Paper negatives

[stawastawa]

I loved doing paper negatives. I wish I had done more of them when I was having fun. why don't you think you will continue?

[Oldparson]

[QUOTE=T.Chabry;1620548]No ones do paper negatives these days?

Yes, I am one of 2300 members of the Facebook group
"Experimenting With Photographic Paper As Film"

I enjoy the medium very much - Using it in antique cameras with antique lenses - giving me the look I like for certain subjects.

[T.Chabry]

I loved doing paper negatives. I wish I had done more of them when I was having fun. why don't you think you will continue?

It's OK for still life but I'm more into landscape and I don't like the results with paper. For some reasons, they are not sharp enough and I am having a hard time getting good exposures.

[T.Chabry]

[QUOTE=Oldparson;1620613]

No ones do paper negatives these days?

Yes, I am one of 2300 members of the Facebook group
"Experimenting With Photographic Paper As Film"

I enjoy the medium very much - Using it in antique cameras with antique lenses - giving me the look I like for certain subjects.

I forgot I was also a member of that group, I am not a big Facebook fan.
I just checked the photos and there are a lot of very nice ones. Maybe I just need to improve my technique.

[stawastawa]

ah, yes deending on the landscape I could see that, especially given the long exposure times.

Heres a few I did way back when, I also printed one of these in an enlarger!

[Oldparson]

I prefer a softer pictorialist look (Sorry Ansel) so it works for me - Pre-flashing the paper and using a yellow filter help tame the high contrast of paper negatives

[T.Chabry]

I prefer a softer pictorialist look (Sorry Ansel) so it works for me - Pre-flashing the paper and using a yellow filter help tame the high contrast of paper negatives

Wow! I love it!

Today I took a 4x5 camera out to do some tests but out of 4 photos, I only saved one. I developped the paper with Caffenol thinking it will lower the contrast. It's a bit better but I had to do a lot of computer editing to get what you see. The negative will be useless for contact printing.


Paper negative by T. Chabry, on Flickr

I had some unused caffenol left and I don't like to waste so I took a still life photo in my living room and the photo is a lot better. Here is the result with almost no editing:


Paper negative by T. Chabry, on Flickr

[Oldparson]

These looks promising with a good range of tones - of course remembering the insensitive of the paper to reds (and therefore partially yellows) can have a significant impact depending on the colours of the subjects. It is this "oddness" of the look of that appeals to me!
After 3 years of doing this I usually come home with 8 out of 10 images well exposed (other factors may still screw them up for different reasons!). When I am serious about an outdoor shoot I will do some test shots before I set out from home to gauge the quality of the daylight (The UV/Blue content of UK light varies considerably across the seasons - as well as with weather time of day).

[T.Chabry]

"I usually come home with 8 out of 10 images well exposed"
Out of how many?

Don't you use a lightmeter when you shoot outside? I do and I have no problem with regular or X-ray film with I'm having a hardtime getting the exposure right with paper. Today I made a couple shots but both were way overexposed.

[James R. Kyle]

[QUOTE=T.Chabry;1620626]

I forgot I was also a member of that group, I am not a big Facebook fan.
I just checked the photos and there are a lot of very nice ones. Maybe I just need to improve my technique.

Hello!!! ;-))

Thank you.