Photogram using Direct Positive Paper - Is Ilford Confused in this Video?

[Tom-Thomas]

I have never used direct positive paper, but while browsing YouTube for darkroom stuff, I came across this video by Ilford (https://youtu.be/FFUSiRwfOHs). Below is a screen shot from the video (at the 3:18 time mark) when they talk about using DPP to make photograms.

https://i.imgur.com/YGvu0gt.jpg

They label the print on the right as a photogram using DPP while the one on the left using regular Ilford MG paper. But shouldn't the opposite be correct? As far as I understand it, when shooting with a DPP, you'll get a, well, positive image similar to what you would get with a slide film, while shooting with a negative photo paper (is it the correct term?), such as the Ilford MG, will give you a paper negative.

Am I wrong or is Ilford confused? I think I am right, but it's hard for me to image that Ilford would have made such an error. It's Ilford for crying out loud!

[jnantz]

Hi Tom

if you click under the video there's probably a link to the presenter and you can ask directly.
Even if it is mis-labeled I don't think it takes away from her work or the video, it's a nice presentation, with a paper that can sometimes be. a bit difficult to use.
John

[Tin Can]

I think OP is correct

I recently found my very few successful DPP

One was of a black moped against white wall and that is what the print looks like

[Vaughn]

She just accidently flipped the board over during the presentation and the person adding the subtitles didn't catch it.

[Erik Larsen]

She just accidently flipped the board over during the presentation and the person adding the subtitles didn't catch it.

I would think this is the most likely scenario?

[Tom-Thomas]

[...] Even if it is mis-labeled I don't think it takes away from her work or the video, it's a nice presentation, with a paper that can sometimes be. a bit difficult to use.
Hi John, maybe you have misunderstood the intent and purpose of my post. My post is not a criticism of Ilford or the presenter; it's not a "gotcha" moment. My post is for my own benefit. As I explained, I've never used DPP before and when I saw that shot in the video, I asked myself, "Hey, have I misunderstood how the paper works?" It made me doubt myself because (1) it's an Ilford presentation and, as I said, it's hard for me to imagine that Ilford would have made such an error and (2) nobody else in the comment section has mentioned it. I asked the question with the only intention of clarifying it for myself.

[jnantz]

Hi Tom
Sorry if I misunderstood your post. I figured if there were questions going to the source is always a great way to get questions answered :). I had no clue because at first I thought maybe the ferns weren't even ferns but some translucent material cut out that looked like ferns, and then the DP print was contact printed on regular photo paper LOL
it almost seemed like an optical illusion to me.

have fun!
John

[Tom-Thomas]

Watching the video again, now I think it's very likely that it's an error the video post-production person made. I think so because when the presenter explains how a photogram is made with a DDP, she actually holds up the round glass object (one of the objects in the print) and places it on top of the print on the left hand side. This indicates to me that she means to show that the print on the left hand side is the DPP print.

https://i.imgur.com/woI3btg.jpg

[Vaughn]

She flipped the print around at the last moment -- might not in the script.

The round object would have been held in the right place if the print was held either way.

Thanks for the OP -- fun to have to move one's mind around to figure it out.

[Tom-Thomas]

Off topic, but what is that blue camera in the background? Look like 3D-printed.

[Paul Cunningham]

She calls it a Chroma : https://chroma.camera/