Alt process printing paper negatives?

singerb · Jan 27, 2010

Since I'd love to make 8x10 contact prints, I've been reading a lot about paper negatives, and many people successfully contact print them onto traditional paper without doing anything to make them more transparent. However, I'm wondering if this is feasible with the slower speeds of most alt processes. If my normal exposure times are in the 10-20 minute range with a 4x5 film negative, what could I expect with a paper negative with or without making it more transparent?

sanking · Jan 27, 2010

singerb said:
Since I'd love to make 8x10 contact prints, I've been reading a lot about paper negatives, and many people successfully contact print them onto traditional paper without doing anything to make them more transparent. However, I'm wondering if this is feasible with the slower speeds of most alt processes. If my normal exposure times are in the 10-20 minute range with a 4x5 film negative, what could I expect with a paper negative with or without making it more transparent?

Expect very long exposure times since the paper fiber will add about two stops to your printing times.

Sandy King

singerb · Jan 27, 2010

sanking said:
Expect very long exposure times since the paper fiber will add about two stops to your printing times.

Sandy King

Ok, so if I could get a stop back somehow (I suspect I can get my light source closer to the paper) I could expect 20-40 minute print times...That's doable, since I can just set it and leave it while I do something else.

removed account4 · Jan 27, 2010

singerb said:
Since I'd love to make 8x10 contact prints, I've been reading a lot about paper negatives, and many people successfully contact print them onto traditional paper without doing anything to make them more transparent. However, I'm wondering if this is feasible with the slower speeds of most alt processes. If my normal exposure times are in the 10-20 minute range with a 4x5 film negative, what could I expect with a paper negative with or without making it more transparent?

i will be doing this soon ...
but instead of a light bank
i will be using the sun.

they used to use paper negatives
for calotypes ( the original paper negative ) ..
the paper was sometimes oiled / waxed to make it more
translucent ( from what i remember ) ..

have fun
john

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 27, 2010

I almost exclusively shoot with an 8x10 camera but when I have a smaller negative like 4x5 or 120 for kallitype or carbon transfer printing, I make a copy negative. Maybe you could try that route?

singerb · Jan 28, 2010

Andrew O'Neill said:
I almost exclusively shoot with an 8x10 camera but when I have a smaller negative like 4x5 or 120 for kallitype or carbon transfer printing, I make a copy negative. Maybe you could try that route?

I'm not looking at paper negatives as an enlarging option, I'm considering an 8x10 pinhole using paper negatives to then contact print. I agree that for enlarging there are better options, but for in-camera work, 8x10 paper is much cheaper than 8x10 film! (Plus, you can use the same stuff for film and prints, and develop it the same way - easy!)

Loris Medici · Jan 28, 2010

If you will not be bothered with the remaining fiber/debris, you can shoot with a plastic base paper then strip the emulsion and transfer in onto mylar. Soaking in hot water will let you strip the emulsion/image from the base...

singerb · Feb 2, 2010

sanking said:
Expect very long exposure times since the paper fiber will add about two stops to your printing times.

Sandy King

If I somehow had a negative on some inkjet paper, would you expect the printing time to be comparable to a silver-gelatin paper negative? I've been experimenting a bit before I go down that route, and my light source may not be sufficient for paper negatives; even a 1.5 hour exposure wasn't close to being enough. If I have to use the sun it's not the end of the world, but I was hoping for workable times from my indoor setup; at that rate I'd have to leave it on all day!

keithwms · Feb 2, 2010

singerb said:
If I somehow had a negative on some inkjet paper, would you expect the printing time to be comparable to a silver-gelatin paper negative?

I do this from time to time. The times are a bit long, maybe 2 stops longer than a normal neg, but about the same as an analogue paper neg. I use the glossiest nastiest inkjet paper I can. If you do it, dial back the contrast, dial it way back.

But we don't discuss this kind of thing here much, you can learn more on hybridphoto....

Why don't you just dupe to ortho film? It is very inexpensive and the process is quite easy. And 100% analogue. You first enlarge to make a lowish contrast interpositive on ortho film, then you contact print that onto more ortho film to get a larger neg. You can dev by inspection with a red safelight. Fun for the whole family.

singerb · Feb 3, 2010

I hadn't been considering interpos to negative steps, because of a perceived difficulty factor. But you're right, that does appear to be fairly simple with ortho film, and uses the same paper developer. Sounds like I've got a plan. I'll try it with 4x5 first, since I'm sure I'll get it wrong the first couple times.

Athiril · Feb 5, 2010

Cant you just enlarge them via front lighting the paper negative, instead of backlit like a piece of film? ie: Like you would if taking a photo of the paper neg, same thing, or scanning it etc.

keithwms · Feb 5, 2010

Athiril said:
Cant you just enlarge them via front lighting the paper negative, instead of backlit like a piece of film? ie: Like you would if taking a photo of the paper neg, same thing, or scanning it etc.

Front lighting would be limited very much by the reflectivity of the paper... likely not good at all. I expect that the exposures would be ridiculously long. If you really wanted to do a reflection-based exposure, you might consider metallizing the silver in the paper and relying on the reflection from that.

One other thing you might be able to do is take infrared film, remove the AH layer, lay it on the metallized paper, and expose the holy crap out of it from the backside of the film with an IR-rich source. Especially if the print is metallized, then the halation back into the film might give something. Something I say

[The good thing about nutty experiments is that even if the results suck, they suck in a new and original way!]

Waxing a paper neg definitely permits almost ordinary exposures... even substantial enlargements. This has been reported various times here before.

Alt process printing paper negatives?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency