Developing time of Ilford RC paper if used as film negative

[radiant]

Ha, there was one shot that had something in focus and some skintones preserved. No idea how this developed, maybe by hunch. This had most probably two strobes at full power. I'm a bit confused, but learning is the obvious part in paper negative method

 

[koraks]

That is really nice!

 

[radiant]

That is really nice!

Hey thanks koraks, really appreciate this!

 

[pentaxuser]

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.

.

In the video did he say what the dilution was for ID11 or how long his development period was? I was surprised that given how much better he thought ID11 was com pared to MG paper developer he did not spend more time on how to use ID11

I got the impression that in his opinion there is no way to gauge the correct exposure by ISO and that a light meter is almost useless so while you might get a "feel" for the right exposure eventually I was a little depressed by how many wasted pieces of paper negative this might involve

pentaxuser

 

[radiant]

Spamming more ..

Maybe there was something wrong with the scans of the first test (see this thread page 1) because on this combined scan (I scanned all three prints on a single sweep) the 22 second development is quite dark. The 45 second developed (2nd) seems quite ok actually, maybe the unfocus causes contrasts to disappear on higher tones and those seem to be more blown out.

On the last one ("fully developed") you can see that highlights become really dense (is that even correct word on paper negatives) aka the highlights over-develop.

 

[tezzasmall]

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

Never heard of him, but I'm always willing to check out recommended links and videos, so thanks.

Terry S

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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!

I get very close by treating it asISO 3.

 

[pentaxuser]

I get very close by treating it asISO 3.

So is there any real reason for Borut in his video to say that with paper negative exposure there is no point in treating its ISO the same way you would a film negative's ISO? At least if you have the correct ISO then surely you can use it the same way as you would input a film's ISO into a light meter?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[removedacct1]

I expose MGIV paper in camera at 3 ASA with a medium yellow filter (or the contrast zero filter from the Ilford MG filter pack) and develop the paper in Dektol diluted 1-3 or 1-4 for 45-60 seconds. Using the filter allows me to use only the low contrast layer of the paper, which gives a much more film-like contrast and tonality, and so you don’t have to worry as much about how to develop the paper since you’re already managing contrast issues.

 

[MattKing]

I expose MGIV paper in camera at 3 ASA with a medium yellow filter (or the contrast zero filter from the Ilford MG filter pack) and develop the paper in Dektol diluted 1-3 or 1-4 for 45-60 seconds. Using the filter allows me to use only the low contrast layer of the paper, which gives a much more film-like contrast and tonality, and so you don’t have to worry as much about how to develop the paper since you’re already managing contrast issues.

This makes sense, and when you consider it, helps explain the uncertainty about the paper's "speed".
The two (or more) emulsion components in multigrade paper don't differ in contrast. They differ in speed, with the blue sensitive "high contrast" emulsion component being more sensitive than the green sensitive "low contrast" component.
The overall speed of the paper will vary with the colour of the light.

 

[radiant]

.. I was just few hours ago thinking should we use non-MG paper for this?

which gives a much more film-like contrast and tonality

But doesn't this "spoil" the look of the paper negative?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For my high school photo students doing pinhole, we develop for 1.5 minutes in 1:20 MG developer. We always develop to completion, even if it appears to be a failure. We then adjust exposure accordingly. We usually end up with easily printable and scannable negs. For my advanced kids, we work with yellow (Roscoe) filters taped over the pinhole for even smoother negs. I should add that our pinhole cameras are either shoe boxes or bulk roll film boxes, with hand made pinholes. Sixty kids with sixty different exposures and results! Not very sophisticated, very chaotic, but damn fun!

 

[removedacct1]

But doesn't this "spoil" the look of the paper negative?

Not at all! The paper still has an orthochromatic tonality that is 90% of what makes a paper negative look as it does.

 

[Laci Toth]

Ha, there was one shot that had something in focus and some skintones preserved. No idea how this developed, maybe by hunch. This had most probably two strobes at full power. I'm a bit confused, but learning is the obvious part in paper negative method

View attachment 240148

This is awesome! Congrats!

 

[Laci Toth]

I get very close by treating it asISO 3.

Thanks! Most of the comments are about iso 3 so it seems a good starting point.

 

[Laci Toth]

I expose MGIV paper in camera at 3 ASA with a medium yellow filter (or the contrast zero filter from the Ilford MG filter pack) and develop the paper in Dektol diluted 1-3 or 1-4 for 45-60 seconds. Using the filter allows me to use only the low contrast layer of the paper, which gives a much more film-like contrast and tonality, and so you don’t have to worry as much about how to develop the paper since you’re already managing contrast issues.

Thanks for the idea!

 

[radiant]

This is awesome! Congrats!

Thanks. Although it's quite controversial to get positive feedback only from quick test shots but nothing from "serious" ones Maybe I should shoot everything carelessly and just for a test?

And thanks from me too to everyone sharing their tips and knowledge!

 

[Laci Toth]

Thanks. Although it's quite controversial to get positive feedback only from quick test shots but nothing from "serious" ones Maybe I should shoot everything carelessly and just for a test?

And thanks from me too to everyone sharing their tips and knowledge!

Time to shift to spontaneity! =)

 

[radiant]

I tried using yellow filter on camera and it seems to help developing; highlights develop much much slower.

Hey vedostuu, your DIY Mamiya RB67 filmback "might" have "some" lightleaks. But hey, the focus plane is probably quite close? (had to shoot this with aperture fully open so landscapes should be bit easier) :

 

[Laci Toth]

I tried using yellow filter on camera and it seems to help developing; highlights develop much much slower.

View attachment 240531

Hey vedostuu, your DIY Mamiya RB67 filmback "might" have "some" lightleaks. But hey, the focus plane is probably quite close? (had to shoot this with aperture fully open so landscapes should be bit easier) :

View attachment 240532

These two shots are very nice, the plant is a beauty. I get a set of Ilford MG filter and as Paul Barden suggested will use the grade zero. It’s even quite easy to stick it right behind the pinhole from inside the camera.

 

[radiant]

These two shots are very nice, the plant is a beauty. I get a set of Ilford MG filter and as Paul Barden suggested will use the grade zero. It’s even quite easy to stick it right behind the pinhole from inside the camera.

Thanks again! I have MG filters but I've heard those don't like water. So outside photography would be a bit risky. Sticking a piece of filter inside camera seems really good option. Glad that I had 77mm yellow filter for RB67 which I'm probably going to use because of the interchangeable back. Well, if I get the light leaks in control..

 

[Laci Toth]

I expose MGIV paper in camera at 3 ASA with a medium yellow filter (or the contrast zero filter from the Ilford MG filter pack) and develop the paper in Dektol diluted 1-3 or 1-4 for 45-60 seconds. Using the filter allows me to use only the low contrast layer of the paper, which gives a much more film-like contrast and tonality, and so you don’t have to worry as much about how to develop the paper since you’re already managing contrast issues.

Sorry that I haven't get back to you earlier. I made a few test shots but all was unusable due to the contrast was super high.
I shot the first without a filter, the second one was with a ‘0’ filter and the third was with a ‘00’ filter.
The white areas were the grass and the bushes, the sun was full on and the fence was in shades.
I set the iso at 3 so I might give it 2-3 stops more exposure though I don't know if it will solve the issue.
I developed them in fresh multigrade developer for less than a minute as the outcome was obvious even after 15 seconds.
Those which I cut them to slices just to check different dev times are the other side of the garden and the sun was full-on the fence. There you could see at the bottom that the grass is plain white.
The paper was Ilford multigrade rc.
What you reckon?

 

[radiant]

I made a few test shots but all was unusable due to the contrast was super high.

I think you answered to your question Remember that paper f-stop range isn't as good as film. The fence + sky is correctly exposed so you then should just choose which part to keep.

 

[Laci Toth]

I think you answered to your question Remember that paper f-stop range isn't as good as film. The fence + sky is correctly exposed so you then should just choose which part to keep.

Oh, then it’s more of a gamble than photography.

 

[koraks]

FYI, I have often read about people getting good results when rating their paper at ISO3 or even 6, but I have never gotten good results myself beyond maybe ISO 0.5 or 1 at best. The lack of response to red light and the very high response to blue compared to green make it difficult to tame/control contrast in real-world situations. I don't know how or why others get acceptable results at e.g. ISO3; all I know is it never worked for me.