Cutting paper in the dark for 4X5

[daleeman]

Greetings,
Have never tried paper negs, but woulh like too. Any advice on cutting paper down in the dark or small save light?
My old paper cutter could use some home made stops or something to help do a good cut to fit in my holders.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A rotary cutter will have a t-square and rulers built-in. Stacks of paper will not rotate.

 

[DWThomas]

I have one the "guillotine" cutters and I just use a strip of cardstock or mat board, anchored with one of the low tack masking tapes. Do all the cuts to one dimension, then hide the stuff, reset for the second dimension, chop away and you're done. If I were doing dozens of cuts weekly, I might look for something more foolproof, but for the rare occasions I do such work, it's sufficient. I've even used the technique with X-ray film under a dark red safelight.

 

[Nige]

I do similar. I use a rotary cutter that has a top and bottom straight edge. I use tape to mark each edge for one dimension each.

An 8x10 sheet of paper needs to be cut slightly smaller than just "in half, then in half again" (tried that, sheets wouldn't fit holders). Not sure of the actual numbers (plus I work in millimeters) but use an deleoped neg as a guide to work out your measurements, or if you don't have one of those, some old print to zero in on the desired size. That way you can test in the light that your final size you cut, will actually fit the holders.

 

[removed account4]

you can always take a sheet of 8/10 paper and fold it in half
crease the fold / cut the fold fold in half again, cut the fold
and be about right. film holders are about 1/32 - 1/16 inch
smaller than the "advertised format size"
so the trimmed amount is about right .. in total its about 1/16 difference in width

good luck + have fun!

john

 

[daleeman]

These all are informative ideas. I was not aware but not surprised a 4x5 may not be exactly 4x5 and cutting an 8x10 may take more than one cut. I'll see about using an old film to set the stops up so I can just hack away in confidence. I am so glad I asked, APUG's members are the best.

Lee

 

[DWThomas]

From what I have seen, the actual dimension of sheet film is about 0.06 inch (1.5 mm) under the nominal size. However in my experience paper is also a bit shy of the nominal. The main thing is that if you magically cut an 8x10 film sheet exactly in half, both halves will be a bit too wide, so you need to cut two of the desired widths plus a sliver. Cutting a very narrow (1.5 or 2 mm) slice off a sheet in a long cut can be a bit tedious, especially if the cutter has any sharpness or alignment problems.

 

[ciniframe]

One more caution. I also use paper for negatives and was given two unopened boxes of Kodak B&W paper, 100 sheets each, 8x10
Great I thought, then I discovered it had printing on the back side. That will show through when you contact print to make a positive. So only good to print onto. Don't know if any other brand has back printing, I use Ilford and it does not. Just something else to check.

 

[Rick A]

Keep your fingers out of the blade!!

 

[onemississipp]

Did some this weekend 8x10 to 4x5. Arista EDU Ultra RC Glossy Grade #3

and

in the bathroom

 

[removed account4]

These all are informative ideas. I was not aware but not surprised a 4x5 may not be exactly 4x5 and cutting an 8x10 may take more than one cut. I'll see about using an old film to set the stops up so I can just hack away in confidence. I am so glad I asked, APUG's members are the best.

Lee

it all has to do wtih PLATE holders.
glass plates were the format size ( 4x5,5x7, 8x10 &c )
but when film came along people still used plates and had plate holders
so they were sold those little inserts to convert the plateholder to fit film.
after plates stopped there were still lots of septum users and film holder users
that took the smaller size, and it was probably too much trouble ( and a pr move )
to keep the size smaller than the format by a fraction of an inch ...

 

[darkroommike]

I picked up a few rolls of the old Dymo plastic label tape, it works well to mark the dimensions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Why isn't this thread titled, "Cutting Off Fingers in the Dark"?

 

[onemississipp]

Why isn't this thread titled, "Cutting Off Fingers in the Dark"?

That's why I use my feet!

 

[kiwivagabond]

Greetings,
Have never tried paper negs, but woulh like too. Any advice on cutting paper down in the dark or small save light?
My old paper cutter could use some home made stops or something to help do a good cut to fit in my holders.

Most of my photography has been shooting paper in all sorts of formats from 35mm to 8 x 10. The only thing I would add here is about being careful not to mark the paper in the process of cutting and loading....and leave artifacts on the surface which on exposure will cause spots .
paper negatives are notorious for dust etc.
I make sure my work surface is very clean from contaminants and dust free. I use canned air.
Wash your hands.....gloves dont work for me but in my passionate haste I have many a paper negative with a thumb print on it.
I brush the paper lightly when loaded in holders with a soft brush before closing the dark slide. Some people will talk about static doing this...but I have never had an issue.
My whole goal is to try and get a great negative and keep it analogue......but I have to confess to having to use the spot healing tool in Photoshop to varying degrees to remove artifacts.
When I unload to develop I close the dark slide to keep my holders free of dust....and I blow them out carefully with a compressor now and then.

I so love paper, in that any old discarded camera can be used again.
There is an immediacy to paper than film doesnt offer.
It is fun.
I have enlarged as have others from paper negatives, and contact printed.
Usually my silver gelatin paper negative process is a blend of technologies...with scanning , inverting and processing digitally. I try to touch as gently as possible in a digital sense.
I am often gape mouthed at the beauty of the negative when scanned....the unmistakable analogue birthmark is well evident.
Emulsions are beautiful.

I need to repay my subscription today....but here is a link to my galleries on Ipernity and an article I wrote years ago on my then silver gelatin paper negative process.
There are some groups dedicated to paper negs there and some seriously beautiful work done by various people around the world.
http://www.ipernity.com/home/kiwivagabond
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/kiwivagabond
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/kiwivagabond/album/412209

Have fun....and happy to talk more.

Graham Hughes

 

[daleeman]

Most of my photography has been shooting paper in all sorts of formats from 35mm to 8 x 10. The only thing I would add here is about being careful not to mark the paper in the process of cutting and loading....and leave artifacts on the surface which on exposure will cause spots .
paper negatives are notorious for dust etc.
I make sure my work surface is very clean from contaminants and dust free. I use canned air.
Wash your hands.....gloves dont work for me but in my passionate haste I have many a paper negative with a thumb print on it.
I brush the paper lightly when loaded in holders with a soft brush before closing the dark slide. Some people will talk about static doing this...but I have never had an issue.
My whole goal is to try and get a great negative and keep it analogue......but I have to confess to having to use the spot healing tool in Photoshop to varying degrees to remove artifacts.
When I unload to develop I close the dark slide to keep my holders free of dust....and I blow them out carefully with a compressor now and then.

I so love paper, in that any old discarded camera can be used again.
There is an immediacy to paper than film doesnt offer.
It is fun.
I have enlarged as have others from paper negatives, and contact printed.
Usually my silver gelatin paper negative process is a blend of technologies...with scanning , inverting and processing digitally. I try to touch as gently as possible in a digital sense.
I am often gape mouthed at the beauty of the negative when scanned....the unmistakable analogue birthmark is well evident.
Emulsions are beautiful.

I need to repay my subscription today....but here is a link to my galleries on Ipernity and an article I wrote years ago on my then silver gelatin paper negative process.
There are some groups dedicated to paper negs there and some seriously beautiful work done by various people around the world.
http://www.ipernity.com/home/kiwivagabond
http://www.ipernity.com/blog/kiwivagabond
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/kiwivagabond/album/412209

Have fun....and happy to talk more.

Graham Hughes

Thank you for your reply. Just got a 5x7 to do more work on paper.

 

[eli griggs]

Why isn't this thread titled, "Cutting Off Fingers in the Dark"?

Because unlike with films and green inspection light filter only, this can be done in a very 'bright' darkroom, like mine, with a Thomas 30 watt Sodium Light and proper filtration and distance from my bench.

Even in an old fashioned red light darkroom, once your eyes adjust, there is plenty of illumination to use cutters, safely.

IMO.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I do everything involving film (unless it's ortho or only blue-sensitive) in TOTAL darkness. An intelligently designed trimmer table should have finger stops in place. People gnaw off fingers all the time in full light using router tables, table saws, and jointers. Those are supposed to either have built-in finger stops too, or at least a bright big sticker which says, Don't be stupid ! (which stupid people ignore).

 

[eli griggs]

No to be overly critical, but if the falling blade's pivot nut is properly secure, I have a hard time seeing how someone could get their fingers caught up into the blade.

Bumping the raised blade, by misadventure, or a sudden arm spasm, sure, but that's about all, imo.

As for stupid, if they are skilled enough to get the film in, out of the camera, make a good exposure and put together a workable, darkroom, they're smart enough to learn to pay attention to their tools and surroundings.

Cutters are made to be sharp, and should be kept that way and just because it does no look like a Samara sword, or razor blade, does no lessen that one fact.

Also, keep your blade better than factory sharp, and fish out any tiny bits of paper or fiber that may bind the blade at the pivot point. An un-sharpened edge takes more force to operate and it is at that 'break-free' point that people injure themselves.

Too casual an approach has oft times been cured by a painful misadventure, and the willingness to go on with the task.

IMO.

 

[ciniframe]

Even in an old fashioned red light darkroom, once your eyes adjust, there is plenty of illumination to use cutters, safely.

IMO.

That's what I thought.....until. I bought some discounted Aristia "Premium" 5X7 from Freestyle. Normally all I have is Ilford MG4 RC. I've been using one of those 11W Bright-lab bulbs, according to instructions, for years. But, when I pulled out that 'Premium' paper it fogged immediately. I mean immediately! The light was at least 5 ft. from the paper. The paper is still in it's box. Never did figure out what kind of safelight it would need. Hate to spend more $ on a special safelight just to use cheap paper. If I ever get a round tuit I might try filtering a LED flashlight through a brown dark beer bottle and see how that works.

 

[eli griggs]

Take two strips/sheets from the center of the pack, in total darkness and run one through the chemistry, and once fixed, in fresh fixer, run the second through the fix and compare both in daylight.

It may be your paper is bad but check also if an OC filter give a change of results.

IMO.

 

[NedL]

That's what I thought.....until. I bought some discounted Aristia "Premium" 5X7 from Freestyle. Normally all I have is Ilford MG4 RC. I've been using one of those 11W Bright-lab bulbs, according to instructions, for years. But, when I pulled out that 'Premium' paper it fogged immediately. I mean immediately! The light was at least 5 ft. from the paper. The paper is still in it's box. Never did figure out what kind of safelight it would need. Hate to spend more $ on a special safelight just to use cheap paper. If I ever get a round tuit I might try filtering a LED flashlight through a brown dark beer bottle and see how that works.

It needs the old fashioned dark red.... it's fine with that. But you're right, that paper will fog with safelights that are okay for MG4.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Sorry, I'm late
I used small size paper.
Ilford Multigrade IV RC Deluxe 3 1/2x5.
It is usually smallest and cheapest package in the store.
Fits to 4x5 tight and without cutting.

 

[ciniframe]

Take two strips/sheets from the center of the pack, in total darkness and run one through the chemistry, and once fixed, in fresh fixer, run the second through the fix and compare both in daylight.

It may be your paper is bad but check also if an OC filter give a change of results.

IMO.

Well, I only pulled out one sheet and the open end of the black plastic inner packaging was facing away from the light. So, think I only lost one sheet. I bought two 100 sheet boxes and the other box is sealed. About 10 years ago I had some Oriental grade 2 RC that did the same thing. That paper turned out to be ok with my cobbled together beer bottle safelight so I'll try that again. Since I have an occasional beer it is the low cost option.
Does anyone remember those 4 ft. fluorescent tubes you could get that had a brown safelight filter sleeve? I was digging through my pile of photo junk and found one of the filter sleeves, it's very flexible and can be cut with scissors. Might give that a try also on a made up safelight.

 

[eli griggs]

Yes, I have such a tube bulb and sleeve, which was given to me years ago, but about that time I bought the Thomas light and never tried the tube light.

Good luck!