Can you use paper instead of film in large format cameras?

Is there a kind of paper that you can use in a large format camera instead of film that when developed will make a positive image kinda like a polaroid. You just take the film holder into a darkroom and develop it like it normal and have an instant picture to give to someone? Is thre such a paper? Thanks.

68degrees said:

Is there a kind of paper that you can use in a large format camera instead of film that when developed will make a positive image kinda like a polaroid. You just take the film holder into a darkroom and develop it like it normal and have an instant picture to give to someone? Is thre such a paper? Thanks.

Click to expand...

Yes: Harman Direct Positive paper.

Thank you Paul. Unfortunately after reading about this product it requires exposures times in minutes. I guess it could be good for landscapes or other things that dont move.

Harman Direct Positive paper is an option but quite expensive and I found it is quite tricky to get proper exposition on it. It also requires some tuning of the process because the cost of the paper makes things more expensive (at least in the beginning).

I would say it is better to use RC papers as paper negatives and make direct contact prints from them. This process has some advantages (besides being cheaper) as it allows also some exposition tuning, dodging&burning etc.

ISO of RC papers is typically 6-12 so still quite low and requires a tripod and longer exposition times.

All papers are pretty slow by film standards, however, if you can shoot wide open, in bright sun, you may be able to get sub-second exposure times, depending on how fast your lens is. If you want to end up with a print you can just hand someone, without making a negative, you are pretty much limited to a direct positive material.
If you’re ok with a bit more darkroom time, you could expose on film, process it with a mono-bath process, rinse it with alcohol and water for a quick dry, and make an RC contact print. It’s probably doable in 15 minutes, or so. Maybe 10 if you streamline things as much as possible, and aren’t too picky about quantity or longevity of the negative.

some folks are doing this
takes a little tweak though to get the right amount of citric acid
you don't need to use anything stronger than 3% hydrogen peroxide either

there aren't many direct positive processes out there, back in the day there used to be street photographers who had proprietary papers and developers
but being proprietary the formulas weren't really published ( like the rockland colloid tintype kit )

look at what folks who use afghan cameras are doing ..
https://afghanboxcamera.com
Joe makes them too
https://www.youtube.com/user/JoeVCA/search?query=afghan


have fun!

John

68degrees said:

Thank you Paul. Unfortunately after reading about this product it requires exposures times in minutes. I guess it could be good for landscapes or other things that dont move.

Click to expand...

There is no paper type material that matches or even comes close to the speed of film. If you want something that can be used with fast shutter speeds, you don’t have much choice except perhaps using an absurd amount of strobe power: 3000 watt-seconds or more.

There's some old (expired for years) Kodak SO series sheet films (SO-015) for copying negatives (negative in/ negative out, so the film is positive) that will work with ~7-12 second exposures in full sunlight, probably the stuff Paul Barden mentions above. They are HIGHLY orthochromatic, blue sensitive only-- which I love, a navel orange come out (the new?) BLACK -- but not exactly walking around stuff.

Is it SO-34 ( SO-132? something like that ) “‘Kodak single-step duplicating film”
Last time I bought it I purchased it through photo warehouse/ ultrafine and it worked as well as when I originally bought it from Kodak .. it was / is super slow like ASO paper slow, and had a lovely tint ... maybe I’m thinking of the wrong film.

jnantz said:

Is it SO-34 ( SO-132? something like that ) “‘Kodak single-step duplicating film”
Last time I bought it I purchased it through photo warehouse/ ultrafine and it worked as well as when I originally bought it from Kodak .. it was / is super slow like ASO paper slow, and had a lovely tint ... maybe I’m thinking of the wrong film.

Click to expand...

Probably very similar, yeah. Kodak made many "SO" films (the SO stood for "Special Order", which you probably know), and a lot of them were single-step duping films in practice if not always so titled. To boot, if enough people made the "special order", my understanding is they'd sometimes make it a regular line film, and change the number again. With this going on, and their of reusing emulsion names and numbers, figuring out what's what is challenging. My SO-015 is 4x5, expired in the 1970s, develops a treat in Caffenol CL, and has very "cool" bluish blacks at the end; doesn't seem to take the 'Caffenol stain' like some films do.

I’ve used paper in my pinhole camera for years and a comment here regarding the ISO got me wondering. Can paper be push processed like film? I’ve been doing my own film work for nearly 50 years and this never occurred to me.

VinceInMT said:

I’ve used paper in my pinhole camera for years and a comment here regarding the ISO got me wondering. Can paper be push processed like film? I’ve been doing my own film work for nearly 50 years and this never occurred to me.

Click to expand...

No idea with regards to pushing, but I also used paper in pinhole cameras back in college. I did a semester building cameras out of found objects, and I would test with paper (since it was easy to just pop into the dark room and toss it in a tray) to make sure there wasn't leaks and that my pinhole was functional. On more than one occasion I liked my paper negative print more than any of the positives I printed from film (which was mostly Kodalith at the time).

I loved to make paper negatives! Awkward to cut 10x8 paper in the dark/safelight to 4x5, but perfect if you have a 10x8 camera. I was mostly using Ilford MGIV, and I would pre-flash it by holding a sheet of plain white printer paper over the lens, removing the darkslide for a few seconds (about a third of the exposure I thought I would need for taking the photo) and then slipping the darkslide back in. No doubt there are better ways. That let me expose it as ISO 6 instead of 3, and cut long exposures in half, as well as taming contrast markedly. I did get some of the Galaxy Hyperspeed paper when it was available, which claimed an ISO of 120 (IIRC), but even pre-flashed I found it worked best rated ISO 50. The contrast difference is quite important, photo paper being orthochromatic. This example had no pre-flash, and this one did.
The best thing was that I could have trays of developer, stop and fixer ready in my makeshift darkroom. And quickly find out how close I was to correct exposure, come out and adjust and repeat till I was happy. I called it my 'slow-motion Polaroid" technique. But it could make make for a semi-decent portrait with a patient sitter who could keep still:

I used a V850 to scan the paper negative and went from there, but there's nothing to stop you doing a contact print with the face of the paper negative pressed against a fresh piece of photo paper.
I don't do it any more having winnowed down my cameras during a leukemia relapse. If the BMT I just had works out I may go wild again in the future!

You might want to check out the thread over on Large Format Photography Forum for a little inspiration. It’s the paper negative image sharing thread. https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?72984-Paper-negatives

Roger