Developing time of Ilford RC paper if used as film negative

[Laci Toth]

I’d like to use rc papers instead of film negatives in a pinhole camera, so then to make contact print. Is the developing time determined by inspection or can I use the given time which is on the datasheet let’s say 1.30min as a basic? Okay, it depends on several factors and tastes but still. It’s hard to see the dark areas in safelight and I might over or underdevelop it.

 

[koraks]

I'd start with development by inspection. Departing from the developer, dilution and time in the datasheet will result in full development which is typically not what you want with paper negatives as the contrast will go through the roof. So start with a more dilute developer and watch progress during development; once you've figured it out you can of course standardize on a set of development times for different contrast situations.

 

[Laci Toth]

I'd start with development by inspection. Departing from the developer, dilution and time in the datasheet will result in full development which is typically not what you want with paper negatives as the contrast will go through the roof. So start with a more dilute developer and watch progress during development; once you've figured it out you can of course standardize on a set of development times for different contrast situations.

Thank you Koraks! Great ideas as always!

 

[removed account4]

hi laci
what ISO are you exposing your paper negative ?
depending on the light you are photographing (in)
photo-paper negatives can have sort of a variable ISO... as low as iso6 and as high as iso24 you might keep a note pad and keep track of your exposure times, time of day, time of year &c and always develop to completion so the full 1:30seconds, and agitate your tray so you get FULL and even development. so when you encounter bright sunlight no clouds mid day you'll know from experience its iso24, and for open shade, overcast light it will be iso6. another thing that might be helpful if you are encountering crazy contrast paper negatives is the use of a yellow (enlarger) contrast reduction filter. seeing you are using variable contrast paper you might use that to your advantage
FYI it can sometimes increase your exposure time by 1.5, for example if you are doing a 20second exposure you might think of like 35 seconds as a starting point.
have fun! i would rather shoot paper negatives than film, i find it to be more fun + easier...

good luck !
john

ps. old expired paper sometimes works great as paper negatives because the fog cuts down some of the contrast, and think about using a coffee or low contrast developer for difficult situations. caffenol ( and caffenol spiked with a small amount of your favorite print developer ) are fantastic to develop paper negatives....

 

[kevs]

Unlike films, papers are designed to be developed to completion; i.e. to the point beyond which further development has no effect. If you 'pull' paper development you'll get greyish blacks (whites in print), poor highlights (shadows), and you won't get a full range of tones in your negative, and subsequent contact print. Of course, it's possible that's the effect you're looking for.

 

[Laci Toth]

hi laci
what ISO are you exposing your paper negative ?
depending on the light you are photographing (in)
photo-paper negatives can have sort of a variable ISO... as low as iso6 and as high as iso24 you might keep a note pad and keep track of your exposure times, time of day, time of year &c and always develop to completion so the full 1:30seconds, and agitate your tray so you get FULL and even development. so when you encounter bright sunlight no clouds mid day you'll know from experience its iso24, and for open shade, overcast light it will be iso6. another thing that might be helpful if you are encountering crazy contrast paper negatives is the use of a yellow (enlarger) contrast reduction filter. seeing you are using variable contrast paper you might use that to your advantage
FYI it can sometimes increase your exposure time by 1.5, for example if you are doing a 20second exposure you might think of like 35 seconds as a starting point.
have fun! i would rather shoot paper negatives than film, i find it to be more fun + easier...

good luck !
john

ps. old expired paper sometimes works great as paper negatives because the fog cuts down some of the contrast, and think about using a coffee or low contrast developer for difficult situations. caffenol ( and caffenol spiked with a small amount of your favorite print developer ) are fantastic to develop paper negatives....

The Ilford’s website says the multigrade rc has iso 3-6 but this may vary. Trial and error is in the game so I’ll give them a go and will see.
I think I also will try caffenol as I’m playing with the thought for a while and I love to experiment.
Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Laci Toth]

Unlike films, papers are designed to be developed to completion; i.e. to the point beyond which further development has no effect. If you 'pull' paper development you'll get greyish blacks (whites in print), poor highlights (shadows), and you won't get a full range of tones in your negative, and subsequent contact print. Of course, it's possible that's the effect you're looking for.

Basically I’m looking for full range of tones but at the same time I do lith printing so it might result interesting on the final print in case I will pull the paper.

 

[removed account4]

The Ilford’s website says the multigrade rc has iso 3-6 but this may vary. Trial and error is in the game so I’ll give them a go and will see.
I think I also will try caffenol as I’m playing with the thought for a while and I love to experiment.
Thanks for your thoughts!

yeah, i know ! i was an un-believer, but ron mowrey, ( photo engineer here on photrio ) schooled me ..
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/iso-rating-of-ilford-paper.53272/#post-777998

not sure if you have found the paper negative forum + group here on photrio but there are quite a few threads about paper negatives, flashing, exposing, filtering &c
https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/paper-negatives.95/
https://www.photrio.com/forum/groupdiscussions/paper-negative.49/

have fun with your experiments !

 

[koraks]

Unlike films, papers are designed to be developed to completion; i.e. to the point beyond which further development has no effect. If you 'pull' paper development you'll get greyish blacks (whites in print), poor highlights (shadows), and you won't get a full range of tones in your negative, and subsequent contact print. Of course, it's possible that's the effect you're looking for.

I don't follow you here, to be honest. When making paper negatives, the main challenge is to harness contrast. If you expose the paper negative in such a way that it can be developed to completion, contrast will be through the roof as the density range/contrast will be that of a print, which is far beyond that of a usable negative, and it will be extremely challenging (or even impossible) to make an acceptable print from the paper negative. The solution to this is to treat the paper just like film, and expose more liberally while reducing development in order to achieve a paper negative that has a printable contrast range while also containing the desired amount of shadow detail. In this scenario, development until completion will only work for scenes that have a ridiculously low contrast range to begin with (think of 2 stops or so).

One of the challenges in reducing development with paper negatives, and in this sense I sort of follow you initial remark on how the paper is designed, is that mottling can be a problem. This is due to how papers are coated and particularly RC papers are prone to this. If this is a problem, then a possible solution lies in the use of filters during exposure of the paper negative (assuming variable contrast paper is used). By using a yellow filter, blue light is filtered out, which will reduce contrast, as the blue light activates the high contrast emulsion in a VC paper, leaving only the low contrast emulsion to do the work. In that scenario, even development to completion may be possible with some scenes, although not with typical sunlit contrasty scenes.

 

[kevs]

Fair enough. Ilford Multigrade will give about Grade 2 without a filter, I don't know about other VC papers. Have fun.

 

[koraks]

Fair enough. Ilford Multigrade will give about Grade 2 without a filter

When printing under an enlarger, yes, so with a color temperature of around 3200K or thereabouts. Grade 2 will be somewhere around ISO R 100, which means it'll capture a 1.0 logD range, or a little over 3 stops. Filter for grade 00 or ISO R 160 or thereabouts and you get a useful range of 1.5 logD = 5 stops, which is just enough for a fairly low contrast scene you'd typically encounter outdoors - with the caveat that daylight or shade will be not 3200, but rather much higher, think of 5000-6000K for daylight, so a larger portion of blue = higher contrast = lower usable contrast range. Hence the necessity in virtually all cases to expose longer and develop shorter (not to completion) as the paper simply doesn't work that way for making paper negatives, and the difficulty of interpreting paper specs (such as grades 'without filter') for this kind of application.

 

[removed account4]

hi laci

as you can see like with film photographer there are many ways to expose and develop negatives pick one and run with it, if that doesn't work well in your situation, pick another, and then tweak to fit your needs

good luck ( don't forget to have fun! )
john

 

[Laci Toth]

hi laci

as you can see like with film photographer there are many ways to expose and develop negatives pick one and run with it, if that doesn't work well in your situation, pick another, and then tweak to fit your needs

good luck ( don't forget to have fun! )
john

Thanks John! Yes, way too many nice thoughts, ideas, suggestions and what not to choose from. I definitely will try a few to have fun!

 

[radiant]

Borut has a video about paper negatives, he uses ID-11 as developer:

 

[Laci Toth]

Borut has a video about paper negatives, he uses ID-11 as developer:

Thanks! Great stuff!

 

[Mike Crawford]

I’d like to use rc papers instead of film negatives in a pinhole camera, so then to make contact print. Is the developing time determined by inspection or can I use the given time which is on the datasheet let’s say 1.30min as a basic? Okay, it depends on several factors and tastes but still. It’s hard to see the dark areas in safelight and I might over or underdevelop it.

I did quite a bit of work with paper negs a few years ago on a collaborative portrait project and found Ilford MG RC worked really well by under developing. Producing a grey tonal negative with no solid black. Haven't got my notes to hand, but I know we rated it 3 ISO shooting 5x4 with daylight. Processing was in PQ diluted either 1+40 or 1+50 and about 4 minutes development. (If you wan't exact details, best to e mail me and will look them out.) But as others mention, needs quite a bit of testing to find the right balance. Not sure why we didn't try film developer. Hopefully when we do some more, will further experiment.

Not sure if I would recommend processing by inspection. Didn't work for me. As the paper negative is very under developed, it then bleaches quite a bit in a rapid fix. Maybe should have used plain hypo or an alkaline fix. Flashing the neg was useful in some instances to bring out more shadow detail. This was done under an enlarger prior to development. Again, lots of testing was done! Examples here, though some of the work was shot on Ilford Ortho 5x4. Paper negs were images 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8.
http://www.mike-crawford.co.uk/portfolio/collaborative_portraits/atkinson-crawford-one.html

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I’d like to use rc papers instead of film negatives in a pinhole camera, so then to make contact print. Is the developing time determined by inspection or can I use the given time which is on the datasheet let’s say 1.30min as a basic? Okay, it depends on several factors and tastes but still. It’s hard to see the dark areas in safelight and I might over or underdevelop it.

Within 60 seconds.
RC-papers have fully developed. I would start with that and modify it to taste after inspection.

 

[tezzasmall]

Again, lots of testing was done! Examples here, though some of the work was shot on Ilford Ortho 5x4. Paper negs were images 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8.
http://www.mike-crawford.co.uk/portfolio/collaborative_portraits/atkinson-crawford-one.html

You did well there Mike. I'm not sure (on screen anyway) if I could have picked out the paper negatives from the film ones.

Terry S

 

[radiant]

Within 60 seconds.
RC-papers have fully developed. I would start with that and modify it to taste after inspection.

Except Ilfords new V paper needs 90 seconds for max dMax.

 

[radiant]

Thanks! Great stuff!

Borut is great guy and have lot of videos that I have myself learnt a lot. Plus I like his topshit-style. He really deserves subscribers and more patreons. Not affiliated in any ways with him. https://www.youtube.com/user/borutpeterlin

 

[Laci Toth]

Within 60 seconds.
RC-papers have fully developed. I would start with that and modify it to taste after inspection.

Okay, thanks! I give it a try.

 

[Laci Toth]

Except Ilfords new V paper needs 90 seconds for max dMax.

I use the new one. The site says it’s 1.30min in multigrade developer if the dilution is 1+14. As it would be the negative, I might give 60s a try and check 1.30min and make a comparison.

 

[radiant]

I use the new one. The site says it’s 1.30min in multigrade developer if the dilution is 1+14. As it would be the negative, I might give 60s a try and check 1.30min and make a comparison.

Borut Peterlin suggested using 1+19 solution and developing for 45 seconds if you don't have film developer available, so clearly underdeveloping the paper.

I read about the 90 seconds time from somewhere here and tested myself - I could see a faint difference in the blacks (even by blind test) so after that I have been always developing for the extra 30 seconds (1+9 solution).

 

[Laci Toth]

I use the new one. The site says it’s 1.30min in multigrade developer if the dilution is 1+14. As it would be the negative, I might give 60s a try and check 1.30min and make a comparison.

And also I will try it with a more diluted developer as well.

 

[radiant]

I couldn't resist trying my self. I used Foma RC 313 paper and Ilford MG developer with a mix of something like 1+18. I didn't measure the temperature but was chilly compared to normal temperature (added cold water to already used developer). I used Zeiss Ikon Nettar 518/16 (a 6x6 camera) with aperture wide open and closest focusing I could get (0.75m). Sorry for not getting the focus right but you might understand it is focus area is really shallow ..

The diluted mix is absolutely necessary, otherwise the paper develops too fast and becomes really contrasty. Even at the more diluted developer it is quite difficult to control too.

I did three shot test - lightning conditions were the same. I just eyeballed the exposure from single studio strobe to be enough close.

The images here are from left to right:
22 seconds - this is the time it took to get "something" on paper. This was my first test point and I thought it was wasted before scanning. On paper it looks bad, unusable.
45 seconds - after this time there wasn't any sudden changes and on paper it looked the best.
2 minutes - just a crazy test to see what really happens when I completely develop the paper.

So my conclusion is that 22 seconds was best but maybe it is a bit overdeveloped or overexposed. Anyhow the developing happened too fast and I think I will try film developer next if that gives me more constant results.

But talking about antique, old and authentic look.. Nailed it