Paper negative vs film

[sanking]

Could be. I'm pre-flashing just to "take up the slack" in the curve.

In what way do you think the base fog is helping?

Russ,

I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you pre-flashing to reduce the DR of the paper negative, or to push the useful image area up into the straight line part of the paper?

Sandy King

[SteveKarr]

I love paper negs. Not film for sure ... but cool & good Wet plate exposure experience. SLooooow ...

[Michael Heald]

Hello! As I remember it, paper can differentiate a high lines per millimeter (I can't remember the exact number), so for contact printing, no loss of detail occurs, though I would defer to those with more experience than I what the effect light diffusion through the medium has on the print's detail.
I had a lot of trouble with high contrast situation, generally outdoors, especially with burning out of skies. I tried various filters, but with pinhole, the exposures started to become very long. Of course, that is part of the allure - using that as part of the composition.
One option to help with contrast is to use paper that has been designed to print color negatives as B&W. Best regards.

Mike

[BetterSense]

Russ,

I am not sure what you mean by that. Are you pre-flashing to reduce the DR of the paper negative, or to push the useful image area up into the straight line part of the paper?

The usual purpose of preflashing is to overcome the "inertia" of the emulsion, not to put actual density on the the paper. Most films/papers will take a certain nonlinear amount of exposure before density begins to appear. Before this amount of exposure is reached, ZERO density will result. Preflashing takes up this 'slack', so any further exposure will start producing density according to the usual reciprocal relationships (2x the exposure~=2x the density).

This helps to bring down the highlights in a print (bring up the shadows on a negative).

[jp]

All this talk is making me want to try some of the shooting-on-paper. I haven't done it much except for pinhole stuff in high school. I found some positive paper that I'm going to load in a film holder and give it a try. It's on order, I'll probably have it in a week. Link below.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/22242-...ets?cat_id=502

[SteveKarr]

Sweet ... Please show samples when you get it.
Steve

[Darryl Baird]

someone here on LF tried the positive paper approach, but I seem to recall super high contrast... perhaps a search might pop up that thread

[JoeV]

Interesting thread. I preflash to give an otherwise unexposed and developed paper negative a faint gray tone. I also have chosen, through some experimenting, to use grade 2 paper, such that the contrast of the negative is not as sensitive to the color of the scene's light (the main problem with MG paper as a negative). I use RC glossy grade 2 from Freestyle; but I find it interesting other's experience using matte-finish negative paper; I may have to try that.

As for estimating the paper's exposure index as an in-camera film, I find if I use fresh liquid paper developer, diluted around 1:15, at a temperature of 68f, that I can rate the paper with an EI of 12; the caveats being: 1)using Freestyle's grade 2 RC paper; 2)Ilford Universal Paper Developer, or Agfa Neutol WA, diluted 1:15; 3)preflashed to an otherwise faint gray tone.

I have not tried using a yellow filter, preferring instead to control the spectral sensitivity of the paper's emulsion by choosing graded paper.

I enjoy the orthochromatic-like tonal range of paper negative images; they are reminiscent of 19th century photography, especially landscape imagery where the sky is over-exposed to a solid white, due to the paper's UV/blue sensitivity.

And RC paper negatives contact print very nicely without the paper's texture showing through to the print.

FYI, I've also experimented with enlarging a 4x5 paper negative to 11x14, on a condensor enlarger. It does work, but you lose some sharpness, and the exposure times are quit long, with the enlarger lens almost wide open. The paper negative is placed emulsion-side down in the negative carrier; the paper backing acts like a diffusion enlarger light source. I wouldn't want to try this on a diffusion enlarger, since the results on a condensor enlarger are quite reduced in sharpness. Having the enlarger lens wide open, and nearly a minute exposure time, also doesn't help the sharpness.

~Joe

[Michael Jones]

here's a sample: 8x10 paper neg.[/QUOTE]

Very nice image. Thanks for posting.

Mike

[jp]

Well, I've got my positive paper in that I wrote about earlier.

It does work. I am having some trouble getting accustomed to its properties.

It says only to use with a red safelight, but I have an OC safelight, so I am loading it into the film holder in the dark, which might be contributing to my problem #2.

Three problems:

It is stiffer than normal film, so it's tougher to slide in.

It is matte finish and I can't tell which side is up when loading it. It is almost imperceptibly smoother on the emulsion side. There are no notches. Any other ways to tell what side is up?

It appears to be cut a little tiny bit more generous than 4x5 film, so it's not loading or staying in the film holder perfectly. Both shots I've tried I had to take the camera to the darkroom to unload it as I could not get the darkslide back in.

Good:

Based on one good exposed image so far (used dektol 1:1 65f), it appears to have reasonably normal contrast so far.

It appears to be pretty close to ISO 1 for film speed as advertised. I metered for iso 100, multiplied the exposure by 100, added a 1/2 stop off for my yellow filter. 2 1/2 minute indoor daylight exposure at f8!

While it says not to use a non-red safelight, I will see how it fare with the OC safelight next. Might make loading (and papercutter trimming if necessary substantially easier).

If I get by these physical issues, it might be a nice material for not-quite-instant-gratification and to stoke some additional interest in photography for my daughter or other young people who'd be able to go from camera to the darkroom magic of seeing something appear on paper without having to deal with processing negatives and enlargers. If I can't make it load in 4x5 holders perfectly, it still has potential for pinhole use or trimming/taping into an older 4x5 holder I don't mind using tape inside of.