So tell me about enlarging from a paper negative; not contact printing.

Discussion in 'Enlarging' started by rpavich, Dec 18, 2017.

  1. rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I was surfing YT and heard Tim Layton mention that you can enlarge with paper negatives rather than a straight contact print.
    I tried to envision how that could be done but came up blank.

    Would anyone who has done this be willing to clue me in?
     
  2. DC Lohenstein

    DC Lohenstein Member

    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Hello, you can make some wax or grease on the back of your paper negative. The fiber structure of the paper base will get a little bit translucent. But it will be still visible. And you will ruin your paper negatives as well as your enlarger. Never put some grease into your optical enlarging system.

    Why don't you scan the paper negative, producing a digital file? When doing 4x5 you can enlarge it as much as you want, without ruining anything but your eyes (LCD)?

    Regards
     
  3. OP
    OP
    rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I was just curious.
     
  4. DC Lohenstein

    DC Lohenstein Member

    Messages:
    15
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    And I was just too severe ;-)

    I found an interesting film that could help you: Rollei Ortho 25. It's quite cheap if you find some outdated material (ars-imago.ch, 2013). It has the orthochromatic characteristics and is cristal clear.

    Another possibility to enlarge paper negatives: buy or build a greater camera. When you got some 8x10 inch paper, you could buy an Intrepid 8x10 camera and use this paper.

    Building a 24x30 cm camera e.g. with an apo ronar is not so difficult at all. E.G. sand your own acrylic ground glass, build a great bellows with card board and fabric ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2017
  5. locutus

    locutus Member

    Messages:
    447
    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    Finland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Another option might be to just take the fiber texture in your enlarged print for granted, might actually look interesting.
     
  6. Ome Kees

    Ome Kees Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    20
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Just as a normal negative, it only takes more exposure time.
     
  7. OP
    OP
    rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Ok, I got it. Nothing so different. I would probably not do this, but I was curious.
     
  8. Oscar Brown

    Oscar Brown Member

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Location:
    Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I've seen another post on this site where someone built there own paper negative enlarger, it worked by two light sources sending light upwards, to where the negative was, and then bouncing back down off the negative and through the lens. I might have saved the link somewhere.
     
  9. Oscar Brown

    Oscar Brown Member

    Messages:
    32
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Location:
    Australia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  10. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    10,572
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    K,Germany
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I wouldn't even consider it.
     
  11. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Is paper really that much cheaper than film? Panchromatic paper has been off the market for years. I always wondered the reason for paper negatives?? If someone actually wants orth for ease processing, X-ray film might be even cheaper than paper.

    Anyway, most of the 'expense' of making the image is the time invested.
     
  12. OP
    OP
    rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    When you get to bigger sizes it is.
    Paper is about 20 cents for a sheet of 8x10 paper and you get two 4x5's out of it, and film can be 1.00 to 2.00 and more per sheet for that size.
     
  13. Jim Jones

    Jim Jones Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,031
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Chillicothe MO
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A hundred years ago film enlargers were marketed. They were constructed much like a view camera with an extension to hold the negative. Sunlight could be used as a light source for the slower printing processes. The negative could probably be replaced by a paper negative and front lighted as in Oscar's system.
     
  14. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    8x10 Ilford MG FB paper is over $1 per sheet whereas 8x10 X-ray film is about $0.35 per sheet.
     
  15. OP
    OP
    rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I was referring to RC paper and the 4x5 film I just bought.
    250 sheets of Adorama Glossy 8x10 = $93.00 - 37 cents per sheet / 2 for 4x5 = .18 cents per sheet.

    Box of 4x5 Delta 100 film 100 sheets = $129.00 = $1.29 per sheet.
     
  16. DWThomas

    DWThomas Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    3,539
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Location:
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think the answer is try it sometime. My bet is that some papers used as a negative, especially the RC stuff, won't show a whole lot of effect from fibers. As Ome Kees says, it will take a longer exposure -- likely a lot longer -- 5x, 8x or something. (Of course, it's not as though I've never been wrong!) Especially if you are doing it as part of pinhole work, you're not going to have grain-sharp results anyway, even with film. And if you are already printing some regular film negatives and the chemicals are out, hey, another ten minutes and you'll know! :D
     
  17. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    23,332
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Good luck using a grain focuser :smile:.
     
  18. tedr1

    tedr1 Member
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    862
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    Location:
    50 miles from NYC USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    No need for grease RC paper has no "fibers" to be projected.

    Remember that papers are intrinsically hard (high contrast) so making a print from a paper "neg" will produce a harder image than a film negative of the same scene. This can be useful when extreme contrast is wanted.
     
  19. Andrew O'Neill

    Andrew O'Neill Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    2,670
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Location:
    Coquitlam,BC Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A reflector enlarger will do the trick. Can build one yourself.
     
  20. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Opaque enlargers are out there. Maybe with a much higher effective wattage LED (to avoid heat of a 300W incandescent) the printing times might be OK. Since you have an enlarger already, you might also look into the X-ray film too.
    [​IMG]
     
  21. Jeff Bradford

    Jeff Bradford Member

    Messages:
    422
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2015
    Location:
    Rolling Prairie, IN
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The use of a mirror was my first idea. Apparently this is called a reflector enlarger?
    My second thought is to photograph your negative with a larger format onto another paper negative, thus producing an enlarged positive.
    My expertise in this topic is merely four minutes old, so don't sue me if something goes awry.
     
  22. jlbruyelle

    jlbruyelle Member

    Messages:
    65
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Location:
    Lille
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Hi! The Priox 4x5 enlarger was able to enlarge opaque documents up to 6x9 cm placed in in the negative carrier. It used a lateral illumination system contained in two cylinders located on each side of the negative carrier - on the lens side of it, it goes without saying. These cylinders are item 16 on the general view here. You can also read the user manual (in French) here.
     
  23. darkroommike

    darkroommike Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,303
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Location:
    Iowa
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Did this in college and you are correct, the exposure time is MUCH longer but it is doable.
     
  24. OP
    OP
    rpavich

    rpavich Subscriber
    Ads Enabled

    Messages:
    1,510
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Location:
    West virginia, USA
    Shooter:
    35mm
    That Xray film looks cool...I'm going to investigate
     
  25. blindpig

    blindpig Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Location:
    Nixa,Mo.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm late coming to this post but would add my 2 cents.Been enlarging paper negatives for several years with great results(my opinion).A reflective enlarger is simply a small copy camera,with the light source bouncing off the neg instead of passing through it.The one I've used was made using a corrugated box and 1 pound coffee cans for reflectors. Presently am building a more permanent one.Been using Illford RC glossy paper for the negatives for it's smooth surface allowing more enlargement without any loss of sharpness caused by other surface textures, the only down side is no red sensitivity and about 6 ISO to which I've adapted well .I've settled on semi-stand development using diluted Dektol giving me the look I desire.Wet plate photographers will agree it's fun with similar challenges(speed and color sensitivity wise).I guess cost is an issue worth considering but the"look" is really what is most impressive to me.The procedure I'm following gives a look approximating the look of old glass plate photos which I like very much.
    Sorry there are no longer any of my picture submissions available on this and other forums but seems Photobucket Has changed the way their doing business and is holding third party hosting clients pictures hostage until the posters come up with $399.00 per year for a service that's been offered free for over 10 years.I can see that a fee probably is warranted and would be agreeable to a reasonable one but the amount they are asking and the way they went about asking for it seem dishonest to me.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. If you have a Photrio account, please log in (and select 'stay logged in') to prevent recurrence of this notice.