Paper negatives in practice

[JJeffrey]

I'm trying to break back into LF analogue photography after a very long time away from it. Five years ago I *thought* I was bound for an easier lifestyle in which I'd be able to pursue the LF fascination; I had a serious bout of G.A.S. and acquired some wonderful gear, more than enough to keep me working away for years. But circumstances have been such that I could not set up the much-wished-for darkroom. Time and space constraints, massive dust problems, flooded basement, you name it. The gear has sat around unused. Considerably chastened, this year I'm determined to *make a start* somehow or other.

It strikes me that, in the absence of a permanent darkroom, I could probably most easily slide back into LF work by starting out shooting paper negatives. That would be cheaper, easier and less demanding than trying to process sheet film in primitive facilities. I've done some reading up on the subject, not that there's a whole lot written about it. But I know that several people here, Jim Galli, jnanian and gandolfi spring immediately to mind, use the technique regularly. So I have some questions for the more experienced hands at this:

(1) I'm assuming that for sharp, full-range non-atmospheric/pictorial work, probably RC paper with glossy surface would be best? What are the disadvantages, if any, of using resin-coated paper for paper negative work? (I had a brief meeting with RC paper back in the 1980s when I had my last darkroom; didn't much like it, but perhaps it has improved since then?) My guess is it would make a better negative stock due to fewer flatness problems when compared to fibre-based papers.

(2) Are normal paper developers (Dektol, e.g.) adequate for PN work, or would there be any significant advantages in using other developers?

(3) I gather that contrast control can be a problem and that this is often addressed by pre-flashing. Are there any other cc measures I should investigate?

(4) I gather there's some controversy about variable-contrast vs. graded papers for PN work. What real, practical (vs. theoretical) difficulties does VC paper impose?

(5) I was a bit worried about contact-printing technique and gear until I read Oren Grad's forthright post in which he said there was very little wrong with just using a sheet of heavy (3/16") glass in practice. I don't have any old-style printing frames, nor a venerable contact printer, nor any desire to spend $300-500 on a "magnetic" marvel, nor yet any desire to mess with trying to set up a vacuum frame. Since I have no permanent darkroom, less is more must be my watchword for awhile.

(6) I gather that it's possible, still, to obtain the old silver-chloride type contact printing papers -- or at least Azo and Lodima. I've had a look at the michaelandpaula.com website. Will it be worth my while and worth the expense for me to get familiar with the Lodima/Amidol combination right from the outset, for my contact printing? I'll probably be shooting "real" film with 4x5 gear eventually, and using a Beseler 45MCRX to make prints; but that's in the future. Meanwhile I've got a Toyo/Calumet 8x10, a sweet little old Century WP folder, and an Agfa Ansco 5x7 folder; these imply a lot of contact printing in my future unless I want to go to digital prints. How about it -- are the Lodima/Amidol results worth it?

I can think of plenty more questions, but that's probably more than enough to begin with. I actually look forward to learning paper negative technique, which I've never before explored. (For one thing, the slow speed means I can use my barrel-mount lenses without trying to acquire a set of expensive big neutral-density filters.) Help me out, Jim, Emil, John -- please?

[matthew klos]

Nothing about RC is better in my opinion, the fiber would give you a greater tonal range. Developer of choice totally depends on what you are going for, if you are just getting back into things dektol is a good developer. Bostick and Sullivan sell a nice contact frame that isn't 300 or 500 dollars, with a spring back. http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/cart/product.php?cat=38&page=1&productid=51

[banana_legs]

As paper is cheap, try what you have to hand first. I have found that without pre-flashing, the contrast range is far too small for general use, but can be ok in very flat lighting. An accurate light meter is needed though for consistent results when not pre-flashing.

Pre-flash the paper so that it is just fractionally off-white and then expose VC paper (ilford, kentmere and fotospeed all are ok with this) at EI 20 in daylight, or EI 6 if you expose using a yellow filter on the lens. Develop the paper to completion in any paper developer. Expect about 4 or 5 stops range without a yellow filter and a strong response to blue light. With a yellow filter, you will capture over 8 stops range (but the highlights are compressed) and the response is much more biased towards green light. With graded paper, I expose at EI 6 in daylight (no filtering used) and then develop by inspection in a weak paper developer. You should get at least 6 stops if not more but the paper only responds to blue light. None of the B&W paper has a response to red light. For use with a lens, reciprocity correction is not usually a problem but for pinhole work and exposure times in minutes, the reciprocity failure needs to be corrected for.

With RA4 colour paper, it is much much faster. The paper seems to respond at about EI100 for the blue layer, EI50 for the green and EI25 for the red. I develop at room temperature and develop for a few minutes to completion. The paper only seems to capture about 4 stops though and without using colour filtration on the front of the lens, you will saturate the green and blue before getting a decent red exposure. If you can pre-flash it helps, but you need to get the colour balance right for the pre-flash light to give each of the layers a similar exposure. I often use RA4 as a faster B&W paper by just using either the blue layer when shooting through a blue filter (you get a yellow image which does not scan too well though) or alternatively, use a red filter and you get a nice cyan image on the negative to scan.

For contact printing, I like RC because it is a bit thinner and has less 'texture' to disturb the exposure light. I have a printing frame but started out by wetting the negative and the paper to print onto and then squeegeeing them emulsion-to-emulsion on a board. I then expose (negative side nearest the light and contact paper on the board side) and develop, all without a contact frame.

Best regards,

Evan

[Emil Schildt]

I don't know whether I can help, as I am a kind of "hands on" guy, and I tend to do what is easiest and fastest...

That said, I have always used RC papers (glossy)- usually VC ones.

the multicontrast papers gives you the option to place a multigrade filter in front of the lens - and thereby try to controll the contrast in the negative...

I try to make my negatives a little flat (as many greytones as possible), as I can highten this in the printing process...

Nowadays I use FOMA papers - they are not too slow (about10iso) and they actually keep developing for a longer time than many other PC papers I have tried...

you can use the filters as normal in the printing process, but You should also know, that placing a black piece of paper under the paper to print on will highten the contrast a little - a white one will lower it...

Just us a normal piece of glass for contacting the papers (make the egdes dull!)...

works for me, when I use negatives bigger than the normal contact painting size.

try and error... that's what I do..

(I have never pre flashed a paper before exposing, but I am going to try to see what difference that makes)

This is a fun - quick - cheap way of making pictures.

And you say there's not a lot written about it.. Maybe not on the net, but there's some good books about it. I have two.

Have fun.

[JJeffrey]

This is helping a lot already! I'm pleasantly surprised at some of the ISO figures quoted; having seen only 3 to 6 hitherto, discovering that some emulsions are capable of 10 to 20 is nice to learn. I hadn't even considered the colour option, so that info was a bonus.

Evan, your post is the second reference I've seen to squeegeeing the negative wet to the contact printing paper; somehow the idea makes me uneasy. You don't get problems with emulsion damage when the two are separated? And if one saves the PN, I'd think there might be permanency concerns due to possible transfer of unfixed silver halides from the contact paper. Probably I'm worrying about nothing, though.

Obviously contrast control and dynamic range are the major concerns with PN technique. This point needs some thought.

Emil, I have one of those two books (the slim Ward hardback between blue covers); what is the other one?

I'm not bothered by lack of panchromatic spectrum response; rather looking forward to the ortho and blue-sensitive challenge, thinking it may help give me a more trad/retro "look" -- although since I'm in big sky country I'm going to have to figure out how to avoid bald skies. Hmmm.

Just a stray thought -- I noticed whilst perusing the Ilford website that direct-positive paper is still available! Does anyone here have experience with the Harman paper when it's used to produce unique original prints by shooting with it in camera? I know metering would have to be pretty darn careful.

Another stray thought on the subject of contact printing -- are true printing-out papers still being manufactured? I suspect not. Back when I got started they were still in use for studio portrait proofs (because, unfixed, they were not permanent images). An unfixed POP image has a very rich red-brown tone, often verging towards purplish, quite lush and gorgeous; fixed, they turn yellow-brown. I seem to recall that there was a chemical way of preserving the original rich image tone but I've forgotten what it was. Anyway, does POP still exist? (I know any paper can be handled this way in theory, but bromide enlarging papers didn't give that great a result. Maybe Azo or Lodima might, though, being silver chloride emulsions.)

It's great how much information can come out of the woodwork so quickly on these forums.

[Emil Schildt]

Emil, I have one of those two books (the slim Ward hardback between blue covers); what is the other one?

Another stray thought on the subject of contact printing -- are true printing-out papers still being manufactured? I suspect not. .

first question: ward is the one - William Mortensen "the Paper negative" is the other..

one found here:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Paper-Negative-William-Mortensen-1st-Ed-1954-/220552148242?pt=Antiquarian_Collectible&hash=item3359eeb512

Second question (If I am wrong, others will correct me..): No I don't think so. Ilford Harman used to make them, but it proved too dangerous for the staff, so they stopped... (not enough money made compared to the cost it would be to make the safe issu in order I think...)

(LOVED that paper!)

[JJeffrey]

Ouch... over a hundred and fifty bucks for the Mortensen booklet with shipping. Guess I'll wait and look around for the "1987 reprint"; the first edition's too rich for my blood. Nice to be reminded of its existence, though -- thanks.

[Emil Schildt]

Ouch... over a hundred and fifty bucks for the Mortensen booklet with shipping. Guess I'll wait and look around for the "1987 reprint"; the first edition's too rich for my blood. Nice to be reminded of its existence, though -- thanks.

yes - but I noticed one for 40$ there too...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mortensen-negative-William-Mortensen-/230535123916?pt=US_Nonfiction_Book&hash=item35acf6d3cc

(I once paied more than 300$ for a Mortensen book... That was stupid!!:o )

[Ben Calwell]

Gandolfi,
I just tried to load a sheet of old Kodak VC RC paper into one of my 8X10 holders, and the paper was just a tad too wide -- it would bulge out in the middle when fully inserted into the holder.
Do you routinely have to cut the film down a little to fit in the holders?

[Emil Schildt]

Gandolfi,
I just tried to load a sheet of old Kodak VC RC paper into one of my 8X10 holders, and the paper was just a tad too wide -- it would bulge out in the middle when fully inserted into the holder.
Do you routinely have to cut the film down a little to fit in the holders?

Ben - no - most times they seem to fit (I have used old AGFA 18x24 papers lately, and they seem to be a mm too long.. not too wide..)

In older film cassettes I have to cut to size though, but rarely on fidelity cassettes...

[jnantz]

hi jjeffrey

i use a variety of papers, some graded, some vc i don't use much rc, not because it isn't good
but because i don't have much on hand that i'm used to ...

sometimes i flash the paper, but not often. instead, i just try not to shoot in contrasty
light-conditions, overcast is nice. it takes a little getting used to what a good paper
negative looks like ... rather than a dense / full contrast negative sometimes
something that looks light / thinner can give great results ...

you can use any developer you want, dektol works great .. just dilute it way more than 1:2
and if you can save some that is partially used / spent &C and mix it/ cut it with
your fresh stuff you will have and easier time taming your negatives.
i like using really spent ansco 130 ( its black ) and a water bath
and a 2nd bath that is 1:2 to boost the contrast a little.
i also have started to use caffenol C for paper negatives and it works even better ..
it takes longer for the image to come up ( about 2x ) and it isn't as contrasty a developer
so it is a nice combination . ( it doesn't stain the paper brown )

just a regular piece of glass works for me too. while i have a few contact frames,
some big some small - a piece of thick plate glass with the edges burnished / sanded
works fine. before you settle in on a set iso for your paper, expose a handful of sheets at different
speeds and process them separately in your developer / developers
so you can figure out what speed and development methodology works best for you ...

you might have to trim your paper a little bit film is not true to the format size ( 4x5, 8x10, 5x7 &C )
those sizes were PLATE sizes and when people began to use film they stuck those little
septums / sheaths in their plate holders to convert them so the manufacturers made the film
about 1/16" smaller ... and then when plates became less common the manufacturers
never bothered to create a new standard dimension for their films ...

i haven't contact printed paper negatives on silver chloride papers ...
i just use ilford or faux ilford i got from the photo warehouse years ago ...
i am sure lodima or azo papers would yield great results though, just remember
it will take a pretty long exposure ...

have fun !
john

[Ben Calwell]

Gandolfi,
I tried loading the 8X10 paper into one of my old holders that is labeled "Eastman Kodak, made by Graflex."
The paper fits very tightly into the two metal side channels, but the paper, as I said in my earlier post, bulges out a little and doesn't lay flat against the back of the holder.
I have one Fidelity holder -- I'll try that. Perhaps there's a slight difference in sizing. I hope so -- I can't imagine having to precision-cut paper to fit into the holders. Might not be too hard, though -- a straight edge and an Xacto knife.
Thanks for your advice.

[tgtaylor]

Interesting!

I just took one of my 2 8x10 Fidelity Elite holders out and an 8x10 sheet of Fuji CA RC color paper slipped in perfectly. Gonna have to try this.

Thomas

[Randy]

It strikes me that, in the absence of a permanent darkroom, I could probably most easily slide back into LF work by starting out shooting paper negatives. That would be cheaper, easier and less demanding than trying to process sheet film in primitive facilities.
Jeffrey, while I sincerely applaud those who dabble, and master alternative processes (I am going to experiment with 8X10 X-ray film soon) I am not sure why you can't process sheet film...if you can process sheet paper? I lean over my bath tub that contains three trays and routinely process 8X10, 4X5, and soon, 5X7 film.

[JJeffrey]

Randy, 'tisn't a case of "can't" but rather that in primitive and adverse circumstances, it's going to be cheaper and easier to get the bugs worked out using PN -- and why not, since it's an alternative process of which I've been aware for a very long time but never given a serious shot!

Sheet film in 5x7 and up is pretty expensive and I'm not accustomed to tray-processing sheetfilm in total darkness. In 4x5 I was a hangers-and-hard-rubber-tank guy; I've got a set of Kodak 4x5 tanks and probably I *will* go that route with 4x5 once I've made a start. Doubtless I'm pretty rusty, though, and until I conquer the dust problem here I hate to ruin a bunch of expensive sheetfilm.

Xray film is another thing I've considered -- but emulsion on both sides doubles the chances of scratches and I've heard the emulsion is rather soft. Tray processing this stuff may prove, if not frustrating, at least a rather delicate, touchy proposition. Maybe you'll give us a report on this once you've had a good go at it? ;)

Starting afresh like this, I've got an awful lot of variables. Particularly a bunch of lenses and shutters I don't know; many of the shutters could use a CLA and even then will probably be a good ways off marked speeds. I need to standardise a material and process that'll be cheap, easy and available if only for testing purposes. PN sounds like a good bet, and interesting in the bargain.

[JJeffrey]

Gandolfi,
I tried loading the 8X10 paper into one of my old holders that is labeled "Eastman Kodak, made by Graflex."
The paper fits very tightly into the two metal side channels, but the paper, as I said in my earlier post, bulges out a little and doesn't lay flat against the back of the holder.
I have one Fidelity holder -- I'll try that. Perhaps there's a slight difference in sizing. I hope so -- I can't imagine having to precision-cut paper to fit into the holders. Might not be too hard, though -- a straight edge and an Xacto knife.
Thanks for your advice.

Ben, don't you have a paper cutter? You're likely to do yourself a mischief fooling around in dim light with Xacto knives. Find yourself a guillotine or roller type paper cutter, preferably at least 12 or 14 inches square. Makes the job trivial. Every darkroom needs one, and it virtually pays for itself in paper economy in the end.

[PolarBear1973]

Has anyone come up with a reciprocity failure chart for Ilford variable contrast paper? I tried the chart for delta 100 and the negatives came out overexposed.

[Ben Calwell]

A paper cutter -- most excellent advice!