Old Projection Papers & Film

Hi,

Wonder if anyone can help?

About a year ago I acquired with an old enlarger, two roles of Photographic projection paper (Kodagraph) 1m wide by 30m long each, and one role of Ozagraph photographic projection film. I believe these were used to project drawings onto and then develop via some automatic developer process.

All roles are some 15 years out of date, but I have used some of the paper as a paper negative once which cam out o.k.

However, I have now acquired a 4x5 camera and am now looking to use this film, paper as a regular source of paper/film negative. But I have no idea as to how to use this material in terms of exposures etc as it has no ISO rating as such.

So I just wondered if any one had come across this or similar material previously and had any ideas?

You might want to join the Paper Negatives group here on APUG. There is lots of info there and in other forum threads. With expired stock, its best to test to see the results.

These are extreme contrast materials (more contrasty than litho film) used for drawing reproduction and such things. The Kodagraph materials called for a No. 1 safelight (red). Kodagraph projection paper was quite fast.

Thanks, both.

Therefore do I use a relatively quick exposure time for the paper negative? In addition, it is quite difficult to tell the difference between the "coated " and uncoated side. However, the paper is very thin described as "base - light weight", I would assume that there is a correct side and incorrect side to expose on these films but given that it is so "light " is it that much of a factor?

For the sake of image sharpnes, you will want to expose with the emulsion coated side facing the lens. The paper carrier, regardless of how thin, will diffuse the image, while causing at least some light loss.

Use regular paper developer to process the stuff at first. This will allow you to figure the effective speed you are intersted in when the H-D response comes off the toe. For now you really don't care about how dark the highlights become in the negative.

I started my calibration efforts by photographing a set of black to white reflective squaures on a page in an old Kodak B&W Darkroom Dataguide. The neg would be looked at to see what exposure showed a difference in printable denisty betwen the almost balck and fuly black tile, when metering for the neutral grey card that was in the dataguide on the opposite page from the different grey steps.

The next step, when I went to 4x5 was to stick a kodak print projection scale in front of the film in the film holder, and meter and set the shutter for neutral grey.

Then I was given a densitometer, and sprang cash to buy a 120 sized 31 step step wedge from Stouffer. That was money that was well spent.


Consider a low contrast developer when trying for pictiorial response. If it is orthochromatic you should be able to develop by inspection until you get a development time dialled in.
For low contrast I have heard of people using selectol soft at 1:10.

Ansco 130 at 1:10 with some extra retainer to conquer fog was alos recommended to print lith film for continuous tone response.

I am about to calibrate some x-ray film in a similar way, and I know it is a high contrast product.

Thanks Mike, I have actually just posted an image that was taken earlier at an exposure of 20 seconds at F5.6 and then developed for 2.5 mins in Ilford Paper Developer. It's an OK imag a bit dark in place and covered in spots which in part is down to the lens and in part down to me rushing to develop it. The image was then dried, scanned and uploaded without any post processing. I t provides a benchmark that will now allow me to move forward from. Thanks, for your advice I'll look in to doing the same.

andyaitken said:

Thanks Mike, I have actually just posted an image that was taken earlier at an exposure of 20 seconds at F5.6 and then developed for 2.5 mins in Ilford Paper Developer. It's an OK imag a bit dark in place and covered in spots which in part is down to the lens and in part down to me rushing to develop it. The image was then dried, scanned and uploaded without any post processing. I t provides a benchmark that will now allow me to move forward from. Thanks, for your advice I'll look in to doing the same.

Click to expand...

Your post looks an amazing first try to me

What ever you are doing - keep doing it

Martin