Unexplicable exposure problem with paper negatives

[tonyowen]

I gather from your response that you are not loading paper under a safelight, or you would be able to tell which side is which when loading, or you are using a safelight but not paying attention. There is also the possibility, if you are using old paper sourced from a private sale, that some of the paper is fixed out for alternate printing methods (or you are fixing first during processing).

Pearl surface RC paper looks very similar on both sides. It can be difficult to tell which side is the emulsion side. This would be complicated if someone mixed up the paper in the box, i.e., some emulsion-side-up, some emulsion-side-down. There is a way to tell, but the OP will have to look very carefully. Definitely, a safelight is in order when loading. Doremus

QUOTE=Bob Salomon;1503281]Paper and film always curl towards the emulsion side. Licking your finger and lightly touching a very small part of the material will also let you determine which side is which.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jnantz;1503353]Nope it was a test to see if the paper and the developer were good and to determine if it was " user error " ...
I'm guessing your paper was installed in your film holders emulsion IN, back OUT .. not an uncommon thing some papers are impossible to tell which side is which
with some people resorting to licking the paper or a finger to see which side is sticky, curl tests &c.
My only suggestion, is to install your paper in the film holders the opposite way you are currently installing them and see what happens.. ( and then buy glossy paper )/QUOTE]

Thank to all
YES I am using a safe light. I've checked my previous paper negatives and the majority are wrong way round images ie correctly inserted.
YES it is difficult to be certain which is the emulsion side of Pearl and I'm not going to engage with licking paper/chemicals

Last night I did as post 15. This morning the 'assumed' non-emulsion side (identified by marker pen lines) of the two strips was still white whilst the unmarked side was discoloured - so I know that I have identified and inserted the cut paper emulsion side out.

Next is to repeat my exposure with the four lenses, and see what develops [pun intended].

Rick's comment (or you are fixing first during processing) is unlikely as I'm very careful about the chemicals and the sequence of usage.

Two things have me bothered,
one is though the box is marked 'Pearl' it could contain another type of RC paper [The 100 box of Pearl was/is one of several boxes of paper I was given. These , include a box of Cool Tone albeit 5x7], and some FB paper.

Secondly the recommended development time for FB and Cool Tone is different from RC Pearl. In any case is the difference between RC and FB and between Pearl and Cool Tone obvious BEFORE processing????

I do not have light tight facilities in which I can tray process the paper negatives.

So in the next couple of days I'll know the results of my exposures.

Regards

Tony

[tonyowen]

Eureka (ish)
Marking the [assumed] non-emulsion side and checking the cut-offs in daylight works.

After exposure the corner markings indicate whether the cut paper has been put in the DDS properly or emulsion side inwards.

My results are identifiable by the rotatable position of a hookah in the setup. So I know which lens and what exposure was used. Hence I can determine if there is any need for exposure correction.

My concern is what exactly was/is the multigrade paper I developed - RC Pearl, RC Cooltone OR FB???

The exposure times for Ilford PQ Universal @ 1:9 are 2:00 min:sec, 3:00 min:sec, and 1:30 – 3:00 min:sec for Pearl, Cooltone and FB respectively.

I developed the four papers cut from one 8x10 sheet for 2:15 min:sec

Does anyone know how to distinguish between Pearl, Cooltone and PB paper before exposure and under a safelight??

Regards

Tony

[alexmuir]

'Pearl' refers to a type of paper surface Ilford use on their RC papers. The Cooltone RC paper could be in a variety of surfaces, including 'Pearl'. There would be no way that I can think of to differentiate between standard RC paper, and Cooltone RC, if they both had a 'Pearl' finish. These RC papers, however, should look quite different from Ilford FB paper. RC tends to be thinner, and comes out of the pack quite flat. FB is usually thicker, with a more natural paper feel to the back surface. The emulsion side of 'Glossy' FB is very obvious, but Matt surfaces can be more difficult to identify. As already mentioned, paper tends to curl towards the emulsion side. That is more obvious with FB materials.
Alex


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[tonyowen]

No way that I can think of to differentiate between standard RC paper, and Cooltone RC, if they both had a 'Pearl' finish. RC tends to be thinner, and comes out of the pack quite flat. FB is usually thicker, with a more natural paper feel to the back surface, but Matt surfaces can be more difficult to identify. As already mentioned, paper tends to curl towards the emulsion side. That is more obvious with FB materials.

The 8x10 sheets I'm using have a noticeable albeit slight curve when laid on a flat surface.. Also thin and thicker are very subjective.

It is my understanding that RC and FB paper curl in different directions. One with the emulsion on the convex side of the curl the other on the concave side of the curl.

I've found a method of determining the emulsion side of the paper through daylight exposure of waste strips. So cannot the difference be detected by the direction of the curl related to the emulsion side of the paper?

Please comment on the correctness of my assertion.

regards
Tony

[Jac@stafford.net]

Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper.

[alexmuir]

Hi Tony. Unless you have a truly matt paper surface, the emulsion side always has a slight sheen. Glossy paper more so than the non-gloss finishes (pearl, satin etc). The back of Ilford RC papers are all the same, no matter what the emulsion surface is called. I find that in most sizes I have used, 3.5x5.5”-16x20”, the sheets lie flat on the easel when taken from the pack. Ilford FB paper tends to have a definite concave curl on the emulsion side. It also feels more card-like than the RC types. You used to get thin, single-weight FB papers, but these are pretty rare nowadays.
Alex


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[malexand]

Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper.

+1

[tonyowen]

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper

+1

Why, A 100 box of 8x10 is around UK£50.00 plus postage (say US$64.00). In the UK, £50 is a lot of money to squander unnecessarily. I'm not certain that $64 has the same 'value' in the US.

In addition, I've lots of boxes of paper so why not use them and what is wrong with trying to find answers that will enable me to use them efficiently.

regards
Tony

[Jac@stafford.net]

Originally Posted by Jac@stafford.net View Post
Oh heavens, Tony. Pop for a brand new box of paper



Why, A 100 box of 8x10 is around UK£50.00 plus postage (say US$64.00). In the UK, £50 is a lot of money to squander unnecessarily. I'm not certain that $64 has the same 'value' in the US.

In addition, I've lots of boxes of paper so why not use them and what is wrong with trying to find answers that will enable me to use them efficiently.

regards
Tony

My friend, you are burning time from those who once cared about your project. It is so scattered. Ignore file for now. Best of luck, Sir.

[reddesert]

Just do the thing Bob Salomon suggested upthread: lick your finger and touch both sides of the paper. The emulsion side will be tacky, the back won't. It's not going to hurt you, you're just touching gelatin. The simplest answer is usually the right one: images aren't coming out because some of the paper was loaded backward, so until you have a foolproof method for loading the paper right side out, you will waste paper and your time.