Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/06/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Larry the problem being that when you try making a matching print from that 35mm copy negative and put them side by side the difference is shocking. It really looks like a copy of a copy. A very poor imitation from working from the original neg. What you'd want to do with such a print I don't know. But you'd' think contact printing would be the key taking that extra lens out with its imperfections but this dozens not really do it for a few reasons. The first is you end up with a positive which needs to have the process then done again. Your end result would be not a copy from a copy. But a copy from a copy from a copy. You can too many service imperfections even from just making the positive which print right into the image and you can then not wipe off. Any print you make really is a mess. Trying to skip the positive to negative again steps by developing your first neg using reversal techniques does not work. The tonality or the way it gradates is way different from the original. You'd hardly call the print you'd make from it anything resembling a "match". So the whole concept in reality of a "copy negative" in the darkroom realm is a myth from a practical standpoint. The fact that all kinds of "copy negative" gear of every description exists in the catalog does not make it so. And by the way I have extensive experience with such gear as a Honeywell Repronar. A dedicated camera bellows with strobe stage and micro lens. There are not effective methods of making a usable negative copy whose results you could then continue making darkroom prints from if the original was lost or damaged. Not even sheet film as I said last night. Nowadays of course we're really not in the darkroom era any more. A negative is something to be scanned. Its a bit of a tossup if a scan from a print is better or worse to work from than a scan from a neg. in my experience I'd much rather work from a scan from a neg. but I have some images in which I've had to work from a scan from a print and the results are not noticeably different from scans from a neg when you line up the prints or put them in a stack. A scan from a neg really does have a lot more information in it than a scan from a print so its less tricky to work with. So in today's terms if a neg is lost you can still scan from a print. Some say its preferable because you get your dogging and burning built in. but from experience I'd disagree. Things fall off way too quickly tonality wise. As somebody said in a photo magazine article I read decades ago the best copy slide or neg your going to get is done right on sight. Just keep holding the button down and working it. This of course gives you the decisive other-moment. But it works with rocks and trees. And peeling paint. It really works with a lot of subject matter people too. Mark -------------------- Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ mark at rabinergroup.com Cars: http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb > From: Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at gmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:53:04 -0400 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: [Leica] HCB negative > > Henning is right! I stand corrected. I based my original conclusion on > measuring the image on an iPad. But enlarged on a 20" screen, and making > allowance for the foreshortening, I estimate that the negative strip is > 27.5 > mm wide. A row of perforations could have been snipped off and still leave > the full image frame. Why that was done is hard to say. Damage? Stripped > sprocket holes? > > The fact that the film was snipped does not mean that the negative shown > was > not a copy. E. Leitz (remember them?) made several devices for duplicating > film strips including the Elida Film Printer, the Eldur Contact Printer, > and > the Kopat Combination Printer. One of the major scientific uses of the > Leica > camera was copying rare artifacts and manuscripts in situ. Leitz itself > suggested that distribution prints of rarities be produced from copy > negatives to avoid excessive handling and potential damage to irreplaceable > original images. The HCB jump negative probably fits in that category. > Interestingly Leitz never suggested blowing up the negative to 4x5 size to > make copy prints. The idea probably would have gone against the 35mm bias > of > the company. A full description of Leica copying technique is spelled out > in > Morgan and Lester's "Leica Manual," especially the editions published > before > 1950 when specialized microfilm copying equipment became widely available. > > Larry Z > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information