How well does enlarging paper block light

[redbandit]

Are your exposure times really long? It honestly sounds like you are exposing the non emulsion side.

well, in order to have NO image appear on th exposed surface and small amounts of black to appear on the "bottom"

paper flipped upside down i think.

I have to have at least 20 second exposure time.

although with the inpress paper, 10 seconds was enough for a dark fuzzy image

 

[Joe VanCleave]

As someone who frequently makes contact prints from paper negatives, I can attest that you can certainly get a decent exposure through the backside of print paper.

In the case of contact printing a paper negative, the light travels through the back of the negative, through the negative emulsion, then onto the face-up print emulsion underneath.

In the case of the OP's issue, he most likely exposed the projected image through the backside of the print paper, due to the paper being face-down on the easel.

I will offer another data point: I have also ENLARGED paper negatives, placing them emulsion side down in the enlarger negative carrier and projecting them onto the easel. This works better with a condenser enlarger and RC negatives, and higher contrast filtration.

Reading this and other posts by the same OP, he most likely is having issues with basic paper handling skills.

 

[rcphoto]

Don't judge me too much on these, I just popped them off real quick to help prove the point. The top image is paper emulsion side up, negative emulsion side down. The second image is the paper emulsion side down, the negative was left in the same position as the first. You'll notice the biggest differences between the two are sharpness and the bottom print is backwards. The only change i made from top to bottom was I guessed at opening up 2 stops.

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this image.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Don't judge me too much on these, I just popped them off real quick to help prove the point. The top image is paper emulsion side up, negative emulsion side down. The second image is the paper emulsion side down, the negative was left in the same position as the first. You'll notice the biggest differences between the two are sharpness and the bottom print is backwards. The only change i made from top to bottom was I guessed at opening up 2 stops.

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this image.

One way to make a fuzzy dog fuzzier.

 

[redbandit]

Don't judge me too much on these, I just popped them off real quick to help prove the point. The top image is paper emulsion side up, negative emulsion side down. The second image is the paper emulsion side down, the negative was left in the same position as the first. You'll notice the biggest differences between the two are sharpness and the bottom print is backwards. The only change i made from top to bottom was I guessed at opening up 2 stops.

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this image.

the bottom dog photo is how my flower prints turn out, and even the good arista test print of my chickadee is sort of blurry on the edges like the dog, but chickadee has better detail showing in the chest feathers

 

[koraks]

but chickadee has better detail showing in the chest feathers

I'm going to put that down to the dog nog having any.

 

[rcphoto]

I'm going to put that down to the dog nog having any.

lol

 

[snusmumriken]

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this image.

You don’t have the dog’s permission?

 

[rcphoto]

You don’t have the dog’s permission?

I was under the impression we needed to be subscribed to post images.

 

[snusmumriken]

I was under the impression we needed to be subscribed to post images.

I think that relates to gallery images, but I could be wrong.

 

[MattKing]

Hopefully I don't get in trouble for posting this image.

You don’t have the dog’s permission?

I was under the impression we needed to be subscribed to post images.

I think that relates to gallery images, but I could be wrong.

I'll say this to snusmumriken:
1) great minds think alike; and
2) you have it exactly right!
And to rcphoto:
Thank you for doing the test. And feel free to post images in threads that are appropriate to the threads.

 

[afriman]

arista semi matte, and it doesnt take finger prints

Are your exposure times really long? It honestly sounds like you are exposing the non emulsion side.

Surely you can figure this out with a couple of test strips.

 

[afriman]

As someone who frequently makes contact prints from paper negatives, I can attest that you can certainly get a decent exposure through the backside of print paper.

In the case of contact printing a paper negative, the light travels through the back of the negative, through the negative emulsion, then onto the face-up print emulsion underneath.

In the case of the OP's issue, he most likely exposed the projected image through the backside of the print paper, due to the paper being face-down on the easel.

This actually raises another issue I sometimes wonder about. When exposing paper lying on a white baseboard or easel, don't we risk lowering contrast by having light shining through the paper onto the white surface and then being reflected back through the paper base onto the emulsion? Or is the amount of light reflected back too small to have a noticeable effect? I once read a suggestion that one should use a matte black surface. I actually tried this a couple of times and could not discern any difference, but I assume the nature of the photo (subject matter, lighting, etc) will also play a role.

 

[MattKing]

This actually raises another issue I sometimes wonder about. When exposing paper lying on a white baseboard or easel, don't we risk lowering contrast by having light shining through the paper onto the white surface and then being reflected back through the paper base onto the emulsion? I once read a suggestion that one should use a matte black surface. Or is the amount of light reflected back too small to have a noticeable effect? I actually tried this a couple of times and could not discern any difference, but I assume the nature of the photo (subject matter, lighting, etc) will also play a role.

This is why many of the Saunders easels were made with amber/yellow surfaces, not white.

 

[afriman]

This actually raises another issue I sometimes wonder about. When exposing paper lying on a white baseboard or easel, don't we risk lowering contrast by having light shining through the paper onto the white surface and then being reflected back through the paper base onto the emulsion? Or is the amount of light reflected back too small to have a noticeable effect? I once read a suggestion that one should use a matte black surface. I actually tried this a couple of times and could not discern any difference, but I assume the nature of the photo (subject matter, lighting, etc) will also play a role.

Come to think of it: won't the shadow areas (the ones letting the most light through the paper), tend to darken more because of receiving more reflected light? Perhaps leading to decreased shadow detail?

I guess this isn't even worth considering, as the effect, if any, would be minute.

 

[redbandit]

I am using a rather nifty-less beseler borderless 11x14 easel.

its solid black, and not that reflective.

 

[jvo]

redbandit... welcome...

i've seen your multiple questions, each valid, as you resolve the "magic" of the darkroom. The best bang for your buck is the cost of a lunch to help you through the process. invite a local apugger over to your house on a saturday, buy them lunch, and have fun in the darkroom. best money you'll ever spend. it resolve all the angst, as well.