I am IN LOVE! Paper negs in 8x10

[JessicaDittmer]

I'll post some images later but OMG.....SO MUCH FUN! I've done several today and the contrast is just what I'm wanting...wowza how fun!

 

[removed account4]

careful ...

its addictive !

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Jessica... yer brakin' m' hart. Don't tell hubby cuz I don't wanna die.

 

[JessicaDittmer]

you're funny! I love the contrast in these...I love contrast...so yum! I'm wondering how printing on a warm tone paper then for the pos. would work since I like warm images? Thoughts?

 

[brucemuir]

anyway you can post a few…I've never done it and am quite ignorant on the results/process.

 

[JessicaDittmer]

the pos. prints are drying right now. I can scan both the neg and the pos. to show you. I'll post in a bit here after they are dry. basically rated some older ilford rc vc for ISO6 and took a light meter reading accordingly to have setting of f8 and 2sec. then I placed it in a developer tray for 2min. then stop bath, fixer and water. I have a paper neg. Next, after dry...placed it in the contact frame emulsion side to emulsion side with another rc paper and exposed it thru the "neg" paper onto the new one this way with my enlarger open f4 for 1min. 20 sec. (i use a no.5 ilford contrast filter in the elarger too) then into developer tray for 1 min. then stop then fix then water then hang. (this is how mine worked out anyway)...all done in safelight which was nice - even loading the paper to the film holders to start was done in safelight -good for me since I'm learning.

 

[brucemuir]

Thanks so much for your detailed response Jessica!

 

[papagene]

Jess... me thinks you are having way too much fun!
Can't wait to see your prints.

 

[ColdEye]

It is quite fun, I am going thru a box of arista rc 8x10, then cutting them to 4x5. try out the ilford direct positive. Its quite nice too.

 

[JessicaDittmer]

here is some of what I've been up to. straight scans of these with just sizing and name added. I'll check out the direct pos.- haven't seen that yet.

 

[brucemuir]

eggggscellent!
thanks Jessica.

 

[John Austin]

This process is great fun and can be developed, otherwise I don't get it - I just don't understand the raving about something we have all tried, looked at and generally moved on from - This will be great if Jessica develops the work and pushes the process forward

But essentially I don't get such an obvious George Platt-Lynes homage



John

 

[John Austin]

Oooops,

My wife Rae has just told me off for the above post - She did that is in her role as pinhole to cyanotype and gum bichromate worker with me as her dark room boy and trouble shooter

John unrecantant

 

[brucemuir]

This process is great fun and can be developed, otherwise I don't get it - I just don't understand the raving about something we have all tried, looked at and generally moved on from - This will be great if Jessica develops the work and pushes the process forward

But essentially I don't get such an obvious George Platt-Lynes homage

View attachment 49720

John

Use such a broad brush when painting yourself into a corner :alien:

I've never done it and appreciate the OP's tips.

 

[JessicaDittmer]

I'm not familiar with this pic posted above. I'm doing a series of my kids with outdoor things (bird nests, sticks, rocks, antlers etc and thought this was a fun idea- with him holding the antlers up). I'm learning my 8x10 camera and enjoy seeing a bit more immediate results and I like what is coming out of it on the paper. I do plan to work on this more. I would think it is good to have even these new people like me that are excited about processes (even if they are old to other people)...we are at different levels of learning and experimenting- that's not a bad thing. At 35 years old I have a lot more ahead of me to learn I know and new things excite me when I can work with my own hands to do it- instead of digital,etc...

 

[gandolfi]

This process is great fun and can be developed, otherwise I don't get it - I just don't understand the raving about something we have all tried, looked at and generally moved on from - This will be great if Jessica develops the work and pushes the process forward

But essentially I don't get such an obvious George Platt-Lynes homage


John

well - if you ask me everything has been done...

I use paper negatives mostly for portraits. With a couple of reasons:
1: it is much cheaper than film use.
2: it is much faster than film use..
3: I have rather big cameras - films for these are hard to get (and really, really expensive)
4: the most important reason: paper negatives give me something film doesn't. The orthochromatic sensitivity and also the imprint of the fibers in the paper used as negative. It can give me reaults I'd never be able to get from normal film.

the idea that it has been done before and therefore should be ignored is not my thinking.
I'm not moving foreward. I am moving in all directions. and if that takes be "back", then it is fine by me...

Jessica: congrats on your new "apartment"... now you "just" have to furnish it..

BTW: try fiberbased paper for the end result. That can give you even better looking images...

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I also think the surface of the paper also has an impact in terms of glossy, semimatt, satin, and matt.

 

[removed account4]

hey bruce

no need to worry about anything ...

a lot of people who have 30, even 40years experience doing darkroom and camerawork have no idea how to make paper negatives
they have no idea that if you don't have a negative but you have a print, you can make a paper negative from the print,
they have no idea you can retouch the paper negative with pencils, or it is possible to have fun just doing something that is as old
as the dawn of photography.

i love making paper negatives not because i think i am doing something new, but because it is FUN ...
and a lot of photography seems to be ignoring the fun aspect of using a camera, with people more interested
in gear-talk &c ...


john ...

you ARE grumpy

john

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

<snip>...this chick is way to excited about photography. Where's the frustration? The aggravation? The disappointment? The resentment?

Photography is her friend, not her husband.

 

[brucemuir]

Yea John, I think what took me awhile to get my head around the entire process is I didn't realize you could do a contact directly through the paper.

hey bruce

no need to worry about anything ...

a lot of people who have 30, even 40years experience doing darkroom and camerawork have no idea how to make paper negatives
they have no idea that if you don't have a negative but you have a print, you can make a paper negative from the print,
they have no idea you can retouch the paper negative with pencils, or it is possible to have fun just doing something that is as old
as the dawn of photography.

i love making paper negatives not because i think i am doing something new, but because it is FUN ...
and a lot of photography seems to be ignoring the fun aspect of using a camera, with people more interested
in gear-talk &c ...


john ...

you ARE grumpy

john

 

[JessicaDittmer]

Thanks! I'm looking toward fiber for the final prints then - I'd like some warmth in the end result but enjoy the look so far. The RC I've heard is easier to use for the neg. part- not sure if that is true or not but I did try both and thought RC handled better in the film holders. Then I can contact print onto the fiber. 8x10 is so much fun...makes me want to shoot all these ideas in my head - my boys had fun being a part of it so far too.

 

[gandolfi]

Sounds like you're doing it right. I also use RC papers for nega as they stay flat (easier to make decent contact prints)

But I always use different fiberbased papers for the final print. And I also use liquid emulsion.

attached a few examples:
1: neg scan as is would look on RC paper (toned)
2: same image, but now as bromoil print (after using liquid emulsion)
3: neg manipulated on the back using lib gloss (paper can't see red....)
4: print on the fantastic paper Kentmere Art Classic.

 

[PeterB]

in the contact frame emulsion side to emulsion side with another rc paper and exposed it thru the "neg" paper onto the new one

How does the sharpness of the positive compare to the original negative ? Could you check it out with a loupe for us if it there is no obvious difference ?

I realise the emulsions are quite thin (perhaps 10-15um), but there would also probably be some supercoating/anti-scratch layer on top of that too. I guess due to diffraction the positive can never be as sharp, but I wonder what practical results you are getting.

 

[desertrat]

I realize your question was directed at the OP, but I have checked some paper negative / paper positive contacts made this way. The level of detail in the prints is almost as good as the negatives, but there is a slight 'texture' effect on the prints coming from the RC paper negative. I can see the texture clearly only under magnification, and it's not very strong. A fiber based paper negative would, I think, give a lot more texture.

Back to the original paper negative, the level of detail I see is almost as good as the level of detail in negatives made on ortho-litho film, which can record about as much detail as micro film. This is probably due to limitations in my lenses, which are all old and not of modern design. But I think a neg made on RC paper can hold much finer detail than can be seen on a contact print at a normal viewing distance.

 

[JessicaDittmer]

thanks! gandolfi, you inspired me to try from your posts on the large format forum. AWESOME work you do! I from just regular site think they are sharp- haven't checked with a loupe though. I'm going to do the paper negs on the rc and I have warm tone fiber ilford coming for the print then- I'd like to do some experimenting.