How do you work with transparencies in the darkroom?

[tearcut1]

Since internegatives are obsolete whats the way ?

[Frank Petronio]

scan them

That's why people went to color neg. Chromes are pretty worthless other than being pretty to look at.

[Roger Cole]

You can still make internegatives, or at least I've heard of people getting good results with making them on Portra 160.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Fuji Pro 160NC, Pro 160S or Kodak Portra 160NC, all good choices since the tungsten balanced interneg films are gone. One caveat is that the relatively high ISO and the daylight balance means you'll pretty much need to have a duping setup with a camera and electronic flash instead of simply contacting them.

[Roger Cole]

You can't use color correction filters in your enlarger (used as a light source) to contact print them? Or to projection print onto larger film for enlarged internegs?

Making internegs is something I'm interesting in being able to do some time in the coming year. I have too many chromes not to be able to print them and Ilfochrome is going away. :(

[Drew Wiley]

Good internegs require unsharp masking skills. And even then, it's going to be tricky to get ideal results from something edgy like Velvia. You don't need old-school
interneg film; Portra sheet film works reasonably well, that is, if it's around awhile itself. Just a matter of color balancing and correct contrast masking. This takes some experimenting and patience, but is not all that difficult conceptually. Can be
done either by projection or contact, but like all analgous procedures, require
meticulous dust control, a decent colorhead, and precise film plane alignment. The
look is somewhat different than printing directly from color negs, but different from
Cibachrome too. I can't say I've really perfected the parameters using these new
films, simply because I've been concentrating on other color printing issues. But I
briefly fooled around with it enough to know it's perfectly feasible.

[Adamphotoman]

Here is a novel approach. At one point I built a duping rig out of a 4X5 enlarger ... essentially I made it become a camera...To daylight...4X5... I used a Bowens Illumitran with a contrast control unit. A 4X5 Bessler duper will work too. Instead of a a 35 mm camera use an enlarger to dupe with.
Mine was an Omega D 3. I first chopped up a 4X5 film holder. Cut out the centre. Film could still be inserted into it. I used a processed piece of ortho with deep lines scratched into the film. I placed the modified film holder into a rig instead of a negative in the light path so that I could focus the enlarger onto a piece of paper placed on the illumitran.
Once the rig is focussed a normal film holder is placed into the enlarger-now camera. Contrast control works...with flashing...multi popping the unit will give lots of exposure control too. Now edgy films are not too edgy. Masking is not needed.

[tearcut1]

Can places do this for you? Is it usually really expensive for say about 10-20 slides?

[photobymike]

Scan them and make digital prints... what is the destination .. prints?

[vinny]

Can places do this for you? Is it usually really expensive for say about 10-20 slides?

Sure it expensive but giving you a price is silly since it may vary. Call your lab or google labs in your area and check their online pricelist. Get ONE done, make a print, see i you like it. You may just like a lightjet on fuji crystal archive from your scanned film better.

[Drew Wiley]

Flashing is not a realistic substitute for masking, which can control contrast much more precisely. But flashing can be used for minor contrast tweaks. I don't recommend doing either until the basics of sheet film duping are learned first. To some extent, contrast can be modified by choice of film. Porta 160 is going to be softer than 400. Don't mess with Ektar for this kind of thing. Digital printing is a different path altogether and an obvious option for those who prefer it to darkroom work.

[Robert Ley]

There is a fellow in New Mexico, web site is Gamma Tech http://www.gammatech.com/ and he will make a negative of a digital file and may even be able to scan your original and make the negative. He uses some high res film recorders and can make the negatives in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. He has done some 35mm negatives for me and they worked quite well. Good guy to work with, very reasonable and prompt turnaround.

I eliminated this problem years ago and just shoot color negatives and make C prints in my darkroom.

[IanMazursky]

I drum scan them and output them on my LVT Rhino to 8x10 C41 or B&W film.
It takes a lot longer then the traditional interneg but it gives me the chance to make some corrections.
Especially if there is dust that i photographed or scratches from processing or the film holder.
I can also build in color and density corrections that i could never do with my enlarger.
Ive done this for a handful of my chromes that i wanted traditional c prints from and i was very happy with the results.

One plus for B&W, if i want to print a C41 neg onto B&W paper, i just image to B&W neg and it prints the same as a camera neg. No need for panalure!!

[SpeedGraphicMan]

How about B&W Color Separation Negatives?

[Robert Jonathan]

scan them

That's why people went to color neg. Chromes are pretty worthless other than being pretty to look at.

But Frank, isn't that exactly why chromes are NOT worthless in this (digital) day and age? To me, negs are worthless, but I don't work in the darkroom...

[Drew Wiley]

I work with both chromes and negs. They're different, but both equally in danger if one
understands that the one thing more at risk of going extinct than anything else is
high-quality scanning equipment and dedicated software. Making black and white sep
negatives is a fairly fussy business, and essentially meaningless unless you match them to the final color output medium. Then you've got the problem that probably the
best separation film right now is TMX100 sheet film, which is itself potentially endangered. FP4 will work, but it's more of a headache to balance. You can make sep
negs either traditionally using an enlarger or with a high-end pin-registered film recorder. Either way you face a steep learning curve which gets thrown out of whack
if a single film option of specific developer becomes unavailable. That's why I have
plotted curves for several different options. It's also a lot of work. But it's the starting
point if you want to learn certain alternative color printing processes which are not
dependent on mass-manufactured color paper. You can even make color separations
directly in-camera with pan film if the subject is immobile.

[nolindan]

isn't that exactly why chromes are NOT worthless in this (digital) day and age?

Agreed.

Chromes are for projecting, not printing.

Of course, this being LFF, you would need a 4x5 auditorium projector...

[Drew Wiley]

I've been printing chromes for over thirty years and they print wonderfully if you know
what you are doing. But it's unfortunate that they were always made to look just right
on a light box like slides rather than having ideal printing characteristics. 4X5 projectors
did exist. But it's the end of an era for me. Down to my last box of Cibachrome. After
that it will just be a few select chromes that get printed on dye transfer - but that
alone justifies the existence of chromes! For volume work, it's color neg from here on
out. I had to wait a long time for suitable neg film to come around; and it took Kodak
almost a whole year to realize that had a great sheet film worth instantly discontinuing!

[Lynn Jones]

As has been said, scanning and inkjet printing is the best solution. Interneg film did a good job with regard to color, but any time you reproduce from film to film and then print, you lose huge amounts of sharpness. With scanning there is no appreciable loss unless you do something bad.

If you really want to make some internegs, use tungsten color neg film, over expose one stop and pull process one stop. With some testing you can find out if you need any filtration.

BW and Col negatives have a GBar of .55 to .60 while chromes have a GBar of 1.35, huge contrast differential. Digital has an approximate GBar of 1.00 +/-. Over the years I have used nearly all of the digital scanners and my favorites are Epson flat bed, they handle color negs, internegs, old Kodachromes and everything else.

Lynn

[Ivan J. Eberle]

There are no more interneg films. Kodak and Fuji for some time now hav both been recommending their daylight-balanced low-contrast neg emulsions instead.