PDA

View Full Version : Paper Negative Workflows For Various Results



Fragomeni
11-Jan-2011, 23:32
Hi all. I've been interested in paper negatives for some time. I recently acquired a 20x24 view camera so paper negs have jumped to the top of my list. Now there are already a number of threads on the subject on this forum and others so lets try to keep this streamlined and avoid getting off track.

I'm hoping that those who have worked in the medium can chime in and provide some specific information: What workflow(s) have you found to be most successful for a particular concept i.e. sharp negatives and prints, soft focus, grain vs no grain, in-camera paper negatives, paper inter-negatives, digital paper negatives, etc. Please break down the information you provide and be specific about what exactly you do and the results that you've experienced. It will be a good idea to list the specific papers you use, chemistry, times, techniques, waxed vs unwaxed, RC or fiber, retouching, etc.

No comments on the validity of paper negatives please. This is not an argument as to whether or not people should use paper negatives and why.

I don't have my own workflow down yet but to start off I'll share some information that I received from Peter Liepke (http://www.peterliepke.com/) via email a couple of days ago in regard to his techniques which he uses to produce beautiful soft focus pictorialist images printed typically in Gum Bichromate, Platinum, and Oil. Peter referred me to November/December 2007 issue of View Camera in which he offers a thorough explanation of his paper negative technique. In summary, he uses a system of making paper-internegatives that involves scanning 4x5 negatives into Photoshop where he does minimal modification aside from dust removal and dodging and burning and he does not use any curves as of the View Camera writing. Using Epson brand "Photo Quality Inkjet Paper" and an Epson 4800 he prints the inverted paper negative under the "custom" printer setting and using the Advanced Black and White (ABW) Photo settings (he selects Premium Semi-Gloss Photo setting to trick the printer into allowing him to use the ABW settings). He mentions that he shifts the horizontal and vertical settings to horizontal -50 and vertical +50 which shifts the color of the negative to a greenish hue. Using regular paraffin wax and a hot griddle he applies wax to both sides of the negative and blots off the excess with paper towels until the wax is a thin even coating with little to no streaking. His exposure times range between 2 and 10 minutes under a homemade 500-watt UV fluorescent light unit.

Anyone with experience using Ilford's new direct positive paper please chime in as well with your workflow. Especially with information dealing with contrast as well as how you work your prints i.e. bleaching in place of dodging and burning, etc.

Thanks all in advance for your contributions. I hope this turns into a resourceful thread.

jnantz
12-Jan-2011, 06:00
hi francesco ...

i have been making large format paper negatives for a number of years ... it started
off because i couldn't afford film for some of my cameras, now i would rather expose
paper than film, besides being fun, there are qualities with the paper that i find are
very hard to replicate with film, although i am getting close ...

one of the most important things you can do when you make negatives out of paper
is test your materials. in a controlled environment take a small format, even a
35mm and try to nail down your paper's asa.
papers i use vary from below 1 to 25. i usually use ilford, kodak, and agfa paper.
(kodak is around asa 20 and ilford around asa 6, the agfa is around asa 2 ... )

i try not to expose the paper in really bright/harsh light, but flattish light so
the contrast isn't too off the charts. lenses i use are uncoated and old, so flat light works great.
to process the paper, i typically use ansco 130 bath and a water bath. the pretty dark / exhausted
works great, and a 2nd bath that is fresh.
it takes a while to figure out what a good paper negative looks like. it is nothing like a good film negative.
film you want a nice contrast range, and sometimes some "meat" ...
paper you want it to look kind of thin. you can scan and invert to see what your negatives look like if you want.

to print, sometimes i just send a file to my lab and they print it for me, other times i
just get the receiving paper wet, and the negative wet stick them together, and
expose through the negative onto the paper. it isn't hard. but because of
the paper it can take a long time.

good luck ( and have fun ! )

john

csant
12-Jan-2011, 07:18
If contrast is still a bit too high on the negative, you can consider using a yellow filter. Paper negatives are fun, enjoy :)

Jim Noel
12-Jan-2011, 09:42
If contrast is still a bit too high on the negative, you can consider using a yellow filter. Paper negatives are fun, enjoy :)

A yellow filter will only increase the contrast.
I make paper negatives in camera frequently and do not subject them to a computer. It is important to stay away from contrasty scenes as much as possible. Develop in a very soft working developer. Paper developers are by nature much more active than film developers so if they are used they should be highly diluted. I generally use a modified film developer.

The second part of the problem is the print. When paper negatives were the only method available, up until about 1850 but the exact date escapes me, they were printed on salted paper. Salted paper is the longest scaled of all the processes and thus attenuates the contrast of the paper negative.

A few years ago I had the privilege of printing a paper negative from the 1840's. Futile attempts had been made by the printers at the museum to make a silver print. The answer was a salt print using a very light weight paper sized in the same manner as papers of the 1840's. The final print exhibits full detail in the shadows and highlights.

Jim

Jim Noel
12-Jan-2011, 09:45
I forgot to mention that paper negatives of the 19th century were waxed which made them amazingly transparent.
I only do this occasionally when I cannot find the fiber based single weight paper I prefer.

Jim

Fragomeni
12-Jan-2011, 10:16
Interesting responses. I have two workflows I'm working on streamlining: one is for producing in-camera paper negs that don't go to the computer (prefered based on principle) and the other is based on Peter's technique which I discussed in my initial post.

For the in-camera method, which I plan to use with my mammoth 20x24, I'll first experiment with RC negatives. I understand that they're not archival but I'm less concerned about the archival standing power of negs then prints. I've heard good accounts of people making exposures on Ilford RC in-camera the same way that they would film and then developing and waxing in paraffin to achieve a transparent negative which prints easily. Any direct advice on this method?

For the paper-internegatives modeled after Peter Liepke's method, I plan to capture on 35mm and 120 and probably digital as well and then print the negative on my 4800. I'm interested in which paper will work best. I'll try Peter's recommendation but I've worked a little with 68lb artist vellum which seems promising. Its around the thickness of a gloss inkjet photo paper but is already very transparent. I don't know how it takes to waxing yet. If the paraffin effects it like it does inkjet paper then this may produce an exceptionally transparent negative. Only testing will tell. Any further advice on this method?

Also, I have Mark Nelson's PDN and I've been participating in the private Yahoo group for users. Unfortunately, PDN's prospects for silver-gel negatives on InkPress transparency does not look promising. I'm basing this off of the common knowledge that silver digital negs are more difficult to produce then one for alt-processes and based on the accounts of the members of the group. This has led me to translate my energies with PDN over to my other intention with the system which is to produce paper negatives. Can anyone offer any experience and advice for possibly streamlining the processes using PDN. Be as specific as possible please.

PViapiano
12-Jan-2011, 10:26
Well, first, Peter Liepke's negs are digital... not in-camera as I suppose you're looking to create with your 20x24. You should probably use the thinnest base paper you can find, maybe Slavich, and just start experimenting.

Some have used RC paper and peeled the backing off after processing in order to get a more translucent negative, but that could be tricky.

If you have smaller camera, experiment with that first. It'll be a lot less expensive and easier to handle until you get results you're satisfied with.

csant
12-Jan-2011, 14:34
A yellow filter will only increase the contrast.

That is not my experience. Since paper is orthochromatic, doesn't a yellow filter help balancing by stopping part of that light to which the paper is most sensitive…?

Fragomeni
12-Jan-2011, 22:53
Ok, I notice people saying to be careful of high contrast scenes. That makes me think. I do a lot with multiple negatives and masking. I plan to utilize these skills with paper negatives. My question is has anyone had success using multiple negatives of the same subject to get over the contrast obstacle if that makes sense?

Also, i am a zone system user. I am accustomed to knowing the zone range that film is capable of recording and I can go ahead and meter my scene and plug in my factors which allows me to place my shadows where I want them and I can control my highlights in development. How does the Zone System apply to paper negatives? How many zones can be recorded on a piece of paper? I usually stick with zones 3-7 as being the recordable range on film, do I need to change this thinking for paper negatives? Paper develops to completion (usually) so is there a way that I can push or pull my highlights or is it a matter of dodging and burning during printing?

Fragomeni
13-Jan-2011, 00:18
I just ordered Andrew Sanderson's book on paper negatives. Hopefully it offers some useful information. I liked his book on night photography so hopefully this stands up to that one.

jnantz
13-Jan-2011, 05:38
hi francesco

you might want to just load up something small and play/test. :)
paper's cheap, and you can tests in a controlled setting,
( studio, basement, home &C ) so you can process your test exposures
right away, like a polaroid ...
then when you figure our your iso or how you want to tweak it,
go outside in different light and bracket your exposures.
you might also want to explore flashing the paper it can help
in difficult lighting.

i haven't done it yet, but caffenol c is a great low contrast developer,
it might work miracles with high contrast scenes and paper negative ...

have fun!
john

Fragomeni
13-Jan-2011, 10:38
hi francesco

you might want to just load up something small and play/test. :)
paper's cheap, and you can tests in a controlled setting,
( studio, basement, home &C ) so you can process your test exposures
right away, like a polaroid ...
then when you figure our your iso or how you want to tweak it,
go outside in different light and bracket your exposures.
you might also want to explore flashing the paper it can help
in difficult lighting.

i haven't done it yet, but caffenol c is a great low contrast developer,
it might work miracles with high contrast scenes and paper negative ...

have fun!
john


I like to research and get as much information as I can ahead of time. That's my intention with posting questions like these. I could go ahead and just dive in but then it would be highly likely that I would make simple mistakes that asking questions could have prevented. I'd rather not waste materials on mistakes that could have been avoided. Also, when I begin something after thorough research I find that I go further with it quicker. After all I'm standing on the shoulders of all of those who shared their experiences with me :)

Oh and I'll check out the developer you mentioned. Sounds interesting!

James Hilton
14-Jan-2011, 06:19
Peter referred me to November/December 2007 issue of View Camera in which he offers a thorough explanation of his paper negative technique. In summary, he uses a system of making paper-internegatives that involves scanning 4x5 negatives into Photoshop where he does minimal modification aside from dust removal and dodging and burning and he does not use any curves as of the View Camera writing. Using Epson brand "Photo Quality Inkjet Paper" and an Epson 4800 he prints the inverted paper negative under the "custom" printer setting and using the Advanced Black and White (ABW) Photo settings (he selects Premium Semi-Gloss Photo setting to trick the printer into allowing him to use the ABW settings).
I don't do in camera negatives anymore but do a lot of printing from paper negatives created with my Epson inkjet (mainly for cyanotypes) so will offer some thoughts on the later.

Epson Photo Quality Inkjet Paper has been used for years by many as it takes bees wax well, becomes pretty transparent as it is thin being only 102g/sm, and is cheap. The only problem is the current stuff isn't the same as the old stuff, it doesn't take wax as well now. I find with the current paper baby oil works better if you want reduced grain, as it soaks into everything, but you have to really let it dry out fully.

In truth, paper negatives can either be easy or hard, and many people really do over compilcate the process! The easy route is when you are printing on normal enlarging paper. You can actually just use RC Glossy inkjet paper with a thin back or better still backlight film. It works very well once you have worked out what adjustment curves to use in Photoshop and the contact prints resulting will be sharper than most people expect. The most time consuming part is creating the correction curves.

The much harder route is when you use one of the alternative processes that is only UV light sensitive. Most will use OHP film but there are a few out there making paper negatives.

I've done many trials with lots of different paper types and types of wax/oil etc to see what works best and I still end up using Epson Photo Quality Inkjet Paper with pure bees wax or baby oil. Exposure times are long and you get some grain but it seems to work well and the paper is easy to get hold of here in the UK.

I wax the paper in one go on a large plate warmer. When I say one go, I mean I put enough wax on to do the whole side of the sheet without stopping, I found you could get uneven waxing if you did one part, then another, then another. I also wax both sides of the paper. If using baby oil I just use a sheet of glass and keep working it in.

The important thing is to be consistent, that way you can develop a more accurate correction curve in Photoshop as there will be less variables to worry about.

If you are using paper negatives I would recommend you use hot pressed watercolour paper, that way you can get a lot of detail. I find a rough not watercolour paper does not work so well. A vacuum easel is useful, but not essential for smaller sizes, but for a paper negative over 12x16 I would say it is almost essential.

If you are going for the look of a paper negative and don’t want the fuss of coating paper with wax etc, use OHP film and add grain etc in Photoshop. I would say that way is less fun though!

A lot of older articles were written from the days when inkjet printers were not as good as they are today so suggest using b&w inksets etc, or paper/film that is no longer made or say quality is poor etc. The inkjet of choice at the moment for people making inkjet negatives seems to be the Epson 3800/3880. Pizza wheel marks can be a problem on cheaper consumer printers when printing on OHP film. There are inks in the current Epson and HP pigment ink sets that block UV well for alternative processes.

Most of all, enjoy the process! And check the internet, there is a huge amount of free information out there. But be warned, if you are the type of person who likes to do lots of testing (and making inkjet negatives requires lots of testing), you could become very addicted to it! :)

Fragomeni
14-Jan-2011, 15:20
I have some questions that I'll post later. In the meantime im trying to track this paper down. It seems that the name has been changed to Epson Presentation Paper Matte. Can someone confirm the current name of the paper please?

Fragomeni
14-Jan-2011, 15:24
Also, with waxing, I'm hearing that people most commonly are using Paraffin to wax or baby oil to oil. Can anyone who's used both speak to which works better and why? I can understand how wax would need to be applied a certain way otherwise it would cause streaks but with baby oil it would seem that you could immerse the neg in the oil and rub it in getting a fully saturated neg with an even distribution of oil. Thoughts?

James Hilton
14-Jan-2011, 16:48
It seems that the name has been changed to Epson Presentation Paper Matte. Can someone confirm the current name of the paper please?

Yes, in the USA that is what the paper is now called. Here in the UK it is still called Photo Quality Inkjet Paper.


Also, with waxing, I'm hearing that people most commonly are using Paraffin to wax or baby oil to oil. Can anyone who's used both speak to which works better and why?

It depends on the paper. The problem you often have with paraffin wax is paper can have bits which simply don't absorb the wax well. I have found it tends to happen more with papers that have optical brighteners in them. You end up with more grain as a result.

Baby oil tends to be absorbed better so can result in a clearer negative, with less grain in the final print. However there are disadvantages. The main problem is drying - you often need to leave them a few days in a warm area, if you don't when they get hot during exposure the baby oil just comes out and ruins your print. You could immerse the negative in oil but you need to make sure it dries evenly and you quickly get the excess off when you wipe it out of the oil. The drying over time can also lead to uneven density (waxed negatives don't suffer from the problem).

Paraffin can produce a slightly more transparent negative than beeswax, but beeswax masks the grain of the paper better so can produce a smoother negative.

Unless you have a big plate warmer I would suggest baby oil is a better way to start as you can just put the paper on glass and apply it. It will give you an idea of what is possible with a paper negative and is cheap. Waxing takes a bit more practice to get right.

Fragomeni
14-Jan-2011, 17:06
Thanks so much for the help by the way!

Ok, I was unable to find any paraffin but baby oil was no problem. I'm running a number of tests on different substrates for digital negs for silver printing. I've just oiled a Epson paper negative with baby oil and its drying now. Is there a best practice for oiling? I've head that some rub the oil into the paper. Also, as far as drying goes, I blotted the oiled paper between paper towels until there didnt appeat to be any excess oil coming off. Can I blow dry the oiled negs with a hair dryer or is there a better way to dry them and get them to dry cleanly and evenly?

Fragomeni
15-Jan-2011, 20:22
I've made a few negatives for the purpose of seeing how it oil behaves on the paper and found that after blotting the excess oil off the paper I can leave it sandwiched between two sheets of paper for about 24 hours (change the paper if oil stains appear) and I end up with a nice evenly dried neg.


You can actually just use RC Glossy inkjet paper with a thin back or better still backlight film. It works very well once you have worked out what adjustment curves to use in Photoshop and the contact prints resulting will be sharper than most people expect. The most time consuming part is creating the correction curves.

I found the comment about backlight film very interesting. I hadn't heard of this before so I'll have to get some and give it a try. How does it compare to Epson Photo Quality Paper/ Presentation Paper Matte? I'm interested in finding out which materials print the sharpest images, which ones have interesting grain characteristics, and are overall best for digital paper negatives.

Does anyone have experience to offer regarding in-camera paper negatives. I'll be working with these a lot with the ULF camera so some starting points would be nice. I think I'll probably work with RC paper because of the lack of grain and increase in sharpness over fiber paper (I will of course be printing onto fiber paper though) and if the oil works the same I'll use that. Any experience with the best way to wax or oil an in-camera neg? Is it the same as with regular paper?

James Hilton
16-Jan-2011, 10:16
I found the comment about backlight film very interesting. I hadn't heard of this before so I'll have to get some and give it a try. How does it compare to Epson Photo Quality Paper/ Presentation Paper Matte? I'm interested in finding out which materials print the sharpest images, which ones have interesting grain characteristics, and are overall best for digital paper negatives.

Backlight film is in reality just plastic with a ink receiving layer on it. Because it is plastic it has no grain and you can get pinsharp prints using it. The film tends to block UV so it is not so good for alternative processes that use UV light. For traditional silver prints it is good, though often hard/expensive to get hold of.

To summarise, if you are printing to silver paper, use OHP or backlight film for almost no grain at all. Use RC high gloss thin paper for a tiny bit more grain, but still very slight. Use oiled/waxed thin matt paper (like Epson PQP) paper for medium grain/texture, and use plan matt paper for lots of grain/texture.

If you are printing using an alternative process that requires UV, use OHP film for almost no grain. Use oiled/waxed paper for medium grain/texture, and using matt or gloss paper with no wax/oil results in very long exposure times, with a barely any image and lots of grain, so it is useless really.

jnantz
16-Jan-2011, 11:11
not all is lost if you do not wax or oil your paper
it is very easy to do direct contact prints to silver gelatin.

the attached prints were made with 8x10 paper as
an in-camera negative ( kodak fiber based paper ) and contact printed
onto what was sold by photowarehouse as "made in england"
fiber based paper, from all reports it was ilford fb mg.

the emulsion was put in contact with the emulsion, a glass plate put on top
to keep them touching and the light turned on.
there isn't excessive grain or barely any image ...

i guess, what works for some people doesn't work for others, ...

good luck with your research

john

Fragomeni
16-Jan-2011, 15:09
Backlight film is in reality just plastic with a ink receiving layer on it.
I see. So to clarify, backlight film is different then inkjet transparency film i.e. OHP or InkPress?


not all is lost if you do not wax or oil your paper
it is very easy to do direct contact prints to silver gelatin.
Thats part of the beauty of paper negs, there are so many ways to work with them!

Ok, here is another question: what is the best way to determine the ISO of the paper used for in-camera negs? I think Ilford may actually state some paper ISOs but I'm not sure. Is there a procedure for this? If so can someone explain it in detail please.

Also, is there any way to control contrast in paper negs like in using film i.e. I can push or pull development to get sky from zone 6 to zone 7 if I want to. I understand that paper basically develops to completion so pushing and pulling by development time is out of the question. It is simply a matter of controlling it in the printing i.e. dodging and burning or masking?

jnantz
17-Jan-2011, 06:16
francesco

the iso printed on the box is relative to paper, not to film.

James Hilton
17-Jan-2011, 06:17
I see. So to clarify, backlight film is different then inkjet transparency film i.e. OHP or InkPress?

Yes they are different. OHP film is clear or almost clear plastic. Backlight film is still plastic but usually milky white to white in appearance and is not clear, it is almost always opaque. The idea is the white colour diffuses the backlight shining through it.

Backlight film works for silver paper, but not so well for alternative processes requiring exposure to UV as the backlight film tends to block most of the UV giving very long exposure times.

With regard to paper ISOs, from testing I recall I concluded that the ISO for RC Ilford MGIV was around 6-10. It can vary depending on the lighting but it is around there. But this will not be the same ISO as a homemade paper negative using silver emulation etc. The only way is to test I’m afraid.

jnantz
17-Jan-2011, 07:31
With regard to paper ISOs, from testing I recall I concluded that the ISO for RC Ilford MGIV was around 6-10. It can vary depending on the lighting but it is around there. But this will not be the same ISO as a homemade paper negative using silver emulation etc. The only way is to test I’m afraid.

exactly !

Fragomeni
17-Jan-2011, 10:18
Yes, what I'm asking is what is the iso of specific papers used in-camera for negatives? I plan to use Ilford RC paper (not sure which one yet). Is it marked on the box? If its marked on the box is that an accurate iso for using in-camera or is the box iso specific to something else? Otherwise how can I test the paper to find the exact working in-camera iso (please be specific with instructions)? Sorry if that wasn't initially clear.

Fragomeni
17-Jan-2011, 10:48
I've posted this as a new post actually to get as many viewers as possible. I've been looking around all over for instructions on testing the iso of paper for use as in-camera negs and I haven't found any explicit instructions. Can someone simply explain exactly how to do it? Here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=71130) is the new post I made by the way. Thank you.