does double negative becomes positive?

[denniskee]

Hi guys

I have tried shooting 3 rolls of HP5 last month, as we know, printing true B&W is very $$, about $1 / 4r print, so I order (correct word to use?) a contact print instead.

I feel this does not work well for me. So I thought of 2 solution :

1) scan the B&W negative, select the shots after viewing on monitor (CRT, not LCD).

2) use another the developed negative with HP5, much like traditional slide copier.

Should the 2nd roll be process as true B&W, or develop it as slide?

Either way, does it means it becomes positive, so I can view it with slide projector?

RGDs
D.K.

 

[szekiat]

dennis, i see you are up to your usual bag of tricks again. If i get you right, what you are basically doing is shooting the negs with another roll of negs.Funny I believe in the old days they called it inter trans or cibachrome or something for printing slide film (shoot the slide onto negs to print). Anyways, to answer your question, and this is based on personal experience and no technical know how, it doesn't quite work. Firstly, i found that even using the nikon bellows slide copier, i was losing too much resolution in the process. Also, tonality and contrast got all mucked up. Btw, printing true b/w slides are even more expensive then b/w negs. And to do it on a color machine, u might as well pass your film to any lab. These days i think most of them are able to scan your hp5 and print it on a frontier machine. An alternative to kit up your own lab. Watch for crazily cheap offers of enlargers and lenses etc and kit up. I do my own b/w printing in my school darkroom and the cost is so low even by uk standards. allows you to print 8x12 all the time or even bigger....

 

[student]

If what szekiat interpretation of what you intend to is correct, shooting a negative with another negative will lead to a positive.

This is one of the ways (obviously there are other ways that are less troublesome!) to make big negatives for the purpose of contact printing. Contact printing is necessary for a variety of alternative printing methods such a platinum and paladium printing.

The way to do is this:

You choose a negative that you want to enlarge. Place another negative to the chosen negative (a contact method) and expose it. Develop the negative. This second negative will become a positive - something called an interpositive. Then use this interpositive as a "source" (like a negative for printing) to make an enlarged negative.

Today one of the easier methods is to scan a negative, enlarged it digitally, then "print out" the big negative. Almost as good as an enlarged negative made in the traditional way!

For me, I use a black & white slide as the source and enlarge this to a big negative.

 

[Jed]

Hello Dennis,

I'm a bit confused as to what you want to achieve at the moment.

Are you wanting to view your black and white images as cheaply as possible?

Are you wanting to get prints from your black and white images as cheaply as possible?

It's just that you're asking about projecting, viewing on the computer, cost issues, it all gets very confusing and ultimately the best method to recommend will largely depend on what you want to achieve. At the minute, to my reading anyway, it seems a bit of a muddle so if you could clear it up, we would be in a better position to advise.

It also seems like Szekiat's in a bit of a muddle:

Funny I believe in the old days they called it inter trans or cibachrome or something for printing slide film (shoot the slide onto negs to print)

It was firstly called an interneg, not an intertrans, which is fairly logical given you took an (intermediate) negative of the slide so that it could be cheaply printed. Which had nothing to do with this, or with Cibachromes really. Which are not theoretically called Ilfochromes since Ilord bought out the process. Which again has nothing to do with this because it is simply a printing process that allowed direct positive to positive printing from the slide.

 

[szekiat]

ok. I stand corrected. Sorry for confusing you dennis. And thanks to jed for pointing it out.

 

[denniskee]

Sorry for my bad english.

Here is my intention.

1) To view it as a slide. I enjoy viewing slide being projected to the screen rather than view it through a loup. I only use the loup to decide which are the slides that I want to mount.

2) From there, if I like the photo enough, I will send in for a larger print, say 12R using the 1st negative.

I understand there is a no fuss developer call Diafine (hope I get it right). So can I use this developer to process the 1st HP5 (negative) & the 2nd HP5 (the copy which will become positive?)?

Also, what you guys had mentioned are copying positive (slides) using negative to reduce the cost of printing. This is not what I am after.

But since it is mentioned, I notice that the copy is a negative, which is a different medium from the original, which is slides. They uses different developer.

But will what I have in mind work? I trying to cut $$$.

 

[hongsien]

In that case buy a scanner and project the files using a digital projector. It's not cheap but saves you time, rather than transforming all individual negs into slides.....maybe buy a used digital projector? Or get a BIG CRT or LCD screen to watch the scanned negs?

HS

 

[denniskee]

I just did that. Got a canoscan fs2710 from a fellow CSer.

But still, for me, viewing it using slide projector is different from view it on the CRT monitor.

Anyhow, one part of my problem is solve, though I will still like to know what I had in mind can work, especially because I like viewing on the projector screen.

Digital projector still too $$$, but more importantly, I find it is still far behind the silde project std.

 

[hongsien]

I don't understand: do you like to watch slides OR do you want to watch your negs as slides for choosing the best for printing? If you only like to watch projected images, use black and white slide film lah!

HS

 

[student]

Haha! I was confused, and still is confused!

I think you should clarify. Is your main objective seeing projected black & white images? And the secondary objective to print selected images?.

If you want to see projected slides, rather than images on a CRT, then you want black & white slides/transparencies. And if you like the image, you can get that image printed.

OK, here are the problems.

1 There is only one dedicated black & white slide. And that is made by Agfa. This is called Agfa Scala. One bad news is that it is being discontinued. The other bad news is that it is expensive to get it developed. It is processed only in selected labs in the world. I send my Scala to New York to process.

2 If you use HP5 developed in diafine (I dont use Diafine. It is relatively "fuss- free"- but at a price of images not as "nice" - in my opinion), and then use another HP5 to photograph the original HP5 negative, you WILL get a positive that you can project. I have not done this before, but I think the images will not be good.

For your purpose, a better solution is to use TMax 100 and use a TMax reversal kit (I think that is what it is called) and you will get a positive image immediately. I am speaking again from theory because I had been using Scala all the time. Scala is absolutely beautiful! If you want to see some scala images, go to the slides meeting on 16 february organised by ITguy. I will try to be there to show some Scala transparencies. But the Scala will be a thing of the past!

Another way to do things (note = "expensive") is to shoot in your favorite black & white negatives, then send the negatives to www.dr5.com, and they can make positives for you! Again, no experience. But reports are good!

 

[denniskee]

Like you said, Scala = $$$, going to be discontinued.

So it is cheaper & easier to get a B&W slides using what I proposed than using Scala. Question now is quality of the "slides".

As for the TMax 100 and TMax reversal kit method, will the printing to 12R be more $$$ (I mean comparison of total cost to what I had proposed? ie cost of films, developing cost & cost to printing photo of 12R size of selected photo).

 

[student]

1 So it is cheaper & easier to get a B&W slides using what I proposed than using Scala. Question now is quality of the "slides".

2 As for the TMax 100 and TMax reversal kit method, will the printing to 12R be more $$$ (I mean comparison of total cost to what I had proposed? ie cost of films, developing cost & cost to printing photo of 12R size of selected photo).

1 I think it will be a lot easier to go the TMax route than your original proposal route. Your original route is messy to do. I have done it before and I will do it again if I have to.

This is how I did it. I don't use HP5 much except for 4x5. I prefer to use FP4. OK, so I have some FP4 negatives, say in 120. I develop them in DDx. Then I cut the strip I want to make a positive. I used Tmax100 4x5 negatives. A 4x5 negative is chosen because it is difficult in darkness to oppose the 120 FP4 to the Tmax 120 and then them pressed together in the contact frame without it being outof alignment.The FP4 and the Tmax are faced emulsion to emulsion as in contact print. Tightly put into a contact print frame with pressure. Exposed at f22 at .1, .2 .4 seconds or something like that. (Need a lot of experimentation to get the right exposure) Repeat the exposures again so I have a duplicate of each exposures. The 4x5 negatives are then processed in total darkness in a tray in Dektol. One batch of the duplicates gets developed first. Then I see how the contrast goes and adjust the development time for the second batch. One I get a positive I like, I cut that positive to size and use it to make a big negative anything from 8x10 inches to 11x14 inches.

By the time you go through the above procedure, you will appreciate that it wil be a lot easier and cheaper to go the Tmax reversal route.

2 As far as getting prints from the positives, I am afraid I cannot advice you. I have never sone that. I print all my prints myself.

 

[Jed]

Yup, I'm still not 100% whether your ultimate goal is your 12R prints, or the projection. Traditionally, unfortunately the two do not go hand in hand; to get the best prints you definitely need a negative, and unfortunately to project you need some form of positive. One way or the other you're going to end up with a form of compromise.

Ignoring digital for the moment, assuming I'm getting your priorities right, then you definitely want to shoot negatives to begin with. Prints from positives have never been great at the best of times, and you arguably lose as much quality from converting negative to positive as you do from positive to negative.

At any rate they're both not ideal, because you suffer quality loss each way.

I used to use Kodak's TMax reversal process myself to get 5x4 positives from my HIE stuff. It's fairly easy to use and the results are good too; can't say I used it with TMax though. The problem is you're back to square one RE getting prints off them.

Potentially the digital route might be your solution. Shoot in whatever. Personally, and your mileage might vary, consider the digital projection route although it is far more expensive, the quality at normal viewing distances is excellent.

But as above, whatever route you choose is going to have a compromise because negatives and positives (strangely enough!) just do not go together well!

 

[denniskee]

My final goal is to have both the slides and still be able to print 12R.

If print from positive suffers image qualit loss, how about the below route :

1) Shoot Tmax 100, go for Tmax reversal route so that I get the slides.

2) I than scan it and send the selected photo for digital B&W printing @ 300dpi.

Will the image quality of the digital printout be better than the print I get from the positive?

Can I assume the difference in term of cost and image quality for a/m 2 methods is marginal? The a/m 2 methods are cheaper & easier than than the orginal proposed method, and that the image quality will also be similar between the 3?

 

[student]

Potentially the digital route might be your solution. Shoot in whatever. Personally, and your mileage might vary, consider the digital projection route although it is far more expensive, the quality at normal viewing distances is excellent.

But as above, whatever route you choose is going to have a compromise because negatives and positives (strangely enough!) just do not go together well!

1 I agree that for the objectives that Dennis has, the digital route is probably a better compromise solution. But, I feel (and this is highly subjective) that projections from a digital source still lack that "something" compared to a projection from a slide. Very subjective and others are welcome to disagree

2 Dennis's way of using negative -> positive -> projection is probably not something often done. Most would start with a B&W trans anyway! Better and less painful except for the wallet!

But negative -> positive -> enlarged negative have been used for years in alternative printing techniques. Mastering the techniques does require some hard work, and my own efforts are only sporadically successful!

 

[The_Cheat]

My final goal is to have both the slides and still be able to print 12R.

If print from positive suffers image qualit loss, how about the below route :

1) Shoot Tmax 100, go for Tmax reversal route so that I get the slides.

2) I than scan it and send the selected photo for digital B&W printing @ 300dpi.

Will the image quality of the digital printout be better than the print I get from the positive?

Can I assume the difference in term of cost and image quality for a/m 2 methods is marginal? The a/m 2 methods are cheaper & easier than than the orginal proposed method, and that the image quality will also be similar between the 3?

Just like to chip in my 2 cents here... Scanning and printing with a 300dpi machine doesn't do the print any justice. The prints often lack lustre, and you'll seldom get paper white for the prints. Since you're shooting black and white anyway, think you ought to go for analog printing instead, especially when you wanted a 12R print.

 

[mikeb380]

Hi guys

I have tried shooting 3 rolls of HP5 last month, as we know, printing true B&W is very $$, about $1 / 4r print, so I order (correct word to use?) a contact print instead.

I feel this does not work well for me. So I thought of 2 solution :

1) scan the B&W negative, select the shots after viewing on monitor (CRT, not LCD).

2) use another the developed negative with HP5, much like traditional slide copier.

Should the 2nd roll be process as true B&W, or develop it as slide?

Either way, does it means it becomes positive, so I can view it with slide projector?

RGDs
D.K.

Dennis, one alternative no one has mentioned is to scan the negs in to computer. Then use PhotoShop or equal prog to reverse the image. This gives you a positive on the puter. Next print it to photo quality glossy film. You can print several at a time and make them whatever size you want. I never tried this but it seems less expense and trouble than other methods mentioned. Of course you need a good scanner and a good printer but it is all B&W so don't need a color printer.

Many years ago when I had my own lab, we used a direct positive film to shoot prints. We did this when ppl had a print for a copy but no retouch work on it. Don't know if this is still around but I think it was kodak. check their web site. With that you can just load the camera and shoot the print as a slide.

Michael :angel:

 

[hongsien]

Sorry for my bad english.

Here is my intention.

1) To view it as a slide. I enjoy viewing slide being projected to the screen rather than view it through a loup. I only use the loup to decide which are the slides that I want to mount.

2) From there, if I like the photo enough, I will send in for a larger print, say 12R using the 1st negative.

I understand there is a no fuss developer call Diafine (hope I get it right). So can I use this developer to process the 1st HP5 (negative) & the 2nd HP5 (the copy which will become positive?)?

Also, what you guys had mentioned are copying positive (slides) using negative to reduce the cost of printing. This is not what I am after.

But since it is mentioned, I notice that the copy is a negative, which is a different medium from the original, which is slides. They uses different developer.

But will what I have in mind work? I trying to cut $$$.

If I reread your posting again, it seems to me that the final BIG print is what you really want....in this case if it is black and white you have at the moment no other choice than print it on paper chemically with an enlarger, the traditional way. Printing it with an Epson or other brand for black and white is just not there at this moment, not enough tonality compared to a good computer print.

And another thing is that you need to learn to visualise the end product just by looking at the projected image or better the contact print (although it is too small for you). Once you are adept at the final quality and tone of a printed black and white picture (traditional way), it will be easier to 'see' it directly from looking it from the contact print, or even directly from the negative.....your brains have to be 'wired' for it, but I am sure Student knows everything about wiring below your head

Hong Sien

 

[student]

'see' it directly from looking it from the contact print, or even directly from the negative.....your brains have to be 'wired' for it, but I am sure Student knows everything about wiring below your head

Hong Sien

Eh? No lah! I just talk talk only! :bsmilie: Wiring is done by technicians! :bsmilie: But I am, Ahem!

 

[ellery]

I think there is a problem after you have gotten your 2nd generation copy ie the positive version which is slide projectable. This is printed will give you a negetive image. Now if you want a positive you will have to go back to the original neg I do not see any gain and much loss in the 3rd generation copy.

Overall I think its not possible to have you cake and eat it. You either project the neg and learn to read it right to see the details ect or select from a contact sheet, view under an enlarger and do a full size test print to view. For 35mm I do not think scanning works - not so sure about medium or large format.


Each time you dupe there is resolution loss and changes in contrast - I can not recall if its a gain or a loss. Normally duping is done (for slides) with a film media designed for duping. Using normal film has some grave down sides on contrast reproduction. Now on 35mm I think these will serve to kill the quality perhaps you can do it in 4x5 large format.