera called a reverser. You put negative film in the camera and the slides go in the slide holder in the front. Then you point the device at a white card outdoors and shoot off some frames with different shutter speeds (no f stop on the reverser, it is set by the mfgr at about f22). Develop the negatives and select the best exposure, set the camera for that shutter speed and shoot away. Your slides will be copied pretty well.
I used to use that method as a close approximation of the duping process.
PE
-
PE,
That sounds like a neat solution, but I don't have that particular device. So it's back to the darkroom. I seem to remember you mentioned some 100 C and 80 M or vice versa as filtration that worked for you with 160VC. What might be the good starting filtration for 100T? Does expiration add to the decrease in contrast, in addition to pulling it in development?
D_r
-
I've gotten reasonably good results with 160VC sheet film after the original chrome has been silver masked for curve response. The newer Portra 400 looks like it might be better. Outdated films seem to
exaggerate any crossover problems or just result in blah muddiness. Just depends. It takes some testing
for sure.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
Drew,
As the original is a tiny Super8 frame, I guess masking would be a nightmare - especially since I haven't tried it yet. What I do know is that it was shot with daylight Kodak E6 cine film under mixed lighting and hand-developed for higher contrast. Could you please elaborate a bit on the crossover issue? Are there any examples you can point me to? Thanks.
D_r
-
The devices may be found for sale if you do a search. I found one of mine being sold on a "junk" table at a photo dealer.
The filtration depends on the enlarger. You have to get a neutral scale that is balanced. On mine, I exposed a step tablet and some slides with Machbeth Color Checkers in the frame. I varied filtration until the step tablet and neutral scale were neutral. That was at 100C and 30M on my enlarger. So, I cannot say for yours. The same is true for ALL color reproduction. Each light source is different.
PE
-
Unfortunately, the way I'd personally do it requires a bit of specialized gear. I'd project the cine film in an colorhead enlarger using an approriate process lens onto a pin registered vac filmholder for sheet film.
Gets a bit involved after that. Masking is a complex skill set in its own right, and is damn hell to do unless you are using dimensionally stable sheet film, but is the only non-digital or non-scanning method
of making serious gradient and highlight corrections.
-
I have all of that and know how to use it. I still do not use masks.
I used to use Kodak Internegative film until they quit making it. I just put that film into a holder and projected the slide onto it. I made a 2x3 negative on a 4x5 sheet. This film was tungsten balanced so it took a filter pack more like Supra paper.
PE
-
I got better results with Porta VC and masking than was typical of ITN (which went extinct anyway).
Having a little more inherent saturation and contrast in the interneg was helpful if you can pull it back
selectively. But it's a bit risky if you start out with a very contrasty punchy film like Velvia. I don't know
the status of Fuji's interneg film; but if any of it is left around, it's probably gone bad by now too. The
curves for the new Portra 400 look very promising, but again, would probably require a bit of supplementary masking for ideal results. I doubt I'll be the one to find out, however. Way down on the
list of things to do.
|
|
Adv Reply
