[PRCo] Re: Printing 616 negatives

[Fred W. Schneider III]

FOLKS ... THIS IS AN ANSWER TO BOB'S PIECE ON GETTING BLACK AND WHITE
PRINTS MADE.  IF THIS DOESN'T INTEREST YOU, READ NO FARTHER BUT INSTEAD
PRESS DELETE KEY.  THANK YOU. 

Bob Rathke wrote:
> 
> Fred,
> 
> I was at the local camera shop today, and asked them your questions.
> 
> They asume that their lab (Kodak) makes prints from rolls of paper, since sheet paper hasn't
> been used by the big labs for years.  They showed me their price book, and it states that
> they can make any common size print from 35mm, 110, 120, 127, 616, etc. negatives.  A
> 3-1/2"X5" B&W print from a 616 negative costs 59 cents, and takes about a week.  This
> compares to 19 cents and 2 days for a 3-1/2"X5" color print made from a 35mm Kodacolor
> negative.  The price book notes that some negative sizes (e.g., 616), when printed
> full-negative, may not proportion out to the print paper size.  If this is the case, they
> recommend that the customer specify the next largest paper size, and then accept one of the
> dimensions not being full paper size.

The original roll paper printers in the 1950s advanced the paper to
whatever amount was needed by the negative proportion ... I think there
may have been a notch code on the negative carrier.  The 2 1/4 x 2 1/4
negatives called for a 3 1/2 inch advance (on a 3 1/2 paper).  The 127,
8 picture on 120 or 620 rolls, or 35mm called for a 5 inch advance.  And
those 616 and 116 jumbo size prints had a 5 3/4 inch paper advance. 
Some printers were designed to razor cut the paper as it advanced, which
allowed for hand developing and some limited control of darkness by
under- or overdeveloping the paper.  They usually used one large
developing tray, and for the subsequent steps a rocker processor was
used that dumped the paper from one basket into the next at 7 minute
intervals.  Other printers punched holes in the paper (allowing it later
be torn apart creating a deckle-edged print) while others placed a
exposed line on the paper, which, after developing was black, and it
triggered the cutter.  The last two methods allowed continuous
processing through tanks ... the paper was fed through rollers and
guided through all the different steps.  I remember being in a plant in
Parkersburg WV just after a thunderstorm and power outage; they were
throwing out skeins of paper and rethreading the processors and starting
over!  
> 
> The camera shop also told me that the lab is set up for daily procesing of 35mm color print
> film, but they process slides and make B&W prints only one day a week.  So, depending on
> which day of the week you drop off your slide film or B&W negatives, they could be returned
> to you anywhere from 2-10 days.


> 
> And current "paper" causes another problem (in addition to the lack of contrast and
> brightness adjustments): the "paper" is not paper, and so my "Photo by" ink stamp smudges on
> the slick paper, and never really dries.  My solution is to use "Indexing" ink which is the
> ink used to imprint product information on plastic containers.  However, because Indexing
> ink dries so rapidly, you have to re-ink the pad every couple of minutes.  And if you get
> any of this ink on your fingers, it takes three days of washing to get it off.  I use this
> stamp on my PRC photos (just wanted to get this e-mail on topic).

Yes, it is paper.  But each side is coated with a polyester resin to
prevent absorption of chemicals and water into the paper base.  The
gelatin / silver emulsion is then coated on one side of the sandwich. 
The RC (for resin coated) papers drastically lengthen chemical live,
reduce wash times and water consumption (by 93 percent), and reduce
drying costs.  The jury is still out on the longevity of the resins and
there are many professional photographers who are uncomfortable with the
appearance of RC papers.  

To the best of my knowledge, Ilford first marketed them in England in
the 1960s.  Agfa followed in Germany.  And then, like they've done in
some many instances in the last half century, Kodak finally caught on. 
EK first produced RC papers for color emulsions, which reduced total
processing times by about 75%.  Then they added black and white lines in
about 1972.  But, to this day, Kodak still produces a line of fiber base
papers but not in the variety of surface textures and contrast grades
that were marketed before 1972.  

The problem with using fiber base stock today is finding a way to dry
it.  Paco, Bessler, and Arkay all produced continuous feed rotary drum
dryers at one time.  Paco was the industrial champion; the others dealt
mostly with very serious amateurs and low-volume studio photographers.
Bessler sold several thousand units in 1971 or 1972; their output
dropped to next to nothing the next year.  Arkay still made dryers ten
years ago but I had a quality control problem.  PACO was totally out of
fiber dryers by the middle 1970s.  So what's to be done?  I have one
Paco 13 inch drum dryer, and a second one for spare parts, and an Arkay
under wraps.  With luck, they will last out my life time.  

Lack of brightness adjustments?  Male bovine defecation, my friend. 
That is the what you see is what you get mentality ... we don't pay
enough to our help to allow them to care, and furthermore, we don't want
them wasting our time making things perfect unless the customer blows
his stack. 

Lack of contrast controls?  Also wrong.  They have chosen to use
uni-contrast paper to keep things simple.  At least by 1953 and perhaps
earlier than that, Dupont introduced a paper called Varigam, which was
coated with two separate emulsions.  The low contrast emulsion was
sensitive to yellow light while the high contrast emulsion responded to
purple light.  By exposing through a full range of colored filters from
yellow through orange, pink, violet, you could produce an variety of
contrast grades.  Dupont is out of the general photography market (I
think they are still in graphic arts) but variable contrast papers (in
lieu of separate graded papers) are produced by virtually every
manufacturer.  Again, Kodak jumped on the band wagon after everyone else
(in the early 1960s) and improved the whiteness to match everyone else
in the 1990s.  It is available not only in sheets (4x5, 5x7, 8x10,
11x14, 16x20, 20x24) but also in rolls (3 1/2 inch, 5 inch and 8 inch)
for machine printers ... they've simply chosen not to use it in their
own plant.  

Now Bob, while I sound like I'm down on Kodak.  I am in many ways but
not in their choice of materials used in their black and white printing
operations.  Kodak is going to make money off almost every black and
white print made in this country ... they can either sell a finished
print, or sell the chemistry and paper to someone to make a print. 
Beside myself, there are several high quality commercial operations here
in Lancaster which will make hand made black and white prints. Kodak has
apparently made a conscious decision to 1) fill a nationwide void caused
by the collapse of many small commercial plants and, at the same time,
2) stay out of the high quality work.  That is a business decision akin
to the Norfolk Southern saying that steam trains get in the way of
making money with freight.  They both have the right to make those
decisions.  
> 
> There is also a custom lab near my office, and they offer to make contrast, brightness and
> color corrections, but they charge double for this service.  They print from any size
> negative, but they make only 8"X10" and larger prints.  The last time I checked, a standard
> 8"X10" print (B&W or color) was about $7, and with custom corrections it was around $15.
> They may use sheet paper at this lab.

Those prices are cheap.  Only 8x10 or larger?  I understand because I
work the same way.  There was always a public belief that a small print
should cost less than a large one, and vice versa. For many years the
commercial plants offered different prices to satisfy public perception. 
But the cost of insurance, taxes, rent, utilities, advertising,
transportation, office, and hopefully profits are no different no matter
what size print you make. Only the chemical and paper costs change ...
at wholesale an 8x10 sheet of paper costs about 25 cents and the
chemicals less than that.  Yet the cost of direct labor and fringe
benefits goes up when you take time to adjust to a smaller print. 
Having said that, I'll take it back to a degree.  If your business is
making 8x10s for newspapers, magazines, advertising agencies, and so
forth, then this applies.  If your business is making smaller prints for
the general public, then it costs more to go to an 8x10.      
> 
> Bob 8/4/01
> 
> "Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:
> 
> > Bob:
> >
> > Are the Qualex black and white prints machine made or hand made?  The
> > machines print onto rolls of paper (3 1/2 inches wide, 5 inches wide or
> > 8 inches wide and permit not printing controls, i.e. dodging (holding
> > back certain parts of the negative) or burning (darkening an area in
> > relation to the rest).  Of course, hand made prints with an enlarger
> > allow all sorts of controls, not just those I mentioned but even masking
> > (you could sandwich the negative with a separate piece of film stock on
> > which red dye has been placed to lighten certain small details).  This
> > is a technique I've used to lighten trucks under cars.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > Bob Rathke wrote:
> > >
> > > I continue to get B&W prints made from 616, 120, 4X5" and other large format negatives
> > > through a camera store here.  They send them to the Qualex (Kodak) Custom Lab. I know
> > > of several stores in the Chicago suburbs that use the Qualex lab.  It takes about 10
> > > days, and the B&W prints cost more than comparable size Kodacolor prints, but the
> > > results are good.
> > >
> > > Bob 8/2/01
> > >
> > > --------------------------------
> > >
> > > "Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:
> > >
> > > > He used to trade prints with scads of people.  Unfortunately, A) there
> > > > is no longer a camera store in Pittston; B) Kodak no longer makes
> > > > contact papers for 616 size negatives, 3) Kodak no longer makes any
> > > > contact papers except in a very limited number of contrast grades (2 and
> > > > 3 or 2, 3 and 4) -- the very high contrast and low contrast papers have
> > > > joined the dinosaurs; C) Non one has made 616 and 116 film for thirty
> > > > years, and other tools that went with it, such as negative carriers for
> > > > enlargers and printing machines are no longer manufactured.  This simply
> > > > means that you cannot take a 616 negative to your local camera store and
> > > > even get it printed any longer And people like myself who can handle
> > > > them are getting older and more tired.