Home Internegging

( Jump to Part II | Part III | Part IV )
by Liang-Wu Cai

Summary: This document details my experiment with making inter-negatives using generic print films in order to obtain "cheap print from slides". For those who are still debating with themselves, this document shows you why I am settled. For those who want to try making interneg, this is your step-by-step tutorial.

Since lots of photographs are included in order to compare the results in every stage of the experiment, this document is split into several smaller pieces for faster loading.

Preamble

It is a consensus that it is very hard to make prints from slides. If possible at all, it must be expensive. To search for the truth (and a truce), I endeavored two series of experiments. The first series compares the enlargements made from slides. The conclusion was: for enlargements, fine machine prints (such as Kodak's premium processing), either "Type R" or Ilfochrome, are of great quality that I can settle with, and at the price that I can afford.

Here is the second series. The goal of this series is smaller prints (4"x6") that are commonly requested by friends, and cheap is the keyword.

I've found a local place that offers 4"x6" print (by Qualex) made from slides amazingly cheap at $0.47 each, and that price even includes having an interneg made! Unfortunately, I am not that thrilled by the sharpness of the interneg made by the lab. So, I am seeking a way to make my own interneg, using regular el cheapo print films.

The perspective as I see it: I can buy el cheapo but brand-name print films at $1.50 to $2.00 for a 24 exposure roll, and the 4"x6" processing at Qualex costs slightly over $3. This totals $5.00 for 25 photos, which goes about $0.20 per photo (and the same price for reprinting from negatives).

I am sure many people would suggest using interneg films. But, that is a specialty film that is not all convenient to get, to use, and to process. All in all, I am cheap. I believe that the large exposure latitude of the generic print films could be exploited, and the general sloppiness of machine printing could easily write-off all advantages of specialty films. If the quality of machine print is not acceptable to you, then, go to the direct print route: either "Type R" or Ilfochrome.

Hardware Setup

The hardware setup needs the capability to achieve the desired 1:1 (or slightly larger) reproduction ratio. For a better result, the camera must have multiple- exposure capability. An external flash unit is used as the light source. Flash TTL metering capability is desirable.

The following are used in this experiment: Nikon N90s (with MF-26) + Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AIS + PK13 extension ring + ES-1 slide copying adapter. This setup is Nikon's low-budget standard setup for slide duplication in the mechanical era (standard in the sense that both PK-13 and the ES-1 are designed specifically for the micro lens). The light source is Nikon's SB-26 Speedlight placed directly facing the camera 1 ft (arbitrarily and approximately) away and connected to the camera via SC-17 TTL flash sync cord. TTL flash metering (center-weighted) is used for the maximum flexibility.

It must be noted that all exposure compensation values used in the experiments are particular to the above setup. If you are using other camera, these data should only be used as a general reference, and do your own experiments by following these procedures.

Preparation

In a preparatory study, I used the above setup took 3 shots, with exposure compensation values of 0, +1 and +2 EV. Results were all severely underexposed, but, by extrapolation, suggested that a +3 EV compensation was about right. The design of this set of experiment is little bit more deliberate in choosing the samples to use. I chose 4 slides:

  1. High contrast scenic: The State House of New Hampshire. Taken at 11am in a bright sunny day. Film: Fuji Sensia 100.
  2. Low contrast scenic: Early morning snow scene at MIT. Slight over exposure makes it low contrast. Film: Fuji Sensia 100. (Here is a photo page containing technical data.)
  3. High contrast people: People in snow scene in late afternoon using a high contrast film. Film: Fuji Velvia (ISO 50).
  4. Low contrast people: Dark-brown skinned girl in overcast afternoon. Film: Fuji Sensia 400. (Here is a photo page containing technical data.)
These slides have all been scanned previously using Polaroid SprintScan 35 film scanner, with minimal digital processing and represent faithful reproduction of the visual effect of the slides. (But in some case, there are difficulties to correct the color cast due to the scanning process.)

Round One

Technical Information:

The Comparison:

All photos with +3EV to +5EV exposure compensation appeared to be properly exposed. In some photos, +5EV compensation seemed to have a slight color shift. Otherwise, without the exposure data and the imprinting of the frame number on the photo, I don't think I would be able to distinguish the different exposures.

For this reason, in the following only one photo is chosen for each slide. The left column are scanned from original slides, and the right column are scanned from prints made in this round of trial. Note the images included here are not intended for comparing the sharpness. Instead, they are given here to give an overall visual effects such as contrast, color fidelity, etc. A high compression ratio was used in making these JPEG files.

Conclusion from Round One:

Go on to Part II: Round Two

Back to my Film Study Page
Last updated: July 1, 1997.