my Fuji fp-100c45 negative process

[jp]

Read elsewhere about using bleach to remove the black backing from the otherwise disposed of negatives, there were some recommendations for a gel like bleach which I could not obtain locally. I found some drano gel that does a real effective job.

Walmart had Drano Max Gel, which the contents warned not to mix with ammonia, so I figured it had to be bleach based.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/_DSC1450.JPG

Put the negative emulsion side down on a horizontal surface you don't mind some bleach getting on. My darkroom sink worked for this. I dispensed about 3ml of this Drano product into the back of the negative, and spread it around with the corner of a folded paper towel. After about a minute, wipe it off with the paper towel, and rinse the work area and negative. It should be clean of the black stuff, if not, a couple more ml of Drano should be applied and process repeated.

Then I washed it in cold water. There is a somewhat caustic chemical that is dried over the emulsion. This comes off in cold water with gentle rinsing and contact. You can use your fingers, but they will dried by this process, even though you are doing it under cold water. A soft washcloth would probably be a better choice. A flat bottom tray is ideal for this part.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/_DSC1452.JPG

Here's the cleaned up negative backlit.

After a good rinse, I photoflo'd it and hang it up to dry.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/_DSC1453.JPG

[dng88]

Any positive photos scanned? Result ok? Seems would be a great process!

Do you think the E6 bleach would work? Why it has to be gel like?

Sorry just too interested.

[peter schrager]

thanks for the info
peter

[Sdrubansky]

Didn't know you could do that.. have to give it a try.

Thanks for sharing.

M

[Sdrubansky]

..also, will this work with fp-100b45?

[tbeaman]

I've been reading up on this and looking at examples and it's pretty exciting. Most people have been doing it to scan, but theoretically, you could make optical prints from these as well. Apparently, the negative isn't exactly T55, but it does appear to be sharper, have better color fidelity, and a much higher dynamic range than the print.

[Ash]

damn!! should never have chucked all those gammy black sheets!

[jp]

Any positive photos scanned? Result ok? Seems would be a great process!

Do you think the E6 bleach would work? Why it has to be gel like?

Sorry just too interested.

The interest in a gel bleach product is to keep it off the emulsion. The pioneers of this used to tape the negative down to keep runny liquid bleach from getting under the negative and ruining the emulsion.

[Lars Daniel]

Can we see some scans?

[mcfactor]

That is really cool. Does it have to be done soon after exposure?

[jp]

I made another image this evening, of a lower contrast subject, but I accidentally didn't sufficiently clean the work surface of bleach, and some leftover dilute bleach ruined the emulsion almost instantly. Moral of story is to keep the bleach off the emulsion. I also managed to drop my other negative which I posted here in a tray of water, so it's drying again and I won't be able to scan it this evening. You can do this anytime after exposure; weeks if you want.

[patrickjames]

I have found the green 3M automotive painter's tape in the auto section of WalMart works well with this process, seals well, releases easily and can be had for a few bucks.

[Sdrubansky]

Experiment with similar process on FP-100B45

Summary of process:

Developed photo and let peeled part dry.
Removed all excess paper around peel and washed under cold water.
Allowed to dry.
Taped negative emulsion face down onto a piece of glass.
Spread bleach-based plumbing cleaner gel on the back of negative with a paint brush
and allowed it work for about a minute, softening the black part with the brush.
Cleaned thoroughly under cold water and hung to dry.


To my surprise the result isn't a B/W negative but a somewhat solarized colour
positive with a heavy yellow/orange hue (pic1).

A quick greyscale positive scan reveals more detailed shadow areas and
solarized highlights when compared with it's instant print twin (pic2 & 3).

M

[VictoriaPerelet]

Hello M.
Solarization that you are getting on negative is effect of simultaneous exposure to light and developer. (same applies to fp100c, but for color you will get magenta cast). You can avoid it by separating neg in darkness and very carefully washing it under cold water. Also, you may notice that effective ISO of neg is few stops over than positive. Overall fp100b neg is close to Polaroid type 37 described in AA Polaroid book. I did posted few sample scans of both processed fp100c and fp100b in pictures forum here, but I do not know how to find them.

Also there were few posts on flikr, but neither of them mentioned necessary chemical processing needed.

[Sdrubansky]

Thanks Victoria,
It's going to be fun experimenting with both colour and BW FP-100.

Ciao
M

[Marco Polo]

Some people claim that if you wait 3 minutes or longer with FP-100B the negative self-terminates and you won't get any solarization.

On another note, I've had trouble scanning my FP-100C negatives, anyone have any hints on getting the colors to look right? I use an Epson 3200 scanner.

[jp]

Thanks M for posting the B&W work; I bet you'd get even different results still if you printed that neg in the darkroom.

I took a couple minutes and scanned my image used in the process demonstration.

I'm not a master scanner guru, and I don't scan too much color (except what my daughter makes with construction paper and crayons), so someone with more time or talent could do much better. This is with my v700.

Heres what I used for scanning settings, then did some final tweeking of the curves in gimp where I resized it for here.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/img253scan.jpg

Here's the output from the negatives that was scanned using the transparency option.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/img253.jpg

Here's a quicky and dirty scan of the positive using the reflective scanning option.

http://www.f64.nu/photo/tmp/lff/instant/img254.jpg

I noticed a couple different things about the negative. As M showed, the negative holds a lot more highlight detail than the instant positive. The negative also seems to attract less dust than the positive. I put the negative in my 4x5 epson holder, and it was about 1/16" too long to properly fit. No big deal, if it's not a high res scan, you could just flop it on the glass and scan it, or you could trim it with a papercutter or scissors if needed. Some pinking shears would be a nice creative effect. The Fuji negatives have huge lomo potential for scanner operators of questionable skill. They have some quality potential if your color tweeking skills are better than mine. I think a lower contrast original would scan and color adjust a lot easier.

[Marco Polo]

jp,

Thanks for posting. I like the negative more than the print. With a little tweaking it would make a nice print.

[Brian C. Miller]

I recovered the negative on the first try, after BS Kumar gave me a hint about threading the paper through the rollers properly. I'll have to play with exposure and "development" times. My first negative is pretty thin. The Epson scanning software couldn't automatically find the image, so I had to play with it a bit to scan the image. Yes, the negative has a brown cast to it. I haven't tried to make a real print with it.

I like the Fuji product, and I like it better than the Polaroid 550 style pack film. But this really isn't a real replacement for Type 55. I'll have to stock up on it, as I like it to use as a check before making an exposure.