Film negative VS paper negative in contact print.

[marciofs]

Contact print from paper negative deliver as good result as from film negative, or it thikness means looses in quality?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Paper negatives are blue sensitive, so tones will be rendered differently than panchromatic film (yellows to reds will be darker). I've seen some very nice paper negative prints here, tonally and with lovely contrast.

 

[marciofs]

I know the contrast and tonalities will be not the same among both. But printing from paper negative my lose charpness or any other quality because of paper thikness? I have seen nice imagens from paper negatives but I don't know if they were scaned from paper negative and converted to positive in the computer or contact printed before scaned.

 

[cliveh]

You will always loose sharpness if you print through a translucent material as opposed to a transparent material.

 

[marciofs]

As I thought but I just wanted to make sure since it seems paper negatives are very popular.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How can you lose sharpness, when the paper negative's emulsion is in contact with the printing paper's emulsion?? Yes, the light passing through the paper will be somewhat diffused, but that should not affect sharpness. I often place a piece of frosted mylar on top of my 8x10 film negatives, to further diffuse the light. No loss of sharpness.

 

[marciofs]

Really? This is a good news.

 

[cliveh]

Andrew is quite correct, as I was thinking there would be translucency between the emulsion and the negative. Please ignore my previous post.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

How can you lose sharpness, when the paper negative's emulsion is in contact with the printing paper's emulsion?? Yes, the light passing through the paper will be somewhat diffused, but that should not affect sharpness. I often place a piece of frosted mylar on top of my 8x10 film negatives, to further diffuse the light. No loss of sharpness.

With a paper negative you will also see the fiber structure of the paper as part of the print. This can be minimal with commercial papers or with a salted paper negative quite prominent. So it all depends on what method you are using.

 

[marciofs]

Thanks. I started shooting with film negatives but now I see it may be worth using paper as negative.

 

[pdeeh]

With a paper negative you will also see the fiber structure of the paper as part of the print. .

Presumably RC papers used as negatives will be the least prone to this ?

 

[removed account4]

hi márcio

there are different things you can do to make a paper negative translucent.
in the old days when they used paper all the time ( calotype >> salt prints / talbotypes ) [ and mortenson too ]
they would use bees wax and rub it into the paper to make it more see-through ( think greasy food and a paper bag )
i have done this with paraffin to convert paper negatives to a bit more see through to make cyanotypes, and it would work
just as well too make contact prints in the darkroom on regular old photo paper. it really isn't necessary to wax paper for darkroom work though
and is sort of more trouble than it is worth in that respect
just make sure the paper you use as your negative
doesn't have writing / watermark / maker's stamp on the back ...
i have made paper internegatives when i was asked to duplicate a print someone got. ( the original photographer was happy i did )
i just took the print in question ( it was on rc paper ) i put it directly onto of unexposed photo paper, and a heavy piece of glass on top of it.
some people make both prints wet so they stick together and get a better seal and a crisper image... sometimes i do this and while it works OK
there is a chance of getting unevenness ... anyways, glass ontop, make a test strip the same way you would with a film print on paper ...
and you can use VC filters if you want .. make your print .. and you have a NEGATIVE ... do the same process over again on a clean piece of paper
to get positives, its pretty easy, and you are able to get sharp images, as sharp as with film some have told me ... and it is
good clean fun

i wish i still had the prints i made of "the new skillet lickers" a connecticut based bluegrass band. unfortunately they were all given to the band
and the negative given to the original photographer .. and the copy we had was put in a glass frame and ended up "silvering out"


have fun !

john

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Presumably RC papers used as negatives will be the least prone to this ?

That is correct.

 

[marciofs]

hi márcio

there are different things you can do to make a paper negative translucent.
in the old days when they used paper all the time ( calotype >> salt prints / talbotypes ) [ and mortenson too ]
they would use bees wax and rub it into the paper to make it more see-through ( think greasy food and a paper bag )
i have done this with paraffin to convert paper negatives to a bit more see through to make cyanotypes, and it would work
just as well too make contact prints in the darkroom on regular old photo paper. it really isn't necessary to wax paper for darkroom work though
and is sort of more trouble than it is worth in that respect
just make sure the paper you use as your negative
doesn't have writing / watermark / maker's stamp on the back ...
i have made paper internegatives when i was asked to duplicate a print someone got. ( the original photographer was happy i did )
i just took the print in question ( it was on rc paper ) i put it directly onto of unexposed photo paper, and a heavy piece of glass on top of it.
some people make both prints wet so they stick together and get a better seal and a crisper image... sometimes i do this and while it works OK
there is a chance of getting unevenness ... anyways, glass ontop, make a test strip the same way you would with a film print on paper ...
and you can use VC filters if you want .. make your print .. and you have a NEGATIVE ... do the same process over again on a clean piece of paper
to get positives, its pretty easy, and you are able to get sharp images, as sharp as with film some have told me ... and it is
good clean fun

i wish i still had the prints i made of "the new skillet lickers" a connecticut based bluegrass band. unfortunately they were all given to the band
and the negative given to the original photographer .. and the copy we had was put in a glass frame and ended up "silvering out"


have fun !

john

Thanks John.
I feel more confident with paper negative now.

 

[toguko]

from my experience, you don't see any fiber structure at all. it doesn't matter if it's rc or fb paper.

 

[Zelph]

How can you lose sharpness, when the paper negative's emulsion is in contact with the printing paper's emulsion?? Yes, the light passing through the paper will be somewhat diffused, but that should not affect sharpness. I often place a piece of frosted mylar on top of my 8x10 film negatives, to further diffuse the light. No loss of sharpness.

Every generation you get away from the original loses something, or am I missing something here?

 

[MattKing]

Every generation you get away from the original loses something, or am I missing something here?

You don't lose sharpness (accutance). You may lose resolution, and contrast/tonality is likely to be impacted, but sharpness should not be affected.

 

[pdeeh]

You shouldn't assume that because x-ray film is inexpensive and readily available in the USA that it is therefore cheap and easily available in Hamburg.

 

[removed account4]

from my experience, you don't see any fiber structure at all. it doesn't matter if it's rc or fb paper.

that's my experience too, but i'm thinking maybe i am exposing my paper differently than people who regularly say they see fibers and the structure of the paper.
i can see, seeing the structure / fibers of the paper, if it is enlarged in a tradition projection enlarger, but i've never done that ...

as with everything ... YMMV