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

[rpavich]

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?

 

[DC Lohenstein]

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?

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

 

[rpavich]

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

I was just curious.

 

[DC Lohenstein]

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 It's quite cheap if you find some outdated material (ars-imago.ch, 2013).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 ...

 

[locutus]

Another option might be to just take the fiber texture in your enlarged print for granted, might actually look interesting.

 

[Ome Kees]

Just as a normal negative, it only takes more exposure time.

 

[rpavich]

Ok, I got it. Nothing so different. I would probably not do this, but I was curious.

 

[Oscar Brown]

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.

 

[Oscar Brown]

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/paper-negative-enlarger-prototype.122382/

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

I wouldn't even consider it.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[rpavich]

Is paper really that much cheaper than film? I always wondered the reason for paper negatives?? Most of the 'expense' of making the image is the time invested.

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.

 

[Jim Jones]

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.

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.

 

[ic-racer]

8x10 Ilford MG FB paper is over $1 per sheet whereas 8x10 X-ray film is about $0.35 per sheet.

 

[rpavich]

8x10 Ilford MG FB paper is over $1 per sheet whereas 8x10 X-ray film is about $0.35 per sheet.

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.

 

[DWThomas]

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!

 

[MattKing]

Good luck using a grain focuser .

 

[tedr1]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

A reflector enlarger will do the trick. Can build one yourself.

 

[ic-racer]

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.

 

[Jeff Bradford]

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.

 

[jlbruyelle]

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.

 

[darkroommike]

Just as a normal negative, it only takes more exposure time.

Did this in college and you are correct, the exposure time is MUCH longer but it is doable.

 

[rpavich]

8x10 Ilford MG FB paper is over $1 per sheet whereas 8x10 X-ray film is about $0.35 per sheet.

That Xray film looks cool...I'm going to investigate

 

[blindpig]

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.