enlarging 4x5 negs

[sepstein17]

Just finished a P/P wkshp and currently shoot film ONLY - 4x5...looking for someone who can take these 4x5 negs and create larger digital negs so I can contact larger P/P images w/o purchasing a 5x7 or 8x10 camera. Love the process but am seeking larger images. Thanx for input.

[Bill Burk]

I think Bob Carnie may be your guy.

[sepstein17]

hoe do I get a hold of him?

[Ari]

Search the members' list, top of the page; send him a private message.

[bob carnie]

I am in testing stage with this right now, I have made many enlarged negatives on my Lambda using Ortho film for about a year , then making carbon, pt pd and gum prints.

I would be willing to make a test neg for the OP in my own time,
I am unsure whether Harmon wil be able to supply my Ortho Film in the future. I still have enough film left to make the film for my testing.
I have contacted them, I need to make a minimum purchase , around 4k and then make sure it works. I have been using Rollie Ortho until now, I was sold two rolls to start this crazy project, I tried to reorder and they refused as it being small potatoes.
I have installed a BW processor dedicated to do this, if the Harmon Ortho works, if I
can get continued supply, I will start commercially making enlarger film for others.

The pitfalls can be many as files supplied to me may not be correct for the process, then I have to either one send back or modify, One pissed client on the internet can screw up the reputation of any operation, therefore I have great hesitation making film for other workers and their darkrooms because you do know if the image dosen't work out right it will be my fault.
We will probably set it up in a workshop type of setting where a quick proof will be offered as film is coming off the machine. It will mean coming to Toronto to do this at least once so the worker is well informed on how the process works.

Once both parties have confidence in each other I can see a long distance approach.
Crazy as it seems I am also considering a large imagesetter to offer stocastic or random dot film for tri colour carbon and gum workers.

[Jay DeFehr]

Bob,

Crazy, or not, I'm glad you're thinking long term and taking on these hybrid processes, and I hope the required materials will remain available to you. Since you mentioned both Lambda and Imagesetter, can you compare and contrast these technologies regarding the making of enlarged negatives? The lambda process is particularly opaque to me. The descriptions I've read are of three lasers-RG&B- exposing color print materials directly from a digital file, and they all claim continuous tone. I can't wrap my head around the process by which pixels are transformed to continuous tone by a laser. And I think I asked once before; how is negative contrast controlled in the Lambda process? I suspect this issue is at the heart of your consideration of an Imagesetter for color carbon work.

While we're on the subject of making enlarged negatives, I have another question regarding the traditional darkroom approach. If I'm making MF negatives with the intention of enlarging them for (monochrome) carbon printing, Should I develop the original negative to the contrast required for the carbon print, or should I increase the contrast of the original negative when making the enlarged one? My gut tells me to develop the original negative to a lower contrast, and then increase the contrast in the enlargement process, but this is all new to me, and I'm trying to understand the ins and outs of the various options for making enlarged negatives. Thanks in advance for any illumination you can offer.

[bob carnie]

Jay to answer backwards your gut is right IMO

When I was making enlarged negs in a traditional manner I made a very flat contact positive and then made the enlargement on the negative and adjusted contrast at this point.
FWIW this is a very viable way of making pt pd negs or any negs for that matter, if you do not want to go down the digital route. You kind of bypass all the blocking issues and banding problems associated with the learning curve.
With that said I have seen Sandy King , Kerik and Ron Reeder work and print in person and their work is first class using digital methods. But I think they all would agree that making enlarged negative's using the traditional method is A ok.

The difference between a lambda and image setter that sets a screen or random dot is that with the lambda you will not see the dot with a loupe, rather you will see the film grain.
With all screen/random dot , stochastic output from an image setter you will see the dot.
Although it will be very small and at viewing distance or on rag paper you will adapt and the pattern will vanish.
So the lambda states continuous tone, I have to agree that visually this is true, but with any digital process if you stretch the limits you will see the failings.
posterization, banding, blow out of highlights.
Contrast is controlled in photoshop preferably, the Lambda does have curve tools but they are nowhere as good as current PS tool, Sharpening is critical and knowing your numbers really help as each material I work with has its own profile or vocabulary.
I cannot explain the pixel to grain issue other than maybe the pixels at 400 ppi resolution are tiny compared to the grain size of the original film. This was a real eye opener when I made my first lambda cibachromes using a sister lab, I could not believe my eyes as I was expecting to see pixel shapes with a loupe not film grain.
After I saw these prints my business went on a limb and bought the Lambda 76plus.

The consideration for using an random dot from an image setter for colour work, has to do with communication with Charles Berger and the two main workers in colour carbon that I am engaging in. They all believe a lambda neg with continuous tone will give me staining issues, and a hard dot or cutoff point will be required for no staining and the carbon to set properly.

fortunately for me I am stubborn and will separate colours from the different channels and make multiple colour carbons for myself and a couple of clients and not worry about the photo realistic colour that Gangler and Bentley get now , but rather have some fun and blend the colours in a less structured way. I believe that given the winter I will be on a solid platform with colour carbon this way, and then move forward with a random dot imagesetter if I find my lambda film will not work as predicted by the three leading experts in colour carbon.

If I move forward I want to be able to make solid film, for others to experiment with but as I said before it will be in a very structured way with workers willing to give and take .



Bob,

Crazy, or not, I'm glad you're thinking long term and taking on these hybrid processes, and I hope the required materials will remain available to you. Since you mentioned both Lambda and Imagesetter, can you compare and contrast these technologies regarding the making of enlarged negatives? The lambda process is particularly opaque to me. The descriptions I've read are of three lasers-RG&B- exposing color print materials directly from a digital file, and they all claim continuous tone. I can't wrap my head around the process by which pixels are transformed to continuous tone by a laser. And I think I asked once before; how is negative contrast controlled in the Lambda process? I suspect this issue is at the heart of your consideration of an Imagesetter for color carbon work.

While we're on the subject of making enlarged negatives, I have another question regarding the traditional darkroom approach. If I'm making MF negatives with the intention of enlarging them for (monochrome) carbon printing, Should I develop the original negative to the contrast required for the carbon print, or should I increase the contrast of the original negative when making the enlarged one? My gut tells me to develop the original negative to a lower contrast, and then increase the contrast in the enlargement process, but this is all new to me, and I'm trying to understand the ins and outs of the various options for making enlarged negatives. Thanks in advance for any illumination you can offer.

[Jay DeFehr]

Bob, I admire your curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! I hope I'm not trying your patience, but given that Lambda is a continuous tone process, made on silver ortho film, isn't contrast ultimately a function of film development, just as it is for in-camera negatives?

Thanks for your tips for making enlarged negatives. It's nice to have my gut verified by experts, occasionally. For my purposes, I think an enlarged traditional negative is my best bet, but I do want to learn about preparing digital files for making negatives, by whatever process. Thanks again for your generosity in sharing your expertise.

[bob carnie]

just for in camera negatives.
the Lambda has a sophisticated 21 control step process to calibrate processes , as well PS on top to control the curve shape.
Its hard to describe , but you set the process first by using the calibration, then you control the image contrast with curves in PS.
You need to keep your process in control with consistant time and temp.

I am in no way an expert in the alt process YET but I am moving in that direction with every day as I truly believe in the hybrid approach will allow me to leave behind some legacy prints of various photographers I work with.
Inkjet only reminds me of the fairy tale about the King With No Clothes. We are kidding ourselves if we think these prints will last.. HP will tell you they will but WTF do they know about some workers need for their life's work to actually last their lifespan.




Bob, I admire your curiosity and entrepreneurial spirit. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! I hope I'm not trying your patience, but given that Lambda is a continuous tone process, made on silver ortho film, isn't contrast ultimately a function of film development, just as it is for in-camera negatives?

Thanks for your tips for making enlarged negatives. It's nice to have my gut verified by experts, occasionally. For my purposes, I think an enlarged traditional negative is my best bet, but I do want to learn about preparing digital files for making negatives, by whatever process. Thanks again for your generosity in sharing your expertise.