paper negatives

[TheToadMen]

I also confirmed that using filters in the traditional manner for contrast control is not quite so straightforward.
Photo papers are orthochromatic (blue/green sensitive).
So dark Yellow/Orange/Red filters are actually safelights... expect a huge loss of exposure speed.

Reinhold
www.re-inventedPhotoEquip.com

Hello Reinhold,
Thank you for this valuable info.
I was thinking, when using an enlarger (for regular printing) I use special multigrade filters for variabel contrast (vc) photo paper to control contrast from grade 00 to grade 5. Couldn't I use the same filters (instead of normal filters for film) to tame contrast in camera as well?

 

[desertrat]

A light yellow #8 filter only increases exposures about 2x or 3x for me, and the paper negatives print with a tonality almost like photographic film. An orange 21 filter slows the paper negatives down so much it makes lens cap exposures with antique petzval lenses wide open in broad daylight very convenient. This is with VC RC paper.

Toadmen: I believe Simon Galley posted some time back that VC enlarging filters can be hand held in front of the lens and give the desired results.

 

[MartinP]

Remember that the MG papers are expecting a tungsten light source, while the sun is a lot more blue than that. The blue-sensitive emulsion in MG is the higher-contrast one, so "hard" results are to be even more expected than, errrrm, expected. Using a yellow filter will reduce the amount of blue light getting through to the harder emulsion, as mentioned by desertrat above. It may be more practical to use a fixed-grade paper for the neg, possibly flashed, then contact-print on MG with a filtered enlarger as the light-source? Comparison results available soon, when I receive my order with fixed-grade RC paper in (and it stops raining).

 

[NedL]

A light yellow #8 filter only increases exposures about 2x or 3x for me...

Very interesting! On another forum, a person very experienced with paper negatives, whose opinion I value and trust very much said that he finds a filter factor of 2 for a yellow filter and MGIV. I consistently find it to be a factor of 4 ( 2 full stops ). We both pre-flash. Many of his photos are indoors under tungsten light and mine are all outdoors. You are between us but closer to him. My hunch is it depends on the light...

 

[Reinhold]

Here's an example of going against the recieved wisom that yellow filters are the ticket to good paper negatives...

http://www.largeformatphotography.i...er-negatives&p=1107614&viewfull=1#post1107614

The next post (#429) explains how John uses filters to co-operate with the existing subject color and light.


Reinhold

 

[NedL]

Thank you Reinhold, that is very interesting and makes sense too.

 

[moltogordo]

I bought a 5x7 Burke&James Grover monorail for the express purpose of doing paper negatives and contact prints.

Should be up and running with this in about a week. In the mean time, I want to do some research. Can you suggest a good starting point for paper negs? I have lots and lots of 5x7 paper but I'm at stage 1.

 

[NedL]

This post on (there was a url link here which no longer exists) might be good to read.

I use my enlarger to pre-flash these days, cranked up pretty high, stopped down as far as the lens goes, with an orange and a green filter under the lens.

My times are between 9 and 22 seconds depending on the paper. In the past I used a soup can like Joe, with a flashlight bulb in it and just the orange filter underneath... for times between 10 and 20 seconds. I've only ever used VC paper.

 

[TheToadMen]

Depending of the paper rate it between ISO 2 and 5.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

easy and fun.great way to teach kids about photography

 

[removed account4]

^^^
ADULTS TOO.

 

[DannL.]

My recent adventures with paper negatives have been revealing. The goal has been to avoid the "look of film", and to achieve a print appearance that is "similar" to what you might expect from civil war era prints made from wet-plate negatives (1860's). I have had perty good results exposing the VC RC paper without filters, and then to simply contact print with a Kodak Polycontrast 3-1/2 filter. Artifacts that I desire in the print: Skies that are blocked up. High contrast in foreground elements of the picture. Sharp in the middle, distortion near the border. Bleeding of skies into distant elements of the picture (atmospheric fog). And human figures, if present, that don't look like aliens addicted to laudanum. Everyone's result with paper negatives will be different. Your subject, it's color, the available light, etc; will impact the final result.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

Dann, I'd like to see your results, if you'd care to post some images.

~Joe

 

[DannL.]

Dann, I'd like to see your results, if you'd care to post some images.

~Joe

Hey Joe. Those artifacts that I mentioned previous are what I am desiring. Without actually delving into wet-plate, paper negatives are presenting themselves as very capable in many of those regards. I will cobble together what I can over the next couple weeks, as we are currently swamped with a big fencing job, and building a new storage building. I would enjoy your opinion. Knowing you also put a lot of hours into pinhole and paper negatives, your input would be very much appreciated. I will PM when I can.

 

[NedL]

Hey Joe. Those artifacts that I mentioned previous are what I am desiring. ...

Yep! When it happens the right way, what you call "atmospheric fog" can be very beautiful.

 

[removed account4]

Yep! When it happens the right way, what you call "atmospheric fog" can be very beautiful.

youz can all say that again ..
if paper wasn't able to
do what it can do, not sure what I would do
i really don't want to deal with the occupational hazard
of having collodion in my home, BTDT when i lived in
a old brick kiln of a building that was like130º all day long
cooling down to maybe 110º at night ... having those quarts
of colloidal in my darkroom used to scare the living daylights out of me.

 

[moltogordo]

Thanks guys. Lots to go on here.