copying slides to B/W film
I have a large collection of Kodachrome slides that I'd like to convert to B/W.
I thought about buying one of the old fashion slide attachments to use on my 35mm film camera but just wondering with the new technology if there might be a better way. I'm setting up a darkroom and would like to be able to print from B/W negatives.
I've reshot slides projected with a slide projector -- that works well too. I've also just used my enlarger and made 4x5 and 8x10 negatives for contact printing. Both those methods have an advantage over the slide attachment thingy you mentioned -- you can crop to your liking.
Do a bit of reading on copying. Find a book on the subject. My favourite is called 'copying and duplicating', published by Kodak.
It is not quite as straight forward as it sounds to get really good results. OK results are quite attainable.
The trick to really good is to find a film that gives an upswept H-D curve under a development regime to allow you to get a closer resemblance to reality in the dupe negative. The highlights in most slide films are compressed, and when you dupe using a normal pictorial film, the highlights block up even more by being yet again compresed.
Tech pan was the recommended film. It is out of production and what remains is quite pricey. I have heard that TMax100 developerd in HC-110A might be a good swap for the ability of tech pan, but I have not found the time to test it. Plus X Pan was the next one kodak recommended in thier book. The copy I have pre-dates any of the t-max films.
To suppress the contrast range that slides can present, there is alo a technique called flashing, where by the film is double exposed to a dim white light before or after the main exposure.
Copying/Duping is an interesting side line, but be prepared for challenges before the reuslts are really good.
my real name, imagine that.
I dont know much about B&W duplication, but I do know there were some B&W films labeled as "duplicating" film..
Also, there are some reversal processes for B&W film.. namely DR5.. check out http://www.dr5.com/ ..I think the owner is a regular contributor here on APUG and they seem helpful.
Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.
Go for 5x4 internegs made with an enlarger. When they were available as sheet films, both Ilford XP2 and Kodak T400CN made great black & white interneg films. Ilford Delta100 would be my choice now but you'll need to experiment with development regime to get smooth highlight rendition. Any 35mm s/s interneg was always a compromise in terms of quality, so the duping attachments are of limited value.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Once you have your 4x5 interneg, how do you get it back to a 35mm?
Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.
If you prefer to print B&W from a larger negative than 35mm then do a 4x5 interneg is cool.
If you prefer to have a 35mm B&W negative then I would turn a dichroic head upside down. Put the slide in the carrier and put on top of the lighted area. Use a 35mm SLR with bellow and an enlarging lens and do the copy.
Mike Wilde's comments are pretty much my sentiments.
Originally Posted by Mike Wilde
In The Good Old Days, before digital took over the market, I made thousands of internegatives, and by thousands I mean that literally. Most of those were colour, but many were B&W. Most of those were made on the late lamented Super-XX Pan Film, and when that was gone, we switched to T-Max 100. But I have made inegs in the past on Ektapan (also gone) as well as on Plus-X, both the 4x5 pro version as well as the 35mm version. I have a PXP ineg from a very contrasty Kodachrome slide of my parents, made about 1974, and there is excellent shadow and highlight detail. The key is in giving the correct exposure, as well as the correct development for the type of original AND the subject.
The two films which I found gave the best results were Vericolor Internegative Film for colour originals, and Professional Copy Film for B&W originals, although it could be used carefully with colour originals under certain circumstances, as it had only orthochromatic senstivity. Yes, we did get B&W positives from time to time, plus colour transparancies for which large volumes of B&W prints were required, which meant an ineg for a large print run. Both of these materials were similar in that the exposure partially determined the contrast of the image.
Both films had (and this is a bit over-simpliflied) a compound curve, with the top part upswept. This was to provide proper separation in the highlights, which in any positive original, be it B&W or colour, have not only less density, but also less contrast. Overexposure of these films led to excessive contrast, and in the case of Pro Copy, it could not be properly adjusted by reducing development time. The key with both of these films was to have absolutely the correct exposure, and for Pro Copy, the correct development time. For Vericolor Internegatives, you had to have an absolutely mega-in control C-41 process. Errors introduced in the exposure and/or development stages could lead to the technician (me!) leaving the manager's office "chastised." Tests were always the order of the day. Our "standard" development times for our B&W films were a starting point, as development was altered to suit the subject matter AND the material onto which it was to be printed.
It was sometimes necessary to use colour filters to alter the tonal balance in the final B&W print. I remember one job, in which the original was an 8x10 colour transparancy of an aircraft in flight. I made an 8x10 ineg on Super-XX, exposed through, AFAIR, a Wratten 29 filter. The clouds in the final prints "popped out" of the sky, and a logo on the tail of the aircraft, which was red-on-white, stood out in all of its corporate glory!
I tended to avoid thin-emulsion films, such as Panatomic-X, when it was still available, as I found that Plus-X did an excellent job, when a 35mm negative was required. I found the best use for Tech Pan was when an original was so badly faded as to be almost invisible. I copied a 100-year old print on Tech Pan, so badly faded that there was almost nothing there, and developed it for maximum contrast in Dektol, AFAIR. I was amazed at just how much detail was still there, and the customer just loved it!
Get a copy of the Kodak book, if it is still available. It is full of excellent information, and should provide you with a point of departure, even if many of the materials specified (in the 1986 edition I have, at any rate) are no longer available.
I recently did some copying of Kodachromes onto FP4. I used a Nikon Micro 55mm and PK-13 tube. I used the Nikon ES-10 slide duplicater thingy. After some experimentation I got very good negs with pretty much the whole tonal range of the slide. Technical bits. FP4 rated at 4 (yes that's FOUR) asa. D76 at 1:3 for 10mins @20c. I used a tungsten household spot to illuminate the slide. Metering was not an exact art and centre weighted gave the best results (my camera wouldn't allow for anything else!). Bracket your exposures and use the above times etc as a guide.
Norman is an island.Time and tide wait for Norman.