Large Carbon Prints from small negative

[Ruben Vuaran]

Hi, I have a question about the carbon print process. I would like to try to make large format prints starting from a 4x5 negative, all in analog, therefore without going through the scanning of the negative to enlarge it on a glossy sheet. The solution would be to make a positive duplicate on another 4x5 negative, and then enlarge the positive on an ULF negative, for example 8x10 or more. Then print. I wonder if the enlargement process nullifies the advantage of contact printing by introducing grain and detail decay.

Than you

[Ron McElroy]

Carbon printing is by nature a contact only process due to the speed (or lack of) exposing the tissue with UV light. I have not made darkroom enlarged negatives in a very long time and then the were used for gum printing. It can be done, but it is laborious. I might suggest that you begin making 4x5 carbon prints perfect your process as a beginning. The Carbon Printing group has lots of good information. https://groups.io/g/carbon

[Ruben Vuaran]

Hi Ron, thanks for the reply. I know that carbon print is a contact process and given that once the technique has been refined, print a 4x5, an 8x10 or larger, the difficulty is the same, I think the biggest problem is precisely to obtain a quality enlargement of the original negative. The will to do it in analogue is just a purist habit! The problem is that Ilford's ULF negatives cost a lot, and before starting this research I wanted to understand if it makes sense, in terms of final print quality, or if it's not worth it and it's better to go digital to get the negative. enlarged. Thanks for the link to the Carbon Print Group!

[Willie]

KODAK PROFESSIONAL B/WDuplicating Film SO-132 in 4x5 or 8x10. Is it still being made and if so, might it do the job for you?

[Oren Grad]

KODAK PROFESSIONAL B/WDuplicating Film SO-132 in 4x5 or 8x10. Is it still being made and if so, might it do the job for you?

It was discontinued long ago.

[Willie]

It was discontinued long ago.

Is anyone making direct duplicating film these days?

[Rick A]

You can use ortho film to make the interpositive. I use X ray film for this purpose, sometimes I enlarge to make the positive, then contact print to get an enlarged negative. I use the enlarged positive for screen printing.

[Vaughn]

Enlarging to make a full size positive would give one the opportunity to do standard dodging/burning would be a good way to go. As long as the enlarger set up is well aligned and solid, one should be able to get an enlarged negative that looks as sharp as a silver gelatin print made the same size from the same negative. If that is sharp enough, go for it.

I think an enlarged negative can be as sharp as an inkjet negative -- the difference is the sharpening one can do with digital negatives that gives an appearance of a sharper image.

I solved this issue by getting bigger cameras....:cool:

[Drew Wiley]

Extremely good optically enlarged negs are possible, but the devil is in the details. I made several 4x5 to 8x10 yesterday using a 240/9 Apo Nikkor lens, which is superb at this scale of magnification, along with a precise pin-registered vacuum board. The carrier in the enlarger has anti-Newton glass on both sides. With double neg technique, you want the projection interpositive a little bit overexposed yet underdeveloped. Then you contact print this to your final full-scale interpositive, and develop that to full intended contrast suitable for the given print medium. Or to save money, you could do a 4x5 to 4x5 contact interpositive, and then enlarge that to the working size neg.

I haven't used any of the new films intended for one-step technique, so can't comment on those. FP4 and TMax films are excellent for the two step method. All kinds of fine-tuning controls are possible using real film. No inkjet transparency can hold the same level of detail or subtlety of gradation. But the question nowadays is the expense involved with especially large sheet film sizes (over 8x10). Don't think you'll save money using thin Ortho Litho film. It's hard to control for continuous tone work, and you'll waste a lot trying, although it seems popular for a funky unpredictably blotchy kind of output. Been there, done that; not worth it.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I just kept building bigger cameras! Stopped at 14x17.

[sanking]

You can use ortho film to make the interpositive. I use X ray film for this purpose, sometimes I enlarge to make the positive, then contact print to get an enlarged negative. I use the enlarged positive for screen printing.

Contact printing the interpositive with 4X5 ortho film, and then enlarging to X-Ray film, ortho or blue sensitive, for the enlarged negative would be a relatively inexpensive way to handle this.

Another option would be to learn to make carbro prints, where you dodge and burn to make the best silver bromide print possible, then mate this with carbon tissue sensitized in a special bleaching formula. Sounds a bit complicated, but probably not more so than making carbon print via interpolative and enlarged negative.

But the suggestion made earlier to learn to print carbon with 4X5 negatives also makes a lot of sense.

Sandy

[peter schrager]

Hi Ron, thanks for the reply. I know that carbon print is a contact process and given that once the technique has been refined, print a 4x5, an 8x10 or larger, the difficulty is the same, I think the biggest problem is precisely to obtain a quality enlargement of the original negative. The will to do it in analogue is just a purist habit! The problem is that Ilford's ULF negatives cost a lot, and before starting this research I wanted to understand if it makes sense, in terms of final print quality, or if it's not worth it and it's better to go digital to get the negative. enlarged. Thanks for the link to the Carbon Print Group!
Berger print film does exactly what you want