New resource for Mortensen's wet paper negative process

[NedL]

I've posted instructions for making enlarged wet paper negatives if you are interested.
Courtesy of Dick Sullivan.

Ned

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Ned Are there any examples of what the resulting prints look like?

Thanks

 

[removed account4]

YES!!!!

 

[NedL]

Thanks Ned Are there any examples of what the resulting prints look like?
Thanks

There is one linked at the end, but honestly it's not a great example of what these negatives are capable of: it doesn't show off the way shadows stay open. I'll look around for something to scan.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's really cool! Gonna try it. Thanks!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Dagnabbit! Now there's ANOTHER thing I need to try when i have time in the darkroom (well, I've got a couple 4-day weekends coming up, and hope to be able to print on both of them). I wouldn't mind being able to make van Dyke, cyanotype, or salt prints from a few of my 35mm negatives...

 

[NedL]

The print linked at the end is a kind of VDB, made with citric acid instead of tartaric acid. I've used these for salt printing too... it's not difficult to take the "low contrast" interpositive and make a beefy contrasty negative from it for salt printing... seems like it's always easier to boost contrast than it is to reduce it w/o losing something. Have fun!

 

[wyofilm]

Made my first attempt using Liquidol as the developer and Ilford Multidgrade FB - pearl as the finish - grade #3 filter. It worked, but very flat. I need to increase contrast a bunch. I hope #5 gets me there. Any other suggestions to boost contrast?

 

[NedL]

Made my first attempt using Liquidol as the developer and Ilford Multidgrade FB - pearl as the finish - grade #3 filter. It worked, but very flat. I need to increase contrast a bunch. I hope #5 gets me there. Any other suggestions to boost contrast?

Have you made the negative yet? The interpositive is odd-looking and looks very flat mostly because there are no really deep blacks on it but instead a range of mid-to-dark greys -- that's what keeps those shadows open -- and what it's supposed to look like. The interpositive looks something like a pencil-shaded drawing, without any real blacks. I use my contrast filters when I'm contact printing the positive to make the negative. I think you should be able to get plenty of contrast in the negative if you use #4 or #5 filtered light making the negative. Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is that a few times I've exposed the positive too long, so that the highlights start to fill in, and then there is not as much density range.. on the interpositive, the brightest highlights shouldn't have too much tone in them. Good luck with it!

I'll add one more thing:
I'm not sure I can say this part well with words, but what I was trying to say about the red safelight shimmering... as the positive forms, the highlight areas appear to be a shimmery red color ( it's really white, reflecting the red safelight color ).. and as that shimmery red starts to disappear it means you are losing your highlights. You can watch as it develops and turn off the enlarger when there's still some red showing in the highlight areas. But my impression is that this process is pretty forgiving, and it's not super-critical that you expose the positive just right.. when you make the negative, you have a lot of opportunity to adjust the contrast. Hope that makes sense

 

[pentaxuser]

Have you made the negative yet? The interpositive is odd-looking and looks very flat mostly because there are no really deep blacks on it but instead a range of mid-to-dark greys -- that's what keeps those shadows open -- and what it's supposed to look like. The interpositive looks something like a pencil-shaded drawing, without any real blacks. I use my contrast filters when I'm contact printing the positive to make the negative. I think you should be able to get plenty of contrast in the negative if you use #4 or #5 filtered light making the negative. Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is that a few times I've exposed the positive too long, so that the highlights start to fill in, and then there is not as much density range.. on the interpositive, the brightest highlights shouldn't have too much tone in them. Good luck with it!

I'll add one more thing:
I'm not sure I can say this part well with words, but what I was trying to say about the red safelight shimmering... as the positive forms, the highlight areas appear to be a shimmery red color ( it's really white, reflecting the red safelight color ).. and as that shimmery red starts to disappear it means you are losing your highlights. You can watch as it develops and turn off the enlarger when there's still some red showing in the highlight areas.

It sounds as if the red safelight guide you mention is pretty crucial. I take it that the 906 Ilford amberish safelight does not give this shimmering effect or does it but just not red shimmering? This does sound like a good guide but it would be a pity if only a red safelight works for this effect.

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[NedL]

Having the safelight on really does help gauge the exposure ( and it looks really cool while the print is forming too ). I can only guess that an amber safelight would work the same way, but I don't have one so I don't know for sure.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the reply, NedL

pentaxuser

 

[wyofilm]

Have you made the negative yet? The interpositive is odd-looking and looks very flat mostly because there are no really deep blacks on it but instead a range of mid-to-dark greys -- that's what keeps those shadows open -- and what it's supposed to look like. The interpositive looks something like a pencil-shaded drawing, without any real blacks. I use my contrast filters when I'm contact printing the positive to make the negative. I think you should be able to get plenty of contrast in the negative if you use #4 or #5 filtered light making the negative. Otherwise, the only thing I can think of is that a few times I've exposed the positive too long, so that the highlights start to fill in, and then there is not as much density range.. on the interpositive, the brightest highlights shouldn't have too much tone in them. Good luck with it!

I'll add one more thing:
I'm not sure I can say this part well with words, but what I was trying to say about the red safelight shimmering... as the positive forms, the highlight areas appear to be a shimmery red color ( it's really white, reflecting the red safelight color ).. and as that shimmery red starts to disappear it means you are losing your highlights. You can watch as it develops and turn off the enlarger when there's still some red showing in the highlight areas. But my impression is that this process is pretty forgiving, and it's not super-critical that you expose the positive just right.. when you make the negative, you have a lot of opportunity to adjust the contrast. Hope that makes sense

Thanks! I'll give it another try. Maybe it was ok, but I was just a little surprised at the flatness of the image.

 

[pentaxuser]

wyofilm, did you see the effect described in the article i.e. this shimmering effect? I had suddenly realised that a crucial point has literally gone over my head, namely how does the paper develop into a print with no developer? I had no idea that what must be incorporated developer is literally removed by the soaking. I did not realise that water was able to do this

So as he mentions developer in the phrase "excess developer" it is developer and not just light sensitive emulsion that the water removes? However hasn't Ilford for instance always said that its papers have no incorporated developers so this puzzles me.

Finally when exposing the paper under the enlarger there is no mention of time or f stop other than when "you decide to stop or get tired of the light show. It does seem all very casual and quite unlike any other process under which relatively strict guidelines are given

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

@pentaxuser As I'm reading it, the unexposed print is soaked well in developer before it goes onto the glass under the enlarger. I presume that's what does the developing work...

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Donald How in the heck did I miss that sentence. That clears that up and it is presumably the wet film of developer left on the paper after squeegeeing that develops into a positive after exposure to the negative in the enlarger which you then stop, fix, wash and dry. What puzzles me is that the dry positive is soaked with a fresh piece of paper and then the two are laid together to produce the negative which from steps 10-13 in a process that does not involve any developer. It is simply the previously dry positive and a fresh sheet of paper that are soaked, laid together and the negative is exposed under an enlarger light minus any negative. How does a water soaking of a positive and a fresh sheet squeegeed together manage to do this?

Finally we come to Dick Sullivan's variation for RC paper which involves using the positive to contact print but this time in its dry state. No mention is made of developer here either

So does FB work for contact printing with a water soak but RC actually needs the developer stage again after the dry positive has been contact printed onto another dry RC sheet?

I am confused

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Soaking the two ensures a very intimate contact between the emulsions, ensuring there's no unsharpness from the very diffuse light passing through the base of the interpositive. Further, with fiber based paper, the paper is more translucent when wet than when dry.

There's no need for developer soaking in the contact print to make the enlarged negative; that's needed in making the interpositive so you can watch the process and get the right level of exposure and development to produce the low contrast interpositive this process requires. If you soaked the interpositve and negative-to-be in developer, you wouldn't have any way to judge the process as you do when making the interpositive -- so you have to make test strips as you'd do normally, to get the exposure right (and possibly to further control contrast).

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Donald. So in effect in stage 13 the word Develop as in place in print developer has been missed out ? Following the dry to dry contact that Dick Sullivan prefers for RC paper and indeed for the wet to wet water-soaked contact that is better for FB inter-positive to FB contact paper a print developer is still needed

Presumably wet to wet for FB at the contact printing stage which ensures solid contact replaces the need with dry to dry contact RC paper which needs a heavy piece of glass to get solid contact

No mention is made of fstop or time for the contact print under the enlarger light but presumably this just requires test strips to arrive at correct exposure with some experimentation in terms of grade filter ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think you're understanding this correctly. That last "develop" stage may have been left out as "you'd always do this with a print of any kind," and the test strips and filter grade testing the same. Only the oddball part (exposing paper already wet with developer) and following special handling is detailed.

Of course, the tricky part with filter grade is that the interpositive needs to be quite flat (as I'm reading it) in order to control contrast in the enlarged negative. This is probably why the process normally uses no filter for the interpositive (you might even gain by using a #1 or so), reserving contrast control for the contact print to negative stage.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Donald. The need for a developer might seem so obvious that it doesn't need saying in the article but as this is a completely-unknown- to-me process I wanted to be sure that it wasn't some kind of a "miracle" process that somehow managed to avoid any print developer in the contact print part.

pentaxuser

 

[olk]

I'm currious about the paper negative process - for what's that worth?
Does the process wok only with special (thin) papers or could I use any of Ilford's MC papers?

Oliver

 

[NedL]

Hi Everyone,

Donald has it right. I apologize; it didn't even occur to me to mention that in making the final negative you develop/stop/fix as usual. I am going to revisit this in a day or two and try to make it more clear.

Soaking the paper in developer limits the amount of developer available at each place on the paper, so it will exhaust first in dark areas, but still maintain the ability to develop in mids and highs... it's like compensating film development ( stand development, or 2-part developers like diafine ). This limits the amount of contrast that can be achieved... and in my experience it doesn't really matter much what f stop you use on your enlarger, it can be bright enough so that you can see what you are doing. On a film negative, this kind of development will keep the highlights ( skies/clouds ) from blocking up... since we are making an interpositive here, it keeps the shadow areas open.

I'm currious about the paper negative process - for what's that worth?
Does the process wok only with special (thin) papers or could I use any of Ilford's MC papers?

it's good for making enlarged paper negatives, which can then be used to make prints in various ways. Ilford's MC papers work fine.

 

[olk]

it's good for making enlarged paper negatives, which can then be used to make prints in various ways. Ilford's MC papers work fine.

I assume for a paper negative I have to dodge and burn etc. only once (contact print for all other prints from the paper negative) while I've to do it for each print of a film negative - is this right?
Does a paper negative produce a differnt kind of look?

 

[rknewcomb]

I'm sorry for being slow here but, This is to make enlarged paper interpositive from a film negative?
thanks,
Robert

 

[NedL]

I'm sorry for being slow here but, This is to make enlarged paper interpositive from a film negative?
thanks,
Robert

Yes that is correct. Then the interpositive is contact printed to make a paper negative, so the end result is a large paper negative that can be used for contact printing. The interpositive itself looks pretty weird and low contrast compared to a normal print, but then it makes a very nice paper negative.