Efke B & W Positive Paper

[Rick Olson]

Was looking for some 8 x 20 Efke film and came across this at Freestyle ...

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002932

I have a load of black and white film developed by DR-5 as transparencies. I finally have a way to print them chemically ...

Looking forward to trying this out. Maybe some paper negs also in the 5 x 7. Really slow so good for some special effects.

... and it's fiber too!! They also have RC.


Rick

[vinny]

Frickin' sweet! All kinds of possibilities. How about enlarging color transparencies onto it as well? Direct prints from in camera use may be fun too.

[Daniel_Buck]

HEY!! How would one develop this? I assume this would develop like normal B&W paper? I would love to shoot 'positive paper' for some fun times!

(edit) looks like they have 8x10 as well, awesome :-) Wonder if it would fit into 8x10 holders?

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?pid=1000002925

[Stephanie Brim]

Says it does. Sounds neat to me. Does it come in 8x10 that could be cut down to 4x5? :D

[Daniel_Buck]

I'm gonna order a box of this, and some paper developer, I've used Kodak dektol in the past. I haven't developed paper for years though, what's a good developer combo for Efke paper? Dektol work ok?

[Rick Olson]

I'm gonna order a box of this, and some paper developer, I've used Kodak dektol in the past. I haven't developed paper for years though, what's a good developer combo for Efke paper? Dektol work ok?

Daniel .. Dektol looks like it would work fine. Appears to "act" like normal BW paper only producing a positive. I'm going to break out some color transparencies to see what I get. What a treat this will be.

Have fun!!

Rick

[Daniel_Buck]

Says it does. Sounds neat to me. Does it come in 8x10 that could be cut down to 4x5? :D

comes in 4x5 here, as well :)

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002929

[Stephanie Brim]

Whoa, right on! Thanks! So neat.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd be curious to see if it has high contrast and if so, can it be tamed with a soft working developer...like LC-1B for continuous tones...and I wonder how it would react to stand development, and...I'll have to get me a box and play with it.

[Daniel_Buck]

ok, I've developed my first two test shots on the paper. (in Dektol). Both came out very dark, so my ISO at 6 must be to high, I'll try a lower ISO for my metering next time.

[vinny]

I cut up some and shot tests with 4x5 sheets of the matt fiber. Best results in Clayton P20 1:7 for 2 minutes at an iso of 1.5. Wicked high contrast for sure. 1/2 stop over and 1.5 stops under, not detail. These were incident readings and the subject was a self portrait. Not much middle ground. I think a different developer may help a bit but i don't have one lying around.
vinny

[Daniel_Buck]

wonder how Selectol 'Soft' would work?

[jnantz]

hi daniel

try using dektol, but partially spent.
you will have more control over the contrast that way.

when i expose and process paper negatives ( have never used the efke paper )
i usually process it in 2 baths of developer, one spent, the other dilute and a water bath.
i use ansco 130...

when i print them ( negative contact printed to make a postive ) i sometimes print through
a sheet of grey photopaper that i leave out as a mask / filter, and sometimes i process
the positive print the same way as the negative - spent, dilute, water ...

good luck!

john

[Daniel_Buck]

I cut up some and shot tests with 4x5 sheets of the matt fiber. Best results in Clayton P20 1:7 for 2 minutes at an iso of 1.5. Wicked high contrast for sure. 1/2 stop over and 1.5 stops under, not detail. These were incident readings and the subject was a self portrait. Not much middle ground. I think a different developer may help a bit but i don't have one lying around.
vinny

I did some more testing this evening (just before the light went away!) And my findings mirror yours. Very high contrast! I exposed two of these exposures the same (ISO1) and developed the first in dektol 1:3 from stock solution for 3 minutes, and the second 1:6 for 6 minutes. Diluting dektol doesn't really seem to make much of a difference, they sheets look nearly identical. There is so much contrast I'm not quite sure if ISO1 is over or under, but in any case it's close. I metered the wall on the building to be my middle ground, my sky to be my highlights (2.5 stops up) and the bushes to be my shadows (2 stops down). The sky I knew would be gone (it is!) the bushes have a faint hint of texture every now and then, but for the most part, gone. THe wall however, seems to be a bit bright for 'middle ground'. I believe I placed the roof tiles at 1 stop darker than the wall on my meter (1 stop under). So I'm guessing that ISO1.5 or ISO2 would be correct, for my developing anyway. Since my wall looks brighter than 'mid grey'. If I back light the print with a strong light bulb, there is quite a bit of detail in the bushes, but hardly any of it is visible when viewing the print normal.

So, what are some ways that I can develop these with less contrast? Will diluting dektol even more do anything? I don't know how to 'exhaust' the developer consistently to reduce the contrast that way (as per jnanian suggestion). Was going from 1:3 at 3 minutes, to 1:6 at 6 minutes the proper way to dillute dektol? Maybe I should try something drastic, like 1:30 at 30 minutes? I'm open to suggestions :-)

Here's a scan of the results. I adjusted the white and black point, and curve to mate closely to what the paper looks like.

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_02.jpg

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Daniel
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the EFKE direct-positive paper.
It happens that I had discovered that MACO-Germany distributes such a paper. I have no idea whether the paper is the same as Efke's, however in order to reduce contrast, MACO recommends to experiment with a special film developer (they sell it, of course ;) ) under the brand "Rollei Low Contrast" identical to "LABOR PARTNER DOCUFINE LC".
In fact this developer is designed to get manageable contrast when you use microfilm or document-type high contrast films. Something like Kodak technical pan processed at low contrast in the dedicated TP developer.
The reference to the MACO pages (in German) are here
direct positive paper sold by Maco : http://macodirect.de/kraus-silber-gelatine-papier-203x25425-p-728.html
rollei low contrast developer : http://macodirect.de/rollei-filmentwickler-c-1_5_58_60.html
http://macodirect.de/rollei-contrastfont-colorffffff5font1l-p-186.html

So even if you do not go for this special developer (the euro currency rate plus shipment charges make the affair not at all attractive, I imagine), may be you could try with a diluted film developer instead of Dektol ??
Good luck !

[Darryl Baird]

in a related thread, I'e seen suggestions for lower contrast by use of traditional B&W filters on the camera (lowering the effective ISO even lower!). I tried this with Ilford VC paper and it did nicely lower the contrast in the paper neg... I used a medium yellow (#15) filter

[Daniel_Buck]

looks like there's some of that Rollei low contrast developer here: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000002826

I'll give HC110 a try tonight, and see what kind of results I get :-)

[jnantz]

daniel

when i suggest "partially spent"
i mean to use developer you have already put a bunch of prints
through, so it isn't just mixed, but "used" ...
i have a tupperware container ( 3qt ? ) that i sometimes
dump used developer in, so when i process paper negatives
i cut my fresh developer with it, or use it alone
with fresher developer, dilute at its side.

good luck with the hc110!

john

[Daniel_Buck]

hc110 didn't give me much different results than Dektol.

[domenico Foschi]

Has anybody tried using lith chemistry?

[jb7]

or coffee?

[Jim Noel]

I would try the following, not necessarily in order.
1. Longer development time - this is direct positive and more development might bring more info into the shadow areas.
2. Dilute film developer
3. LC-1

[Daniel_Buck]

here's some more shots on the paper, developed in Dektol still, haven't gotten around to picking up some Selectol.

Metered for 2 stops darker than ISO 6 (that makes it ISO 1.5 I guess?), for the water shots I metered for the foam highlights and placed them one stop over middle grey.

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_031.jpg

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_04.jpg

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_05.jpg

http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_06.jpg

[domenico Foschi]

You should be pretty darn happy with them.

[gbogatko]

may be you could try with a diluted film developer instead of Dektol ??
Good luck !

Has anyone tried this? Something like D76?

George

[Gustavo]

what chemistry is recommended for this paper?

[Daniel_Buck]

Has anyone tried this? Something like D76?

George

I tried HC110, nearly identical results as the Dektol.

[jnantz]

daniel

have you tried pre-flashing the paper ?

just wonderin'

john

[Daniel_Buck]

daniel

have you tried pre-flashing the paper ?

just wonderin'

john
No I haven't! I've ready about flashing/pre-exposure for film and paper, but I've never really done it before. Next time I have a chance to shoot some of this paper, I'll give it a shot :)

[domenico Foschi]

This is cliffhanger photography!
You mess up one sheet you are done!
I was going to suggest pre-bleaching, but that's even worst than flashing.
I understand that not all the images need the contrast of these posted, but, and I repeat myself, I do like them.

[alec4444]

Daniel - pretty nice shots! Did you shoot those in-camera, or were those done with B&W positives? Which positive paper did you use - RC or fiber?

This has some great implications for testing ULF lenses without burning up the more expensive film......


--A

[Andrew O'Neill]

Continuous tones are possible with an extreme low contrast developer such as LC-1B or LC-1. I use it when developing APHS copy film. You should try it with Efke B/W Positive paper.

[jnantz]

No I haven't! I've ready about flashing/pre-exposure for film and paper, but I've never really done it before. Next time I have a chance to shoot some of this paper, I'll give it a shot :)

i'm looking forward to your test-results :)

--john

[Scott-S]

Here is a picture I did with Efke Positive paper. Developed in Arista Cold Tone developer which was slightly diluted. This exposure was at night at F5.6 for 40 minutes


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3464211809_866d6b79ae_o.jpg

[gevalia]

I bought a few boxes in 4x5 and did a little testing. I rated it at 1.5 and developed it in Prescysol EF which is what I use for almost all my B&W film. It certainly is interesting and has a definite look to it. That being said, I have not shot any since.

[PaulRicciardi]

Personally I quite like the stuff, it's let me play around with my images more:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3248882234_59cd824267.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3464070737_ef597a4b27.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3634/3464070975_2837bed6be.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/3250855160_0c4531e269.jpg

[Glenn Thoreson]

In reading all the responses to this, one thing struck me as odd. I am seeing development times that strike me as too long. This is paper probably similar to standard graded paper. 3 to 6 minutes would give you high contrast on regular graded paper, would it not? Higher than the grade rating, anyway. Seems awfully long, to me. Have you tried less time in the soup? I think the advice about using ripened Dektol is good. That and water bath development should turn out some nice prints. I use a mixture of old (ripened) Dektol and fresh to help warm up prints on Ilford Warm Tone Fiber that look too cool for the subject matter. It works better than adding Bromide sometimes.

[PaulRicciardi]

In reading all the responses to this, one thing struck me as odd. I am seeing development times that strike me as too long. This is paper probably similar to standard graded paper. 3 to 6 minutes would give you high contrast on regular graded paper, would it not? Higher than the grade rating, anyway. Seems awfully long, to me. Have you tried less time in the soup? I think the advice about using ripened Dektol is good. That and water bath development should turn out some nice prints. I use a mixture of old (ripened) Dektol and fresh to help warm up prints on Ilford Warm Tone Fiber that look too cool for the subject matter. It works better than adding Bromide sometimes.

Glenn, I never even bothered with paper developers as I figured there would be too much contrast

I just went straight to Diafine at the normal 3+3...works fine as you can see above

[Glenn Thoreson]

I would have never thought of Diafine for paper. I guess it's easy to get stuck in the rut of conventionality.

[PaulRicciardi]

I would have never thought of Diafine for paper. I guess it's easy to get stuck in the rut of conventionality.

It was kind of one of those "Hmmm what if...?" sort of moments

I had some Diafine kicking around along with Dektol, Rodinal, and D76. The Dektol was too contrasty for my tastes, Rodinal left this nice brown tint to the prints but the prints were severely underdeveloped...the brown print above was Rodinal followed by Diafine. D76 didn't really do much.

But the Diafine works a charm! I'm about to finish my first pack of 25 sheets (8x10) and from my limited experiences, it seems like development time is not an issue. The positive paper appears to react to Diafine the same way as film would-3 minutes A+B doesn't seem to be any better or worse than 6 minutes A+B.

The Diafine is working so far, and the positive paper has let me explore ideas of photography as a painting made with a camera. I've been pushing my work in a more abstract and pictorial direction and all of my prints/plates (tintypes) are 1 of 1. Thus, the positive paper is a very nice tool in this body of work.

I'm sure if you wanted to get super sharp, very realistic prints from the positive paper with a good range of tones Diafine could do it. Personally I'm not too interested in that sort of thing, been done before, but most large format photographers seem to be.

[jack_hui]

Interesting product, just ordered one pack to try.

Just wonder how should we get a suitable metering method for this kind of "positive" paper;
For negative, we exposure for detail, develop for highlight.
For positive paper, should we do the opposite?? exposure for highlight and develop for detail???

[Daniel_Buck]

I've still not gotten around to trying some developers or techniques for getting less contrast, but I would expose for two stops of "middle grey" that should put everything else brighter at pure white, everything else darker at pure black. At least if you develop the paper using normal developing methods.

So put what you want to thave detail, at Zone 5 or so.

[jack_hui]

I've still not gotten around to trying some developers or techniques for getting less contrast, but I would expose for two stops of "middle grey" that should put everything else brighter at pure white, everything else darker at pure black. At least if you develop the paper using normal developing methods.

So put what you want to thave detail, at Zone 5 or so.


Daniel,

Have you tried water bath method (to reduce the contrast) ??

Jack

[Daniel_Buck]

No, I haven't had much time to experiment, I hope to get around to it sometime!

[jack_hui]

No, I haven't had much time to experiment, I hope to get around to it sometime!


Daniel,

Just want to get more info before I start,

your previous posted picture
http://www.buckshotsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/positive_paper_031.jpg

what was the Dektol temperature/ratio/development time ???

Thanks
Jack

[Daniel_Buck]

I can't remember now, I used whatever was suggested on the package I believe.

[willwilson]

Freestyle just called me and said that the fiber version of this paper was not going to be manufactured any longer only RC. Bummer :(

[Daniel_Buck]

will they be carrying the RC for a while? if not, I'd better stock up on some, cause I know I'm eventually going to want to start shooting it more often, when I get time to experiment more!

[Philippe Grunchec]

Great pictures, Daniel! Too bad if Fotokemika stops producing the FB paper... would have loved to try!

[SVS Inc]

Guys, does anyone of you understand how does this paper work? Why does it produce positive without bleaching, flashing and redeveloping (like it goes with conventional slides)? Because I can not understand it at all.. :confused:

[tiredofthegift]

I know this is an old post - I have 6 unopened packs of this paper for sale, if anyone wants it.. contact me info2@dr5.com

[Roger Cole]

Interesting thought that this brings up - has anyone tried printing dr5 or other B&W transparencies onto Harman direct positive paper?

[tiredofthegift]

..a few. For the very flat films it works well. It is a very contrasty paper, made for paper negs, pinhole and the like. Same for the Ilford. This EFKE paper has more silver - deeper blacks.

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, I knew it was rather contrasty. I wonder if some combination of pre-flashing and a soft working developer could tame it?

For that matter though, unlike color slides which would result in non-panchromatic paper not being exposed in the yellow to red areas, I imagine you could print B&W transparencies by just using two generations - printing onto regular paper, VC if you like, then contact printing the resulting paper negative.