Shooting paper?

[El Gringo]

I've recently started to think about LF cameras but don't really want to upgrade my enlarger and scanner at the same time so it got me to wondering about shooting paper instead of film and then contact printing the paper negatives.

Is this a viable option? How good are paper negatives compared to film? I understand that it will be very low iso (around 5ish) but that doesn't bother me as I tend to shoot things that don't move anyway. I was thinking that if this was a reasonable way to go then I could skip 4x5 and go straight to 5x7 or 8x10.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I've recently started to think about LF cameras but don't really want to upgrade my enlarger and scanner at the same time so it got me to wondering about shooting paper instead of film and then contact printing the paper negatives.
.

Its even easier to just contact print the film. So why not just do that?

I can understand wanting to shoot colour paper. Large colour film is even more expensive then LF B&W film. Large colour enlargers harder to find. But for B&W shooting film and contacting printing would be the route I'd take over shooting B&W paper and contact printing.

 

[papagene]

jnanian uses paper negs quite often in his work. Maybe he'll see this thread and chime in here.

gene

 

[Roger Hicks]

How good are paper negatives compared to film? I understand that it will be very low iso (around 5ish) but that doesn't bother me as I tend to shoot things that don't move anyway.

I've tried it and they're not too bad with the right subject, but of course they are blue or blue-and-green sensitive only and contrast control can be a problem. Personally I'd go for film and contact print that. What is the advantage of paper negatives, other than price?

 

[El Gringo]

Thanks for the replies, my main thinking behind paper negatives was that I already have the means to process them. I suppose I could process the film in trays but I'm not sure if I like the idea of developing film completely in the dark.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suppose I could process the film in trays but I'm not sure if I like the idea of developing film completely in the dark.

It's the only easy option for anything bigger than 4x5.

 

[dslater]

Thanks for the replies, my main thinking behind paper negatives was that I already have the means to process them. I suppose I could process the film in trays but I'm not sure if I like the idea of developing film completely in the dark.

It's actually quite easy - I'm sure you'd get the hang of it quickly. Another option would be to start with some ortho film which you can develop under a safelight.

Dan

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have used Ilford MGIV quite often in-camera with an ISO rating of 25.

The problem is that a VC paper has a different contrast for blue and green objects.

PE

 

[Jim Noel]

I suggest you use only a graded paper, as opposed to multi-grade so you don't have the problem mentioned by PE. Freestyle has a new very low cost paper which comes in single weight graded and should work well, but I have not tried it yet.
Jim

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

You can also use ortho film, which you can develop under red light.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, Jim is right.

I forgot to add that grade 2 paper has a mid scale contrast of about 2.5 whereas a good film has a mid scale contrast of about 0.6, therefore you should use a low contrast paper. Also, the paper latitude is less than that of a negative film in most cases.

PE

 

[Jersey Vic]

I've used paper negs pretty extensively in both a home made pinhole (8x20) camera and an 8x10 view camera. I like to use a dilute film developer or very dilute paper developer. Insofar as speed is concerned..I run a test using one neg as a test strip but somewhere between iso 5 and 25 will be right. One nice thing is you can develop by inspection.
I found that this is very nice for portraits using wide open older lenses...you'll get a stationary subject with swirling plants and trees all around. Very primitive looking. pm me for any info..happy to share

 

[Roger Hicks]

D'oh -- there is one cheap option for processing LF film (up to 8x10) in the light: the Paterson Orbital. For details: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how orbital.html

 

[Dave Miller]

D'oh -- there is one cheap option for processing LF film (up to 8x10) in the light: the Paterson Orbital. For details: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how orbital.html

I too use these, both for film and paper development. I note your comments regarding possible uneven development with film, and concur with your recommendations. The use of the power base sometimes results in streaking when developing film, so for this use I too have reverted to the use of the manual base where uneven movement is of benefit. For paper development the use of the power base is fine, and a great labour saver, I can get on with something else during most of the developing process.

 

[genecrumpler]

Tray Development of 8x10 film

One way to make tray development easy is to use Diafine 2 bath developer. That is what I am using for 4x5 tray development. Simple as falling of a log. Don't need to worry about Temperature, Agitation or Development times or inspection.

It is a god sent for large format B&W photographers who want to do away with zone development and all that nonsense. The developer is highly compensating, so highlights do not block up. I put my shadows on Zone 4 (recomendation form John Sexton) and let every thing else fall whare it will. Since I've been using Diafine for 4x5, I print almost exclusively at 2 or 2 1/2 contrast levels.

Simply, you can use at any temperature between 65 and 85 with no time compensation. I agitiate continoulsy and set my timer for 3 minutes. Another advantage is the developer last for almost forever, so you can fill trays to near overflowing and avoid any problems with development streaks. I put three inches of solution in my special 4x5 developing trays. Diafine is not a fine grain developer, so I don't use it for anything smaller than 4x5.

 

[Schlapp]

I must say I really enjoy using paper negs. I use Kenthene which contact prints well. I only have gd 2 - ok if you can shoot in a real low contrast situation. I use iso10 which works for me. Good idea about the very dilute developer. Must try that.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The first negative/positive print process was "salted" paper negatives. (Fox-Talbot) With any paper negative you do get some "texture" from the paper negative printed thru to your print.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dare I say it?

Scanned paper negatives on baryta support look almost as sharp and clear as prints from real negatives. And digital negatives made from the scan print nicely by analog means.

The rest of this should be on the other site, but I don't want to go any further down this route except to point out something here.

PE

 

[removed account4]

I've recently started to think about LF cameras but don't really want to upgrade my enlarger and scanner at the same time so it got me to wondering about shooting paper instead of film and then contact printing the paper negatives.

Is this a viable option? How good are paper negatives compared to film? I understand that it will be very low iso (around 5ish) but that doesn't bother me as I tend to shoot things that don't move anyway. I was thinking that if this was a reasonable way to go then I could skip 4x5 and go straight to 5x7 or 8x10.

hey there

YES! paper negatives are a viable option, and can be quite addictive
i shoot quite a bit of paper instead of film: 4x5 - 11x14 formats.
it can be kind of tricky, because different papers have different speeds
and the contrast can be pretty harsh as well ... ( low light and even light works well ... )
i tend to process the paper in spent
(blackish) print developer ( the only developer i use is ansco 130, it lasts
"like forever" ) ... i am sure whatever you experiment with will work well too ...

i dilute it a little bit and use a water bath to develop by inspection .
i tend to use what i have on hand .. both double and single weight papers, and
sometimes i se rc papers cause i somehow ended up with a lot of it over the
years. don't forget to trim them a little bit, they are bigger than film .. by about 1/16"
one way i have learned to print overly contrasty paper
negatives is by using a fogged piece of paper as a mask, but as you can
imagine, it increases exposure time ( for the positive print ) by quite a bit.
another trick is when you are about to make a print, get both your negative
and unexposed paper wet, and stick them together emulson to emulsion,
squeegee the excess water off, and stick them under glass .. this will help
make sure you have a good bond between your emulsions and won't have
any out of focus bits ... but you may like out of focus stuff, i know jersey vic has done that and it looks really nice

the trick is to experiment a bit, what works for one person might not work for you,
the same paper and chemicals might not be in cupboard ...

feel free to PM me ...

good luck!

john

 

[Schlapp]

I forgot to mention some work that utilises paper negs - well worth looking at http://www.geh.org/parkeharrison/index.htm

 

[Black Dog]

Paper negs in a pinhole camera are great fun-I've used Jesops RC G2 with good results, and processed it in any soft paper dev.Must dig some out some time for the PC exchange...

 

[weststarflyers]

The "park photographers" in South America used to do that. Instead of contact printing the negative they would shoot a photograph of that negative using the same camera in a close-up configuration. Those cameras were built with a "mini-darkroom" inside. I used to get my passport pictures from this artists. They were great!!

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

The "park photographers" in South America used to do that. Instead of contact printing the negative they would shoot a photograph of that negative using the same camera in a close-up configuration. Those cameras were built with a "mini-darkroom" inside. I used to get my passport pictures from this artists. They were great!!

Same thing in India, usually in railway station. Best portrait I had EVER !

 

[cao]

D'oh -- there is one cheap option for processing LF film (up to 8x10) in the light: the Paterson Orbital. For details: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps how orbital.html

Perhaps cheap, but not readily available. Are there any reliable sources?

 

[Nick Zentena]

Plenty of old print drums out there. Jobo still sells new ones. They can even be put on a used Unicolor or Beseler motor base to ease the process.