Grain in paper negatives

bergytone · Jan 9, 2015

I just shot my first "roll" of 120 paper negatives. What I learned was that I'm still learning! Trying a variety of exposures and filters and using a light meter set to ASA12 yielded reasonable results... I need a little tweaking.
What my question to you all is, is the grain of paper emulsion (say with Ilford MGiV or Arista EDU grade 2 ) equivalent to the grain of film? When I look at the negatives with the loupe, the grain looks pretty fine.

Gerald C Koch · Jan 9, 2015

The image of the fibers in the paper will mask the grain in the emulsion. So really not a concern.

bergytone · Jan 9, 2015

I guess this brings up the question... what do most of you do with paper negatives? Do you contact print them, scan and print them, put them in the enlarger, or just stare at them?

If you make big negatives, like 4x5 or 8x10, then I can see contact printing them makes sense. But if you just shot 6x6 or 6x9, how do you like to print them? That's why I asked about the grain of the paper, how well do they enlarge? Some of the examples posted look pretty good, but I think they are large format negatives.

NedL · Jan 9, 2015

Speaking only for myself, this led me to making cameras that make bigger negatives.

I have a stack of playing card sized 116 paper negative contact prints, and some 122 "postcard" sized ones. These are both a bit bigger than 6x9. I like them but wanting to make larger contact prints is what got me started making bigger cameras. Right now I have several 5x7 pinhole cameras, an 8x10 pinhole camera, and an 11x14 pinhole camera. I also have built 2 large lensed cameras, one takes 8x10 paper and the other can use 8x10 or 7x11 paper.

Right now my favorite format is a 5.3 x 9 or 6.18 x 10 on 7 x 11 paper.

I've never tried paper negatives in my enlarger, but I know other people have done it.

The big negatives look amazing, and it's kind of addictive. I haven't been using my smaller cameras as much lately, although I'm planing to make more "postcard" sized negatives soon. Actually, I'm planning to try to make postcard sized calotypes ( home-made paper negatives ).

removed account4 · Jan 9, 2015

im a sucker for paper negatives.
i don't enlarge them in an enlarger ..
although blind pig's reflective enlarger is
the bees'kneez ...
i too have a huge stack, of them too many for me to bother counting
i sometimes make little 35mm paper negatives
and huge ones i made a camera that makes
IDK 16x21 and even bigger .. they are a lot of fun to use ( and easy to make ) !
sometimes i make contact prints with them, sometimes i wax the paper
to make it more "see through" and make contact prints -- that way, or cyanotypes
and sometimes i am not too anal-og and electrify them and have a a printer make
an enormous print from a puny 4x5 negative
to be honest, i would rather make paper negatives than expose film. there is something
truly magical about making paper negatives ... the slowness of the exposure
maybe its the fox talbot vibe ? not sure, but it is more fun than constantly clicking a shutter and winding to the next frame

YMMV

Joe VanCleave · Jan 9, 2015

That reflective enlarger is one cool idea. I have enlarged paper negatives using a conventional condensor enlarger, and while the results are somewhat satisfactory, the paper grain comes through and it loses sharpness.

What I normally do is either scan or contact print. In scanning, I do NOT see the fibers of the paper, while if contact printing RC paper it's also not noticeable.

I do like small contact prints. Of course, the subject matter has to work with the size. A landscape, for instance, doesn't work, as the details are too small. But portraits or still lifes can be nice, especially if over-matted with a wide border.

Just today I was shooting selfies in a Minolta X700. Being as I rate the grade 2 paper at around 6-12, I set the camera to its lowest ISO of 25, then used +1 or +2 exposure compensation. Aperture priority, the camera determines the shutter speed. I developed them taped to the inside walls of a stainless 2-reel tank, minus the reels, tipped sideways and rotated as in drum processing. Only takes around 85ml of chemistry.

~Joe

Joe_Selfie002a by jvcabacus, on Flickr

NedL · Jan 9, 2015

Joe VanCleave said:
....
Just today I was shooting selfies in a Minolta X700.

The reflective enlarger is a really cool idea. Joe, that's a great 35mm self portrait! I just learned about this (there was a url link here which no longer exists)... you could put a copy there if you like...

Joe VanCleave · Jan 9, 2015

Thanks, Ned. Done.

~Joe

bergytone · Jan 10, 2015

I just realized that Joe had a thread about printing paper negatives a while ago. Interesting thoughts. But your post of your selfie kind of answers my question... the grain that shows up in a paper negative rivals film. Your selfie post looks like it could have been shot with Tri-X.

Sometimes when looking at others' picture postings it's hard to tell if the grain you are seeing is from the original or is it digitizing noise from scanning. You don't hear of people complaining that wet printing has made the print look even grainier than the negative so it leads me to believe paper emulsion has a pretty small grain.

Joe, I just bought some Arista EDU grade 2 and I'm planning on shooting some pinhole work with it. I thought at one time you mentioned you use ISO of 25 when shooting Arista outside as it's faster than Ilford. I know pinhole work is a lot of trial and error, but I've kind of landed on a 'sunny 16' rating with Ilford paper at about 40 seconds with my 4x5 F275 camera. So I guess I'll do a few test prints at slightly reduced times and see how it looks.

Joe VanCleave · Jan 10, 2015

Actually, I typically rate that paper at ISO12 in bright sun, and ISO6 in low contrast light. And I develop for 3 minutes, ensuring the developer is around 68f.

To get ISO 6 or 12 with the Minolta I have to set ISO25 then +1 or +2 exposure comp.

I have many examples from my early days of paper negatives, especially in pinhole cameras, where they appear under-exposed, but really were under developed. My darkroom is in one corner of my garage, and gets cold in the winter. I learned over the years to ensure they're at the proper temp, and to fully develop.

I'm using liquid concentrate diluted around 1:15; I'll reuse it until I don't get the density I want, then mix fresh.

I too have noticed the grain in these images, which does remind us that it's silver gelatin emulsion, albeit on a white substrate.

~Joe

RalphLambrecht · Jan 10, 2015

bergytone said:
I just shot my first "roll" of 120 paper negatives. What I learned was that I'm still learning! Trying a variety of exposures and filters and using a light meter set to ASA12 yielded reasonable results... I need a little tweaking.
What my question to you all is, is the grain of paper emulsion (say with Ilford MGiV or Arista EDU grade 2 ) equivalent to the grain of film? When I look at the negatives with the loupe, the grain looks pretty fine.

I'mconfused aboutanyquestionabout grain in relation to paper negatives.I print paper negatives fullsize as a contact print emulsion against emulsion.there areno grain or paper fibers tosee.none and how could there be any?

bergytone · Jan 10, 2015

Ralph, what i was trying to ask is whether paper emulsion is as good as film emulsion or better when it comes to visible grain. Nothing to do with paper fibers. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that paper, due to its slow speed has a pretty fine grain. As answer #2 said, it's a silver based photo process, so it must have some grain.

One would think that if film has grain, and paper has grain they would be additive in the final print no matter what process you print them with. Am I wrong?

Eric

MattKing · Jan 10, 2015

Like film grain, paper grain is very, very small. You really cannot see it unless you magnify/enlarge it.

So unless you are using a magnifier on your prints, or otherwise enlarging them in some way (opaque projector?) you won't be able to see grain on your prints that arises from the paper itself.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 10, 2015

incontact printing,whenemulsionfaces emulsion nopaper fibers or grain will show.

harry457 · May 21, 2015

Their is no age of learning..
We learn by doing..
How much we do pracitally it added to our experience and we learn..

blindpig · May 22, 2015

Hey! don't you have a reflective enlarger?Why not print one of your paper negatives up size on that and should answer any questions I'd think.
You will quickly see any grain problems if they are there.

DWThomas · May 22, 2015

Ah yes, for paper negatives I see repeated proof that Joe is The Man!!!

I have only targeted 4x5 and 8x10 pinhole work with paper negatives, for which I would/do contact print for actual display. But I'm still clawing at at the bottom toe of the learning curve. I got x-ray film working pretty well, mayhaps I need to revisit paper "one of these days."

DWThomas · May 22, 2015

bergytone said:
[...]

One would think that if film has grain, and paper has grain they would be additive in the final print no matter what process you print them with. Am I wrong?

Eric

OK, this is a guess, but I suspect grain on grain is not a linear addition, it's probably something along the lines of the square root of the sum of the squares of blivets per furlong or whatever the units are. (In my old age I tend to just try it and see if I like it! )

And this assumes contact prints -- as enlargement comes into play, the effect of the print paper grain would fade away quickly as enlargement increases.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 7, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
The image of the fibers in the paper will mask the grain in the emulsion. So really not a concern.

the fibres don't image in paper negatives since they are contact printed emulsion side to emulsion side;no imagelight is going through the paper.paper grain is extremely small compared to film. I've never seen any.maybe PE can enlighten us.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 7, 2015

bergytone said:
I guess this brings up the question... what do most of you do with paper negatives? Do you contact print them, scan and print them, put them in the enlarger, or just stare at them?

If you make big negatives, like 4x5 or 8x10, then I can see contact printing them makes sense. But if you just shot 6x6 or 6x9, how do you like to print them? That's why I asked about the grain of the paper, how well do they enlarge? Some of the examples posted look pretty good, but I think they are large format negatives.

large format contact printedemulsion side to emulsion side so no image light is going through the paper.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 7, 2015

RalphLambrecht · Jul 7, 2015

bergytone said:
Ralph, what i was trying to ask is whether paper emulsion is as good as film emulsion or better when it comes to visible grain. Nothing to do with paper fibers. I think I'm coming to the conclusion that paper, due to its slow speed has a pretty fine grain. As answer #2 said, it's a silver based photo process, so it must have some grain.

One would think that if film has grain, and paper has grain they would be additive in the final print no matter what process you print them with. Am I wrong?

Eric

Eric,your logic is sound but paper grain is extremely fine and not visible when contct printing.

bergytone · Jul 9, 2015

I guess that's where my question was leading to... I was just trying to verify that if you shoot paper negatives, one should be able to do some pretty good enlarging without grain showing up. This is referring to the reflective enlarger that blindpig mentioned earlier.

I guess the slow speed of photo paper and the lack of mainstream reflective enlargers keep more people from using it for general shooting. I would like to start putting paper into some old box cameras, but most have fixed f stops at say F/11, so the exposure time is relatively long. Those old cameras usually have two shutter speeds: 1/60 and B. trying to coax a 1/8 second out of one is nearly impossible, but that's what you need on a sunny day to shoot paper negatives with one.

NedL · Jul 10, 2015

You're right. Some cameras are easier to use with paper negatives than others. If the aperture will stop down to f/32 or f/45 or f/64 then B can work well. You can get close enough if the exposure is more than about 1/2 second ( and a cable release! ). If the camera has a shutter speed near 1/25, then releasing the shutter 2 or 3 or 5 times ( on a tripod! ) can work well with the lens opened up more. Even with your 1/60 shutter, if you click it 5 times you'll have an exposure of 1/12 second... which might be pretty good at F/11 on a sunny day. But you're right there is still a gap where it is awkward, too bright to use B but not enough to make 1/60 work with a reasonable number of "clicks".

removed account4 · Jul 10, 2015

hi bergytone

if you use a yellow filter over your lens it will increase your exposure time
by whatever the filter factor might be for the lens you are using. some old box cameras
( like the agfa sure shot ) have a filter built into the camera you pull out either way it will increase
your exposure ... i tend to use expired paper on overcast days ... it reduces the brightness / contrast
of the scene so exposure times are slower .. i've never gotten the hang of the multiple exposures nedL recommends
i'm too shaky / clutzy to get a good image

have fun !
john

Grain in paper negatives

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency