Enlarged negatives from Agfa Scala?

[Will Lytch]

Has anyone had experience, postive or otherwise, using Agfa Scala b&w transparen cy film as the first generation for making enlarged negatives? While this would allow one to skip the interpositives resoluion/dust problems, I wonder if it off ers a suitable and aesthetically pleasing scale for this purpose. Thanks for you r input.

[Robert J Pellegrino]

Im just curious, is your desire to do this based upon NOT wanting to use reversal type printing materials i.e. Ilfo Chrome or Fuji Type- R? I would assume that you want an inter-negative so that you can use a variable contrast black & white paper? I would think that a Scala inter-negative would not be any more difficult to produce than doing so with a standard chrome, but you always seem to pay a price in sharpness.

Bob P.

[james mickelson]

Make a same size positive( interpositive) and then make your enlargement for the negative on negative material. Sharp as a tack. James

[Will Lytch]

Bob P., My end product would be an enlarged negative on b&w film to be used for contact printing on p.o.p., palladium/platinum, or azo monochrome materials. In regards to the suggestion to make a same size interpositive for contact printing , I have done this with success. However, I still have to fight the usual dust p roblems that seem to bother many of us. I may be trying to reinvent the wheel, b ut I'm just wondering if the Scala route might be simpler. Thanks for your input , Will

[Mike Kravit]

I think the other respondants missed the point of your question. In order to make an enlarged negative suitable for platinum/palladium printing it will need to have a density range of 1.6 - 1.9.

You will need a positive that is flat, has density in the highlights and has open fully detailed shadows, basically a density range of 0.75 - 0.95. This may be difficult to do with Scala. My guess is that the original transparancy would be too contrasty to give you adequate highlight density and shadow detail. If it does work, the transparancy will be too flat for any other use.

It is worth a shot however, so try it and see what type of results you get. Remember, it it ain't in the original it ain't gonna be in your final negative.

Mike

[Larry Huppert]

As an alternative to Scala, check out the .dr5 process (www.dr5.net). They suggest achieving a broader contrast range than Scala, and you have the choice of using a number of different emulsions. Isn't dust still a problem when elarging the positive to get your new negative?

[Will Lytch]

Mike, you touched on the contrast issue I was wondering about. I've gotten excel lent results making enlarged positives for photogravure (density of 1.6-1.75) fr om original negs with a maximum density of 1.25 and hoped I could do the same in one step for an enlarged negative. I'll just have to try and see. Larry, thanks for the info about the lab in L.A. Regarding your dust question, it is much les s of a problem when enlarging because I can just clean the film prior to exposur e with an anti-static brush. When I insert the two sheets of film into the conta ct frame for contact exposures, dust often seems to find it's way in no matter h ow carefully I follow good darkroom "clean" procedures. Plus, with two stepes, t here's twice the chance for problems.

[Richard Årlin]

I just found this old thread that interests me for both reasons mentioned above. I have still not tried it out myself, I have only invested in 5 rolls of 135 Agfa Scala that I intend to expose with my Leica Noctilux f1/50mm, later to make enlarged internegatives for Platinum prints or other alternative proscesses in just two steps taking advantage of the wonderful quality of this lens at full speed. Also I bought a few boxes of 4x5 to make positives for copperplate photogravure and maybe aquatint photopolymer plates. I am an experienced intaglio printmaker. I would be very interested in hearing what experiences might have been made by others using this approach.

Cheers