Enlarged Film Negatives Process?

[LFLarry]

Does anyone know of a set of instructions available for making some enlarged film negatives?

I have some 4x5 FP4 negatives that I would like to enlarge to 8x10. I am looking for some instructions that are trustworthy and known to work.

I am generally familiar with the process and the content that I am finding online is either wrong in some cases, or missing key information. I make contact prints and enalrgements from my 4x5 and 8x10 negatives, so I should probably have everything I would need to make the enlarged negatives.

So, if you know of a set of instructions that you have used personally, or if you maybe even have your own notes and are will to share, I would love to try my hand at this because I have no desire to make digital negatives. I don't own a computer or inkjet printer and never will. I have a little Chromebook for going to websites like this and that is all I need. I figured someone was going to suggest making digital negatives, so I thought I would address that up front.

Thanks

Larry

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html

http://www.alternativephotography.com/download/enlarged-neg-by-reversal.pdf

[LFLarry]

I just found the Roba Apposta B&W Reversal kit from Italty and I am wondering if this would make the interpositive process a lot more simpler?

http://www.brancoottico.fineartlabo.com/roba-apposta-black-and-white-reversal-kit/

Then, once I have the interpositive, making the new negative is fairly easy and straight forward.

Any thoughts about this approach?

[revdoc]

I've used the process described on unlinkingeye.com. Short review: the first exposure determines the negative shadow density, and is fairly easy to nail down. The second, "flash" exposure determines the highlight density, and is a bit harder to get right. I find that an enlarging meter helps a lot in both cases.

[LFLarry]

Thanks for the first-hand info. I appreciate that. I have wanted to tackle enlarging my 4x5 negatives for several years now, and this year is the year I am going to dig in and make it happen.

Thanks




I've used the process described on unlinkingeye.com. Short review: the first exposure determines the negative shadow density, and is fairly easy to nail down. The second, "flash" exposure determines the highlight density, and is a bit harder to get right. I find that an enlarging meter helps a lot in both cases.

[cp_photo]

I'll enjoy hearing about how it works out. I bought some Ilford Ortho Plus yesterday to experiment with enlarging some 35mm negatives to 4x5, before I try enlarging my 4x5s to 8x10 and 11x14 for contact printing.

[Tin Can]

I have used X-Ray film to make a few internegs. One was 5X7 with empty space, so a 4X5 neg contact copy worked fine, then enlarged that to make a 11X14 negative print

Since we are now 100 seconds to Midnight, timely to show it again

https://live.staticflickr.com/4583/38079307405_d44bb3cd9c_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/211WpqR)Atomic Bomb (https://flic.kr/p/211WpqR) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[LFLarry]

I just ordered some of the Ortho Plus myself. Should be here in a couple of days... And I also have some Rollei 25 coming too.



I'll enjoy hearing about how it works out. I bought some Ilford Ortho Plus yesterday to experiment with enlarging some 35mm negatives to 4x5, before I try enlarging my 4x5s to 8x10 and 11x14 for contact printing.

[Drew Wiley]

Bergger is releasing a new large-sheet film for copy applications. I haven't studied it in detail, but the info is on their site. Some people use affordable lith film, but that's a somewhat unpredictable pain it the butt.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi, Tin Can. My father once made an entire greenhouse out of free old glass X-Ray plates. People didn't like going in there. But I do love that bulb shot of yours - a lot going on visually, plenty of Gestalt too.

[LFLarry]

Drew, the new Bergger print film is a game-changer for me!

Looks like it is available from 4x5 up to 20x24. This means I can now take my 4x5 in those places where I simply can't pack my 8x10 gear and be able to make 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, 20x24 platinum and silver gelatin contact prints. I NEED some of this new print film... :)

We need to figure out how to buy it in the USA. Bergger, where can we buy ???

Here are the links:

https://bergger.com/nos-produits/films/bergger-printfilm.html
https://bergger.com/media/wysiwyg/Fiches_techniques/BERGGER_PRINTFILM_DATASHEET_10_2019.pdf


Bergger is releasing a new large-sheet film for copy applications. I haven't studied it in detail, but the info is on their site. Some people use affordable lith film, but that's a somewhat unpredictable pain it the butt.

[Drew Wiley]

Bergger USA is now set up to sell direct. I don't know if this new product is in stock yet.

[LFLarry]

I just talked to USA rep and he said it will be available in the USA in Q2.


Bergger USA is now set up to sell direct. I don't know if this new product is in stock yet.

[Jim Noel]

Bergger is releasing a new large-sheet film for copy applications. I haven't studied it in detail, but the info is on their site. Some people use affordable lith film, but that's a somewhat unpredictable pain it the butt.

Lith film is ideal for enlarging negatives if one uses a very soft-working developer. These must be mixed immediately prior to use,and are not available commercially. I have somewhere between 200 and 300 using this material. When I was at the college I taught the method about every other year and students were able to master it somewhat easily.

[LFLarry]

Thanks Jim. Would you mind sharing your process so we can learn from you?



Lith film is ideal for enlarging negatives if one uses a very soft-working developer. These must be mixed immediately prior to use,and are not available commercially. I have somewhere between 200 and 300 using this material. When I was at the college I taught the method about every other year and students were able to master it somewhat easily.

[Jim Noel]

The written instructions are too lengthy to print here. Basically I use D-23 , LC-1., or LC-2. These developers were introduced in the “The World Journal of Post-Factory Photography” which is no longer available. Lith film is used as both the inter-positive, and new negative. So called Divided D-23 is ideal because it is the only developer I have found which doesn't have to be used as single shot in this process.
Richard Sullivan in his book, “The New Platinum Print”, says that a good diapositive is both over-exposed and underdeveloped so that it shows dark highlights and weak shadows. This is good information to implant in your mind as you learn this process. HL are controlled by exposure,and shadows by development.
Using the diapositive to make the new negative is easier than making a print, IF YOU MADE A GOOD DIAPOSITIVE! A good diapositive will contain all the necessary information so that a negative can be printed at any desired contrast. Don’t forget that in this case you print for the shadows (the thinner areas of the negative), and alter the highlights with development. You must also remember, that you’re making a negative, not an inter-positive. This new negative will have contrast, not be flat like the inter-positive.
AS Franklin Jordan said “I’ll take your word for how dumb you are, but even at that, you can learn to make a good copy negative in one evening.”
Good Luck! and don't give up easily.

[LFLarry]

Very helpful Jim, thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge. I made notes of your tips.

Which Lith films did you use to make the inter-positives and new negatives with? I would like to see if they are still available to try since you had good success.

I have used both D23 and Divided D23, so that is an easy win. I have all the necessary chemicals on hand already.

Thanks again, Jim.



The written instructions are too lengthy to print here. Basically I use D-23 , LC-1., or LC-2. These developers were introduced in the “The World Journal of Post-Factory Photography” which is no longer available. Lith film is used as both the inter-positive, and new negative. So called Divided D-23 is ideal because it is the only developer I have found which doesn't have to be used as single shot in this process.

Richard Sullivan in his book, “The New Platinum Print”, says that a good diapositive is both over-exposed and underdeveloped so that it shows dark highlights and weak shadows. This is good information to implant in your mind as you learn this process. HL are controlled by exposure,and shadows by development.

Using the diapositive to make the new negative is easier than making a print, IF YOU MADE A GOOD DIAPOSITIVE! A good diapositive will contain all the necessary information so that a negative can be printed at any desired contrast. Don’t forget that in this case you print for the shadows (the thinner areas of the negative), and alter the highlights with development. You must also remember, that you’re making a negative, not an inter-positive. This new negative will have contrast, not be flat like the inter-positive.
AS Franklin Jordan said “I’ll take your word for how dumb you are, but even at that, you can learn to make a good copy negative in one evening.”
Good Luck! and don't give up easily.

[Drew Wiley]

If you try Aritsta Otho Litho (now generation four perhaps?) try HC-110 1:15 from stock 1:3. Less fog than certain other options. People get away with Lith film, but it's miserable for high-quality critical duplication work (rather unpredictable). The Arista product is thin with a deliberate texture, which not only prevents Newton Rings, but allow efficient vac draw down, which is a plus. What I recommend is making the lower-contrast interpositive on something a lot more controllable like Tmax or FP4 by contact, and then enlarging that to the full size new negative on whatever.

[LFLarry]

Thanks Drew. It seems the more I learn about the various options for making enlarged negatives, it sort of comes down to a couple of things.

1 - If you go with the Ortho Lith film route for the inter-postive and the new enlarged negative, the process is reasonably simple, but the film is thin, difficult to handle, etc. With no pratical experince, I can't comment on contrast control, etc.

2 - If you use a film like FP4 or T-Max for the inter-positive and new enlarged negative, then you have to use a reveral development process for the inter-positive which requires the very nasty sulfuric acid which is not only undersirable to handle, but requires a lot of hoops to even get according to Photo Formulary website. You have to send in your ID and a form for the DEA, etc. That just seems really undesirable to me on every level.

Am I missing someting or have anything incorrect in the above two points?

The new Bergger print film that will be available very soon seems to be a lot more simple because you can use regular film or developer chemcials to process and for me, I could technically even use the print film in the camera for my still life. Who cares if it is ISO 3 because my subjects don't move. With that approach, I could expose the print film in the camera and then put that in the enlarger to make the bigger negative on a quality film like FP4 and process normally. If I didn't want to use the print film in the camera, I would just treat the print film like a print and project a negative on to the print film to make the positive and then contact print that to a high quality film like FP4 and process with normal chemicals.

Like just about anything, there are a set of pros and cons to manage. I just want to make sure my thinking is correct in the above.



If you try Aritsta Otho Litho (now generation four perhaps?) try HC-110 1:15 from stock 1:3. Less fog than certain other options. People get away with Lith film, but it's miserable for high-quality critical duplication work (rather unpredictable). The Arista product is thin with a deliberate texture, which not only prevents Newton Rings, but allow efficient vac draw down, which is a plus. What I recommend is making the lower-contrast interpositive on something a lot more controllable like Tmax or FP4 by contact, and then enlarging that to the full size new negative on whatever.

[Drew Wiley]

No reversal needed. It's a 2-step, 2-sheet of film process. A negative of a negative is a positive, or in this case termed an interpositive or diapositive. You first make this interpositive, preferably by contact on something a lot more predictable and flexible to development than lith film, and then enlarge that interpositive onto lith film or whatever for sake of the full-sized printing negative.

[LFLarry]

Okay... I get it now... :)

I can try this as my first venture into making an enlarged negative because I have everything I need on hand already.

I mostly shoot FP4 in both 4x5 and 8x10, so I will take an FP4 4x5 negative and make a 4x5 Interpositive.
Then, I will load the new Interpositive in the enlarger and make a new enlarged 8x10 negative.

Based on Jim's advice above for Lith film above, it appears this should apply to this scenario too:

The inter-positive is both overexposed and underdeveloped so the highlights are dark and shadows are weak.

Highlights are controlled by exposure and shadows by development.

For the new enlarged negative, print for the shadows (think areas on negative) and alter highlights via development.

Anything else as far as guidelines or principals that I should consider before jumping in?





No reversal needed. It's a 2-step, 2-sheet of film process. A negative of a negative is a positive, or in this case termed an interpositive or diapositive. You first make this interpositive, preferably by contact on something a lot more predictable and flexible to development than lith film, and then enlarge that interpositive onto lith film or whatever for sake of the full-sized printing negative.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you're getting it. It's really simple in principle. You want your interpositive slightly overexposed but underdeveloped, so that all the tonality information will be on it. That is a lot easier to do well with a conventional film rather than lith film. Then the enlarged negative can be more fully developed for the degree of contrast you need to effectively print with. You could use conventional film for both; but ULF sheets of a film like FP4 are rather expensive, while lith is comparatively cheap, but can be frustrating to initially get good results with. I went though that route a couple years ago just for fun, but the usage of lith made it a longer than anticipated project. Since I don't contact print any larger than 8x10, I'd far rather use two sheets of TMX or perhaps dig into my stash of Tech Pan 8x10 for sake of a high contrast neg. Lith was a headache.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you're getting it. It's really simple in principle. You want your interpositive slightly overexposed but underdeveloped, so that all the tonality information will be on it. That is a lot easier to do well with a conventional film rather than lith film. Then the enlarged negative can be more fully developed for the degree of contrast you need to effectively print with. You could use conventional film for both; but ULF sheets of a film like FP4 are rather expensive, while lith is comparatively cheap, but can be frustrating to initially get good results with. I went though that route a couple years ago just for fun, but the usage of lith made it a longer than anticipated project. Since I don't contact print any larger than 8x10, I'd far rather use two sheets of TMX or perhaps dig into my stash of Tech Pan 8x10 for sake of a high contrast neg. Lith was a headache. I learned how do it well on ordinary sheet film long ago, almost as a beginner to black and white.

[LFLarry]

Thanks, Drew. I feel like I have a solid place to start my testing now. I am really excited about this.

It seems that T-Max 100 is used for this pretty frequently. Do you have any experience or opinion about using FP4 vs. T-Max 100?




Yes, you're getting it. It's really simple in principle. You want your interpositive slightly overexposed but underdeveloped, so that all the tonality information will be on it. That is a lot easier to do well with a conventional film rather than lith film. Then the enlarged negative can be more fully developed for the degree of contrast you need to effectively print with. You could use conventional film for both; but ULF sheets of a film like FP4 are rather expensive, while lith is comparatively cheap, but can be frustrating to initially get good results with. I went though that route a couple years ago just for fun, but the usage of lith made it a longer than anticipated project. Since I don't contact print any larger than 8x10, I'd far rather use two sheets of TMX or perhaps dig into my stash of Tech Pan 8x10 for sake of a high contrast neg. Lith was a headache.

[Tin Can]

Addendum

I used X-Ray film for my first image, as I couldn't meter the inside of a powered up light bulb. X-Ray is cheap, I used it as 'Polaroid' shooting and quickly processing a minute later many iterations

and my scene was high contrast, good for X-Ray, then used FP4+ to make the internegative and enlarged with that

[LFLarry]

That is an interesting idea to use X-Ray film in that way. Thanks for sharing.



Addendum

I used X-Ray film for my first image, as I couldn't meter the inside of a powered up light bulb. X-Ray is cheap, I used it as 'Polaroid' shooting and quickly processing a minute later many iterations

and my scene was high contrast, good for X-Ray, then used FP4+ to make the internegative and enlarged with that

[Drew Wiley]

OK, TMX 100 versus FP4. Either work well for large format originals; but I prefer TMax 100 with smaller film originals due to its finer grain. TMax can also be developed to a higher contrast if that is necessary, and it is one speed faster in this kind application than FP4 due to its longer straight line. Of course, you have to adjust the speed/exposure of either film for the warmer temperature of typical enlarger light sources. This is best done by testing and not just estimation. FP4 has the advantage of being a little cheaper. I keep both films on hand for both lab and general shooting purposes, and have curves plotted for both, just to keep my options open. The pink antihalation dye washes completely washes out of TMax, but there always seems to be about .04 density of it left over with FP4, which can be a minor issue for color film masking, but of little interest in this enlarged b&w neg case.

[LFLarry]

Very helpful and some really good points.

Bummer you can't find T-Max 100 in 8x10 which is a deal-breaker for me.

Thanks, Drew.



OK, TMX 100 versus FP4. Either work well for large format originals; but I prefer TMax 100 with smaller film originals due to its finer grain. TMax can also be developed to a higher contrast if that is necessary, and it is one speed faster in this kind application than FP4 due to its longer straight line. Of course, you have to adjust the speed/exposure of either film for the warmer temperature of typical enlarger light sources. This is best done by testing and not just estimation. FP4 has the advantage of being a little cheaper. I keep both films on hand for both lab and general shooting purposes, and have curves plotted for both, just to keep my options open. The pink antihalation dye washes completely washes out of TMax, but there always seems to be about .04 density of it left over with FP4, which can be a minor issue for color film masking, but of little interest in this enlarged b&w neg case.

[peter schrager]

Bergger has come out with new dupe film....check it out
made special for duping

[Drew Wiley]

I've never had any problem getting either speed of TMax in 8x10. But like certain other commodities it can temporarily run out at certain dealers. I recommend getting on Keith Canham's list.

[Tin Can]

I'm still aging my last Keith Canham TMax purchase

Almost ready!

[LFLarry]

None of the regular photo retailers have T-Max 100 8x10 in stock (B&H, Adorama, Freestyle) and in fact, it isn't even listed as an option. I can only guess that makes T-Max 100 a special order case which makes FP4 even more attractive. It is cheaper, readily available, and no special order requirements. If a person is truly committed to the film it is one thing to order a bunch up with Keith, but if you are just wanting to test/try the film out, that is another issue. Anyway, all good, but in my case, I am just going to use FP4.



I've never had any problem getting either speed of TMax in 8x10. But like certain other commodities it can temporarily run out at certain dealers. I recommend getting on Keith Canham's list.

[Drew Wiley]

B&H buys a volume of it at a time. When it runs out, they temporarily remove it from the listing, then reinstitute the listing once a fresh batch is expected soon. People who use films like this often buy a quantity at a time, then freeze it. Keith always notifies me when he's ordered up a whole new cut of 8x10. He has high volume users, and sells the leftovers to people like me. But if he has enough orders in advance, more can be cut and boxed by Kodak for his anticipated quantity. There's an ebb and flow to it. But it's not a special order product with B&H. It's either in stock or it's not. But for general shooting, TMY400 is used a lot more by general photographers in 8x10, and is more likely to be in stock, whereas TMX100 8x10 seems to mainly have industrial and technical volume users. Same with me - I use TMX100 8x10 mainly in the lab, and TMY400 mainly in the field. With smaller formats, I use both in the field.

[Tin Can]

Keith Canham is the only supplier of custom KODAK film cuts https://www.canhamcameras.com/

Many sizes and types of film possible if the accumulated total of orders prepaid to Keith reaches the threshold for KODAK to leap into action

I have bought twice from Keith, he is excellent in all ways

Case ot Tri-X 11X14, with 11X14 and 8X10 TMAX 400 aging just fine

[LFLarry]

Quick question for the group here.

I thought I would be productive while I am waiting for the Bergger print film to get released and try my hand at using two sheets of film to make an enlarged negative.

I have a couple really nice 35mm negatives that I would like to enlarge to 8x10. From a quality standpoint, that should not be an issue. If so, please let me know.

Since I have no expereince with this process yet, I was wondering when I make the inter-positive from the 35mm negative, do you see any issue with enlarging the 35mm negative to 4x5 (Inter-positive) to them project that on to the 8x10 film to make the enlarged negative?

It would be cheaper if I could use a sheet of 4x5 and 8x10 vs. two sheets of 8x10, but I wanted to see if that is a reasonable approach or not?

Thanks

[Tin Can]

Each generation degrades quality


I consider my Atomic Bomb image 6 generations as you see it
1 first neg
2 Interneg
3 Enlarged Print
4 Copy/scan to digital
5 Upload to Flickr
6 Copy & post here

There are no rules, try it both ways at least

I shot twenty 5X7 X-Ray films until I got a neg I liked and now it's lost...:cool:

[LFLarry]

I just thought of another option that I had not thought about in a while regarding making an enlarged negative from smaller film.

I could just make an 8x10 print and get everything as desired with the dodging, burning, contrast, etc. and then just use my 8x10 camera to make a copy negative of the print.

I have never done this before, but I am aware of the process.

I know that I need to light the print using two lights at 45 degrees and ensure the film and the print are prefectly parallel.

The only question that I have with this method is what is the best paper to use for the print (glossy, matte, etc?).

If you have experinece making copy negatives like this, I would love to know your thoughts.


Thanks

[Tin Can]

I would use my cheapest paper first and if I liked the result I would do it again.

When printing in dark room if I like a print I make at least 3 more right away.

When I shot 35mm sometimes I would shot a roll of identical slides for future use.

[LFLarry]

I was thinking in terms of paper surface (glossy, matte, etc) that is best suited for making the negative of the print.

Does anyone have experience with this and can provide some guidance or does it even matter?





I would use my cheapest paper first and if I liked the result I would do it again.

When printing in dark room if I like a print I make at least 3 more right away.

When I shot 35mm sometimes I would shot a roll of identical slides for future use.

[Cor]

Bit late in this converstion, but last month I have been using Liam Lawless his procedure (see link in one of the first answers in this thread) to directly reversal process Arista Lith film with succes. I used a 4*5 negative as well as a 6*4.5 (cm) negative to directly make 8*10 negative suitable for Kallitypes.

It was surprisingly easy, and direct reversal excludes the need for an inter positive ( less hassle less dust etc.) It does mean mixing your own chemistry and finding a suitable developer (I used diluted Xray developer, but there are other recipes around ( Rodinal 1:25 for instance). Oh and I did use the Potassiumpermangate bleach, working with dichromates I try to avoid. Last week I even "reversed" double sided blue Fuiji Xray film, a bit of a pain because of the double sided fragile emulsion and the speed. to my surprise I did not need the flash exposure, and the Dmax was just enough for Cyanotype.

Good luck,

Cor