View Full Version : Paper negative vs film
johnschlicher
6-Oct-2009, 18:40
I shoot paper negatives--8 x 10
just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this. I have some buddies that laugh at me for doing this b/c it not a gelatin negative. I think I can produce the same results as negative--I just can't prove it--I've tried to scan my prints to this site before. They always come out looking like shit. I have a HP 3300c, I can't afford a high dollar scanner.
Maybe some members can post some of thier paper negatives???
BetterSense
6-Oct-2009, 19:18
just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this. I have some buddies that laugh at me for doing this b/c it not a gelatin negative.
Of course it's a gelatin negative. It's just on a different substrate.
I shoot paper all the time because I'm poor. It's slow. It's orthochromatic and high contrast. Preflashing helps. Yellow filters help. It costs $.40 a sheet, and glossy RC contact prints very well.
It definitely provides a different look than film.
johnschlicher
6-Oct-2009, 19:43
Wow--I have never pre-flashed --- I do use yellow filters--I like matte rc for the negative when I use glossy the finish print looks some what flat--( i should say when I use glossy outdoors it comes out flat--in a controlled studio environment it works great
Greg Lockrey
6-Oct-2009, 19:45
Pinhole photgraphers use paper all the time. One trick of getting good looking images is to flash the paper first. How much??? That's part of the fun of learning the medium. ;) ;)
johnschlicher
6-Oct-2009, 19:50
Of course it's a gelatin negative. It's just on a different substrate.
I shoot paper all the time because I'm poor. It's slow. It's orthochromatic and high contrast. Preflashing helps. Yellow filters help. It costs $.40 a sheet, and glossy RC contact prints very well.
It definitely provides a different look than film.
How long do you pre-flash??
Just another broke photographer talking to a peer, thanks John
Greg Lockrey
6-Oct-2009, 20:11
How long do you pre-flash??
Just another broke photographer talking to a peer, thanks John
Over on the f295 site there is a ton of information. I picked this guy for a reference point to start since he does a lot of pinholes with paper negs. Look up JoeVanCleave when you get there by going to the search section and typing in his name.
http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl?v-search/p-2/
john
i shoot a lot of paper too, some portraits and some "other" stuff ...
i'm broke too, and paper is a lot less expensive than film ..
did you want people to post their negatives, or prints/inverted scans ??
john
johnschlicher
6-Oct-2009, 20:54
john
i shoot a lot of paper too, some portraits and some "other" stuff ...
i'm broke too, and paper is a lot less expensive than film ..
did you want people to post their negatives, or prints/inverted scans ??
john
YES-----------Would love to see your work and others
Greg Lockrey
6-Oct-2009, 22:45
Here is a better thread from f295 on paper negatives. http://www.f295.org/Pinholeforum/forum/Blah.pl?m-1201806882/s-new/
I just posted a paper negative over in the "water's edge" thread - it was one of my first, and there's a lot to learn yet. It has a different look, but whether it's better or worse is a matter of taste. I like it :)
Robert Hughes
7-Oct-2009, 08:58
I shoot paper all the time because I'm poor. It's slow. It's orthochromatic and high contrast. Preflashing helps. Yellow filters help. It costs $.40 a sheet, and glossy RC contact prints very well.
It definitely provides a different look than film.
And, as we discussed a few weeks ago, you can also shoot x-ray film - IE 100 at less than $.40 per sheet.
YES-----------Would love to see your work and others
hi john
there are a few threads floating around where i have posted paper negative images ...
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22479&d=1234113732
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22478&d=1234113694
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=28169&d=1246553040
and most recently on the last page of the water's edge thread ...
i have more but not "here" ...
john
and most recently on the last page of the water's edge thread ...
Aha, thanks for confirming my suspicion :) it really looked like a paper neg… Great work, btw!
How long do you pre-flash??
Just another broke photographer talking to a peer, thanks John
You pre-flash for as long as necessary to NOT produce extra density. Pretty easy to test in the darkroom.
Once you know how long the maximum time is (and of course you recorded how your enlarger or light source is set up so the process is repeatable) you can always pre-flash a little bit less. That part you figure out after making some test exposures and a little bit of developer testing.
I think it took all of an hour and a couple sheets of paper to find what I am happy with.
YMMV of course! And changing papers means a new test. I suppose I should re-test when I open a new box too.
BetterSense
8-Oct-2009, 13:18
You pre-flash for as long as necessary to NOT produce extra density. Pretty easy to test in the darkroom.
I flash more than that. I flash enough to put detectable tone on the paper if its immediately developed. I don't think a little "base fog" will hurt my images, in fact I think it helps them.
I flash more than that. I flash enough to put detectable tone on the paper if its immediately developed. I don't think a little "base fog" will hurt my images, in fact I think it helps them.
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?
BetterSense
8-Oct-2009, 17:48
simply contrast reduction. Often when contact printing the shadows of the print are properly exposed before the highlights are, requiring careful burning. Heavy preflashing ensures I'm preflashing "enough" while the slight amount of fog introduced doesn't really do anything, and if it does, it's in holding the deep shadows back when printing.
Darryl Baird
8-Oct-2009, 22:01
I occasionally shoot paper negs for a quick test or proof, but I tested some papers for a potential large architectural project in the future... using some vintage optics. I took the advise of Russ Young (who frequents the forum periodically) and use Ilford warmtone VC with a yellow filter... thus lowering the contrast a bit. What hasn't been discussed here so far (I think) is the ability to develop paper by inspection and also using lower contrast developers and dilution techniques. Also, uncoated optics will open up those shadows more than modern (contrasty) optics.
here's a sample: 8x10 paper neg.
Tony Karnezis
8-Oct-2009, 22:43
I haven't done any paper negs but I know someone who has. Check out the work of Chris McCaw. No preflashing necessary--the sun simply burns holes in the paper. Very cool stuff.
http://www.chrismccaw.com/SUNBURN/SUNBURN.html
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
9-Oct-2009, 20:25
I love paper negs. Not film for sure ... but cool & good Wet plate exposure experience. SLooooow ...
Michael Heald
9-Oct-2009, 20:41
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
9-Oct-2009, 21:12
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).
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-Fotokemika-Efke-BandW-Positive-Paper-RC-Matt-4x5-25-sheets?cat_id=502
SteveKarr
11-Oct-2009, 13:43
Sweet ... Please show samples when you get it.
Steve
Darryl Baird
11-Oct-2009, 16:19
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
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
12-Oct-2009, 10:42
here's a sample: 8x10 paper neg.[/QUOTE]
Very nice image. Thanks for posting.
Mike
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.
bobwysiwyg
17-Oct-2009, 15:33
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.
Please do a follow-up post. I would be most interested in how you resolve those issues. It's on my list of things to try.
..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.
Good idea.
Three problems:
It is stiffer than normal film, so it's tougher to slide in.
Yep, specially considering that paper size is bigger than film. See below.
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?
You learn with experience. They feel distinctively different, just learn the feeling of it :)
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.
Yes, paper is cut more generously. You can either cut the paper down, which can be some hassle to getting right to the mm, or you can use the slightly bigger metric holders - for 4x5 paper use the 9x12 holders, for 5x7 paper use 13x18, etc. Works like a charm and fits perfectly.
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!
That's the beauty of paper :)
jon.oman
18-Oct-2009, 06:18
Yep, specially considering that paper size is bigger than film. See below.
You learn with experience. They feel distinctively different, just learn the feeling of it :)
Yes, paper is cut more generously. You can either cut the paper down, which can be some hassle to getting right to the mm, or you can use the slightly bigger metric holders - for 4x5 paper use the 9x12 holders, for 5x7 paper use 13x18, etc. Works like a charm and fits perfectly.
That's the beauty of paper :)
Okay, what size holder in mm for 8x10? That is what I would like to shoot.
Okay, what size holder in mm for 8x10? That is what I would like to shoot.
hi jon
just trim a tiny bit ( 1/16th" ) off of the long edge ..
(film holders still retain the name of the plates that used to fit in them )
Okay, what size holder in mm for 8x10? That is what I would like to shoot.
Uhm… I don't think I ever saw a metric equivalent for 8x10… My "etc" in the previous post might have been a bit too optimistic. For 8x10 I'd follow jnanian's suggestion, and I'd trim - but be careful, or you'll trim too much and the sheet will fall into your camera… ;)
russyoung
18-Oct-2009, 13:29
Darryl- glad to know that my method has worked for you.
Sandy- that's a different Young! He is RWY and I'm WRY. Confusing?
Even in the harsh light of New Mexico, contrast was controllable on the Ilford multigrade paper: (1) use of the appropriate yellow filter to lower paper grade to "0" "1/2" or "1" and (2) use of a dilute [I]film[I] developer. When I lived in Scotland, even in what was good Scottish sun of autumn or spring, a grade approximating "1.5" was necessary. I've never needed to pre-flash when using these two tools.
The combination of multigrade and a yellow filter will preserve clouds in the sky and render a realistic gray-value for the sky.
jon.oman
18-Oct-2009, 15:26
Okay, I guess I'll have to trim it. Thanks for the information.
Jon
More update.
It does not appear to be affected by OC safelight. I did a 5 minute test on it, moving a dark slide an inch a minute, and didn't see any gradient upon developing, it was 4' under my 9x12" ish OC safelight on the ceiling.
That made the other steps much easier (especially determining the emulsion side).
It needs about 1/16" trimmed off the 5" side, and it's about a 1/8" long on the 4" side, but I didn't bother to trim the 5" side. I took a piece of film and taped it to my cutting board, and aligned the paper's edge with the film's edge and cut a neat sliver off the paper.
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/_DSC6374.jpg
Once trimmed, it loads into the film holder nicely. You can see which side is the emulsion side pretty easily under the safelight too.
I took a couple photos. I've got a d300 photo of the scene, then the positive paper photo.
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/_DSC6370.JPG
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/20091018a.jpg
See next post for other photos
The last photo is outdoors. I wanted to try a cold rainy outdoor scene incase the color temperature was a major factor in it's use.
I took the liberty to rotate and flip the images when scanning to make comparison easier.
It's fairly high contrast as expected. This is with used dektol 1:1. The paper was exposed at iso 1 with a light yellow filter (as one would use outdoors on normal b&w film), on my speed graphic and 127/4.5. I compensated half a stop for the filter. I metered with a minolta incident light & flash meter.
Detail seems very good. I would suggest a lower contrast developer, or seek scenes where low contrast is a given, or be seeking a high contrast result. I'm up for suggestions for inexpensive and otherwise versatile low contrast paper developer.
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/_DSC6371.jpg
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/20091018b.jpg
http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/pospaper/20091018c.jpg
correction. I trimmed the 5" side, not the 4" side.
redrockcoulee
19-Oct-2009, 09:22
correction. I trimmed the 5" side, not the 4" side.
Nice Classic 900s !
rphenning
20-Oct-2009, 11:04
damn those look so good.
damn those look so good.
Are you being facetious? I thought the results are mediocre so far, and need some more tinkering.
rphenning
21-Oct-2009, 23:25
not at all, I love the look. Definitely inspiring me to try this.
That's good. I'm going to keep playing with it too. I'd be happy with it in more instances if I can get the contrast down a little bit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.