Salted paper / salt print video

Yesterday I made a video of my current salted paper printing method; it's available online now:


Mind you; this is how I do it today. Probably it'll be slightly different tomorrow. The details of my process are always evolving due to random experimentation, dissatisfaction with certain aspects of my prints, stuff I learn, etc.

There are two reasons why I made this video:
1. To document for my own reference how I currently do things so I can revisit an approach that worked at some point
2. I have watched many videos of many people documenting their alt. process prints, but to my personal taste (note the emphasis!), these nearly always (1) feature too much 'talking head' time, (2) only show end results, (3) only show small parts of the process or (4) fail to highlight important (to me) details.

Well, I pretty drastically prevented (1), as my video does not have any meaningful sound (although I do rather like Kodály, but that's another matter). Concerning (2), I do show the end result, comparing the wet and dry print to give an impression of the dry down effect. Of course, no digital rendition can ever truly capture the nature of the physical print as it's lying here on my desk. As to (3), as you can see, I captured pretty much the entire process to make this print - although it's kind of difficult/cumbersome to do as a one-man operation (boy, do I dislike setting up the digital camera to do its video thing and whatnot). Finally, about those details (4) - I guess it's virtually impossible to document all important aspects of an alt. printing process, as every single parameter turns out to be significant. But I did do my best in documenting the main decisions/parameters that at least make my approach somewhat reproducible to anyone silly enough to actually do something like that.

After uploading the video, I also scanned the final print. The final shot in the video is a bit overexposed and suggests that dmax is somewhat low in the print. This is not the case. While it's quite difficult to get close to silver gelatin with an (untoned) salt print in terms of dmax, this is really pretty close, especially given the perfectly matte paper finish.


Untoned salted paper print on Schut 'Salland' 300gsm from Ektascan B/RA negative.

Thoughts, criticisms, comments and questions are welcome.

Waxing the print will add depth (and extend the life of the print) - gold toning also helps

Hi, Koraks:

Wonderful video. It was pleasure to watch it. I'd say you met your objectives pretty nicely. And the print is gorgeous!

Darn, now I feel bad for not getting back to my salt print project this year!

:Niranjan.

Nice one, thanks for sharing.

Prof_Pixel said:

Waxing the print will add depth (and extend the life of the print) - gold toning also helps

Click to expand...

Yes, on both accounts. I sometimes wax my prints using generic furniture wax (easy and effective) - but I generally prefer the dead-matte finish of an untreated print.
Gold toning is a great tool too; I gold tone most of my salt (and Van Dyke) prints, usually to completion. The cold-neutral tone is very attractive and dmax indeed improves even further.

Niranjan, you'll revisit salt printing one day, I'm sure! Looking at myself, I waver from one process to the another, never really leaving any of them forever. Well, perhaps photopolymer intaglio and gum bichromate. Those just didn't work for me. But who knows...one day?

And thanks @Anon Ymous - my pleasure.

Mark Osterman at the George Eastman Museum uses bees wax and lavender oil. See https://www.facebook.com/mark.oster...654675899/?type=2&video_source=user_video_tab

Yes, I read about that a few years ago. Must smell pretty nice. However, my intention was never to replicate the techniques of 150 years ago, but to adapt the process where necessary or convenient to today's possibilities.

Well made documentary video. Thanks!

Many thanks!

koraks said:

Niranjan, you'll revisit salt printing one day, I'm sure! Looking at myself, I waver from one process to the another, never really leaving any of them forever. Well, perhaps photopolymer intaglio and gum bichromate. Those just didn't work for me. But who knows...one day?

Click to expand...

I hope so, soon. Unfortunately I am too tangled up with digital printing right now with a detour towards cyanotypes (which I thought I would never do) which looks simple but in reality quite challenging to get right. I like the all-analogue aspect of your workflow. Once you understand what kind of negatives are good for a for a given process, you are good to go. Too many technical boondoggles in making of a digital negative - so I am learning....

:Niranjan.

Ah yes, I recognize what you say about digital negatives. That's how I started out - digital negatives for cyanotypes. Like you said - a seemingly simple process, but it takes some effort to get it really right. I'll probably revisit the process one day myself! Although I don't envision doing digital negatives again. Too much hassle ironing out the kinks; I find silver negatives more straightforward.

Very nice video. Why did you choose x-ray film and where do you get it? Is it available in 5x7 and 6.5x8.5?

Well, the reason was really that I could show the film development step for a bit as well since it can be developed under red light.
I got the Ektascan from ZZ Medical. It comes in 8x10 and larger and can of course be cut down to any smaller size you want.

I take it this blue film is Ortho? Can it be processed with Kodak D-76 and Kodak fixer? If I use it with a red filter on my lens, will it darken skys? $29/100 sheets of Fuji is a screaming deal!

Michael Meacham said:

I take it this blue film is Ortho?

Click to expand...

Sort of, yes. All x-ray film is virtually insensitive to red light. Furthermore, x-ray film falls down into two categories: blue-sensitive (only sensitive to blue light) and green sensitive (sensitive to both blue and green light). I used a green sensitive film here (Ektascan B/RA).

Can it be processed with Kodak D-76 and Kodak fixer?

Click to expand...

Certainly. Any regular B&W film chemistry can be used. You'll have to figure out the proper development time for your film/developer combination. On the large format photography website you'll find a huge thread outlining experiences with various combinations. Unfortunately, there is no convenient overview of good combinations, so personal testing is in practice the best way to find out what works for you.

If I use it with a red filter on my lens, will it darken skys?

Click to expand...

Uhm, well, a red filter with xray film will not only darken skies, it will darken everything and you will get virtually no image as the film is not sensitive to red light. With green-sensitive film, you could use a yellow filter to get some tone in skies, but you'll never get as pronounced an effect as with panchromatic film and orange/red filters. If you want deep dark skies, x-ray film is not a good choice.

$29/100 sheets of Fuji is a screaming deal!

Click to expand...

For a reason, too - it's a pretty compromised product. It's fine for its intended purpose, but as photographers, we of course use it differently and that generally results in problems. There are two main issues to deal with:
1.: x-ray film comes in double-sided and single-sided flavors. The cheap Fuji film you find is most likely double sided, i.e. it has a sensitive emulsion on both the front and the backside (i.e. there is no front and backside; they're both the same). Since the emulsion scratches easily, this generally results in problems with scratches during processing. I know that several people get good results with double sided film, but I'm not one of them. I've never been able to work out a reliable process method allowing me to prevent all scratches. The best I could do is some scratches along the edges and in the corners of each sheet; the worst was scratches all over the place. I've given up on double sided film and consider it a waste of my time to keep experimenting with it (this is after several hundreds of sheets of trials). Furthermore, since the backside (facing away from the lens) is always a little bit out of focus and there is no antihalation layer in double sided film, the rear emulsion will always record a slightly blurred/defocused image. In contact printing, this is also the emulsion that is not in direct contact with the paper, and hence more blurriness results. Optimal sharpness simply cannot be expected with double sided film. Some find the results acceptable, but I don't. There are ways to deal with this such as stripping the backside emulsion after processing - which I tried, but it's messy, risky and just an overall chore/nuisance.
2.: to make matters worse, the emulsion on x-ray film is much softer than on regular photographic films. It'll scratch if you so much as point at it, particularly when it's wet. It's very hard to process a sheet of film without at least one side of it touching things such as trays etc. and with double sided film, this will inevitably result in scratches. Yes, I've tried everything from glass processing trays, sheets of glass on the bottom of trays, to agitation schemes that never let either side of the emulsion touch the bottom of the tray, but entirely scratch-free results proved to be virtually impossible to realize for me. Some people accept the odd scratch here and there or some scratches in the corners of their images, but personally, I don't. I want entirely scratch-free negatives. And that just makes double-sided film a less obvious choice.

The takeaway for me at least is that double sided film is finicky and for me, it's much more trouble than its worth. Fortunately, there is also single-sided x-ray film, which is usually intended for mammography applications. Most of it has the added benefit that it also features and antihalation layer, which helps prevent blooming highlights. It is usually more expensive than the omnipresent single sided stuff, but still cheaper than most photographic sheet film - although including shipping and taxes to Europe, Fomapan 8x10 film is roughly similar in cost per sheet for me as Ektascan B/RA.

Further challenges of x-ray film are its tendency to be very prone to building high contrast (which is actually a bit of a benefit when it comes to salt printing), it usually is more prone to mottling and uneven development (so your agitation scheme is much more demanding than for normal film, and you may have to experiment with prewetting and other techniques) and I find it also is prone to developing pinholes with certain developers if an acid stop bath is used (much like the photographic films of the 1950s). Essentially, x-ray film takes you back several decades in emulsion technology in various ways (although Ektascan does feature modern t-grain technology) and that means that it's just more finicky to process for high quality results. So yes, it's cheap, but it comes at a price at the same time.

If you're willing to invest many hours into experimenting and spending many sheets of film and liters of development on figuring out a consistent processing method that works for you within your requirements, it can be worthwhile. But if you're looking for a no-fuss solution that works more or less out of the box, just stick to regular photographic film.