I'm trying to break back into LF analogue photography after a very long time away from it. Five years ago I *thought* I was bound for an easier lifestyle in which I'd be able to pursue the LF fascination; I had a serious bout of G.A.S. and acquired some wonderful gear, more than enough to keep me working away for years. But circumstances have been such that I could not set up the much-wished-for darkroom. Time and space constraints, massive dust problems, flooded basement, you name it. The gear has sat around unused. Considerably chastened, this year I'm determined to *make a start* somehow or other.
It strikes me that, in the absence of a permanent darkroom, I could probably most easily slide back into LF work by starting out shooting paper negatives. That would be cheaper, easier and less demanding than trying to process sheet film in primitive facilities. I've done some reading up on the subject, not that there's a whole lot written about it. But I know that several people here, Jim Galli, jnanian and gandolfi spring immediately to mind, use the technique regularly. So I have some questions for the more experienced hands at this:
(1) I'm assuming that for sharp, full-range non-atmospheric/pictorial work, probably RC paper with glossy surface would be best? What are the disadvantages, if any, of using resin-coated paper for paper negative work? (I had a brief meeting with RC paper back in the 1980s when I had my last darkroom; didn't much like it, but perhaps it has improved since then?) My guess is it would make a better negative stock due to fewer flatness problems when compared to fibre-based papers.
(2) Are normal paper developers (Dektol, e.g.) adequate for PN work, or would there be any significant advantages in using other developers?
(3) I gather that contrast control can be a problem and that this is often addressed by pre-flashing. Are there any other cc measures I should investigate?
(4) I gather there's some controversy about variable-contrast vs. graded papers for PN work. What real, practical (vs. theoretical) difficulties does VC paper impose?
(5) I was a bit worried about contact-printing technique and gear until I read Oren Grad's forthright post in which he said there was very little wrong with just using a sheet of heavy (3/16") glass in practice. I don't have any old-style printing frames, nor a venerable contact printer, nor any desire to spend $300-500 on a "magnetic" marvel, nor yet any desire to mess with trying to set up a vacuum frame. Since I have no permanent darkroom, less is more must be my watchword for awhile.
(6) I gather that it's possible, still, to obtain the old silver-chloride type contact printing papers -- or at least Azo and Lodima. I've had a look at the michaelandpaula.com website. Will it be worth my while and worth the expense for me to get familiar with the Lodima/Amidol combination right from the outset, for my contact printing? I'll probably be shooting "real" film with 4x5 gear eventually, and using a Beseler 45MCRX to make prints; but that's in the future. Meanwhile I've got a Toyo/Calumet 8x10, a sweet little old Century WP folder, and an Agfa Ansco 5x7 folder; these imply a lot of contact printing in my future unless I want to go to digital prints. How about it -- are the Lodima/Amidol results worth it?
I can think of plenty more questions, but that's probably more than enough to begin with. I actually look forward to learning paper negative technique, which I've never before explored. (For one thing, the slow speed means I can use my barrel-mount lenses without trying to acquire a set of expensive big neutral-density filters.) Help me out, Jim, Emil, John -- please?
Bookmarks