Paper negatives

[jonbrisbincreative]

Pre-flashing helps this. I set up the shot, place a piece of plain white paper in front of the lens and do an exposure 1/4 the length of my planned exposure, then take away the paper, recock the shutter and take the real exposure. An example with and without the preflash is in this post.

I've been wondering about doing this exact thing. I'll give this a try. So far my attempts at pre-flashing have left me feeling like I didn't have a simple and repeatable way to do it.

jb

[MDR]

Alternatively you can preflash the paper at home under an enlarger and use the enlarger timer or use a dedicated pre flasher like the paperflasher. You can actually also post Flash the paper with nearly similar results.

See also the thread on the f295 Forum http://www.f295.org/main/showthread....ing-Paper-Negs

[ndg]

"Reflections"

Shot on Arista Edu RC VC Glossy 11x14
Lens - Voigtlander Euryscop Series II, No 7 at f5.6
Developer - Eco Pro B&W paper developer in Jobo

[gtoffoli]

Thank's to all,

This is the print about previous negative... yes it's not very good, the negative was underexposed and the posititive is weak. But this is the first attempt with paper negative

[tonyowen]

I've just obtained some out dated Ilford photographic paper.
I thinking of cutting some to 4x5 size and trying to produce paper negatives.
However, some basic questions:-
1] Does anyone out there have any real ISO data for Multigrade FB Warm One and/or Multigrade IV RC Deluxe?
2] Alternatively, is there a guessitmate or common practice ISO rating that works most times?
3] Is there any practical reason why any exposed paper negatives cannot be processed (like film) in a Jobo 2500 drum and sheet film insert?
4] Assuming 3] to be a usable option, what would/could be the minimum amount of developer needed - film requires 270ml, but I'm assuming that paper would absorb at lot more.

Any and all information and comment welcome
regards
Tony

[koraks]

I think about ISO 2 or 3 is usually a good starting point. I don't see why processing in a jobo tank couldn't work, apart from the fact that it's easier to work out when to stop developing if you can see what's happening. The only paper negatives I ever did I just developed as any print and I pulled them when they looked about done.

[scheinfluger_77]

I recently exposed some Ilford MGWT in 5x7 as film holder test at EI 6 and 3. They are heavily overexposed and tough to scan or I would have shared them here earlier. More testing is indicated.

[Ray Heath]

Thank's to all,

This is the print about previous negative... yes it's not very good, the negative was underexposed and the posititive is weak. But this is the first attempt with paper negative

Looks pretty good to me. Paper neg has its own aesthetic. If you want sharp, good contrast, full tones, etc, shoot film. Paper neg is something else.

[Ray Heath]

I've just obtained some out dated Ilford photographic paper.
I thinking of cutting some to 4x5 size and trying to produce paper negatives.
However, some basic questions:-
1] Does anyone out there have any real ISO data for Multigrade FB Warm One and/or Multigrade IV RC Deluxe?
2] Alternatively, is there a guessitmate or common practice ISO rating that works most times?
3] Is there any practical reason why any exposed paper negatives cannot be processed (like film) in a Jobo 2500 drum and sheet film insert?
4] Assuming 3] to be a usable option, what would/could be the minimum amount of developer needed - film requires 270ml, but I'm assuming that paper would absorb at lot more.

Any and all information and comment welcome
regards
Tony

Just make negs Tony, you'll soon learn that ISO varies depending on the time of day, amount of overcast, how you process, if you use filters.

My preferred is to avoid high contrast lighting situations, pre-flash, expose through Y2 and assume ISO 3 for most materials.

[tonyowen]

ISO varies depending on the time of day, amount of overcast, how you process, if you use filters.

Thanks Ray
That explains/answers the reason I made my posting.
I'd been looking through the postings of this forum I could not understand why (significantly) different ISO ratings were apparently used for the same paper. I had assumed that the 'shooting conditions' would only effect the exposure.

regards

Tony