Paper negatives

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Ned. I'll give it a try at some point.

[Kino]

Thanks, Ned. The prints with the yellow/green filter were fine. The ones with no filter (and the lens closed down a stop), were too contrasty to scan. I only tried because an extra stop of depth-of-field would be welcome. I could try again with less exposure.

I use Photographer's Formulary Liquidol at 1:3 dilution, 1:30, 72F and it tames the contrast quite well. You get a very warm toned paper negative that is relatively lower in contrast than straight paper developer.

I hear Dektol is about the same when diluted 1:3...

[Peter De Smidt]

Thanks, Kino. Maybe I'll play with dilutions later. I just realized that Ilford makes a thinner paper than I used. That would make it easier to load into the holders. I'll also try using a 480mm lens instead of the 360. The big challenge will be getting people to sit for portraits.

[Peter De Smidt]

When I took the 8x10 paper negative photos of Janice, I tried some with a yellow/green filter, and some with no filter. The yellow/green filter prints scanned just fine on a cheap Canon flatbed, but the prints with no filter were too contrasty for the scanner. Today, I finally got my 8x10 film scanner operational. I 'scanned' the paper negatives made with no filter on it using transmitted light. That worked just fine, but....if I showed those images to anyone, I doubt that you'd hear from me again. No filter lead to a massive increase in skin detail and tonal variation. Terrific, perhaps, for the old man of the sea, but not so good for a pretty lady. Yeah, I suspected that would be the case. Anyway, for that format and distance to subject, f/16 on the lens is better than f/11, imo. Basically, with f/11 and focusing on eyelashes, the subject's nose gets quite blurry. I don't mind a little of that, but too much is distracting for me. F/16 was significantly better, with the tip of Janice's nose showing just a hint of softness. Next time, I'm going to give Foma 200 film a try.