What's Your Paper Negative Output Method?

[Joe VanCleave]

I was cogitating on the fact that I've shot paper negatives for years, but have not contact printed nearly as many as I should, thus I'm faced with a considerable backlog. Scanning and posting to the Internet I seem to do much more consistently, which is one of the things I find easy with paper negatives; easier than with film.

So this brings up the question of what's your preferred paper negative output method? Do you consistently contact print your best work, or do you find, like me, that it's all too easy to build up a backlog of unprinted work?

How about alternative process printing? And, without violating our moratorium on mentioning anything digital, do you also print with binary numbers and little spots of splattered ink?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

~Joe

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Do scan more often instead of contact print, but I really love wet prints. It is much more easier, creative and fun comparing to prints from file, which I struggle next to hate, to be honest.

 

[bvy]

I also have a backlog of paper negatives. I was scanning, inverting, and posting them in various places, but quickly decided that to be unnatural and unsatisfying. I contact printed a few, and while they lacked the detail of the scans, I think they're fine for viewing in person, or maybe framing and displaying.
(Attachment #1)

Contact printing and sabattier added something to this image, I think.
(Attachment #2)

Finally, I think some paper negatives are suited to just remaining "negative." Neither inverting nor contact printing did anything for this in-camera paper negative. I just left it alone.
(Attachment #3)

I like trees.

 

[NB23]

I make it a point to print all my best shots from each and every film i shoot. It's the only way to honor the precious time that I've put into shooting.

There's no point into owning all this expensive equipment and bragging about lenses and techniques if there is no print in the end. Files? That's the worst. I once tried to retrieve a few files from a few folders. After 5 minutes I wanted to destroy that damn computer with a baseball bat. How do people manage their files? Makes me go mad.

Anyhow... Not printing our work is like marrying pamela Anderson (in her prime) and deciding not to have sex with her, never ever!

 

[cjbecker]

I really want the direct positive to come back. I have a whole kit for shooting and developing on site, It just a pain to use with paper negatives.

 

[gone]

A direct positive would be great. Is there such a thing as a DIY solution?

I fall into scanning from sheer laziness, and also because I have trouble flipping the values in my mind vs seeing it in front of me. BUT, here's where the laziness comes in....once I get to "see" the image on the computer monitor, which I know scientifically is simply a simulacrum of a real image, I often lose interest in doing anything else w/ it.

 

[Joe VanCleave]

I, too, miss Harman DPP; although I have a stash of a few packs of 8x10, but I've been saving them for something special. In the meantime, I wish Harman/Ilford would get a replacement to market soon.

I was thinking about tintypes and their glass plate cousins ambrotypes, how the reversal (positive image) is really an optical illusion caused by the silver being more reflective than a black background. Would it be possible to achieve a positive image by coating photographic emulsion on a black paper base instead of white? This might be an easy way for Harman/Ilford to get back into the positive paper business.

In relation to this, I was recently examining some 4x5 graphic arts lith film negatives I had processed, and noticed that if held up to the light at the correct angle against a dark background, a faux positive image results, again due to the reflective nature of the silver.

Not being a wet plate collodion expert, I don't know if there's anything special about the developer or fixer that causes the resulting image to be especially reflective, as compared to a conventional silver halide emulsion developed normally, such as with photo paper. Maybe some wet plate experts can chime in here.

And if someone reading this is adept at hand-coating paper, perhaps they can try coating black paper and see what develops in the way of a positive image.

~Joe

 

[pdeeh]

A direct positive would be great. Is there such a thing as a DIY solution?

One can make reversals directly from the paper negatives using the same process as for making film reversals: 1st Develop, bleach, fogging exposure, 2nd develop (for brevity, missing out washes and clearing steps).

There are a few threads on the subject at APUG if you search.

I've had a go at this myself and managed to start to get decent results, but didn't fully get it taped. The bleach chemicals are are bit butch (Sulfuric acid and either Potassium dichromate or Potassium permanganate) so it's not for the faint of heart (or small and underventilated of darkroom, which is why I didn't pursue it properly yet).

My experience was that the permanganate worked but exhausted so quickly it made doing more than a couple a pain in the arse. Dichromate is the preferred solution (pun unintentional) but it is nasty stuff and needs proper care, so I'm not keen on using it in my cramped and temporary darkroom.

 

[Rick A]

Macodirect has Imago direct positive paper.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

... Anyhow... Not printing our work is like marrying pamela Anderson (in her prime) and deciding not to have sex with her, never ever!

Now that's an analogy I would have never come up with, but apt.

 

[gone]

Has anyone tried the direct positive paper from Macodirect? The process that pdeeh describes is not something I want to try myself. I'm more comfortable w/ sending someone the money, and they send me the paper :}

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I only contact print my paper negatives. To get large contact prints is my main reason to make them and a good way for me to produce analog prints from digital capture.

 

[ciniframe]

I contact print mine.....when I get around to it. Backlog? Sure!

I bought a scanner, flatbed, too hard to use and sits in a closet now. If I want to see a positive image I have to print the negative.
To contact print I set up my bathroom, takes about 10 minutes to set up. The largest I have is 4X5 so I only need 5X7 trays. I only use RC paper for ease of washing.

About DPP, you only get a mirror image. How do you deal with that? I suppose you could introduce a 45 degree first surface mirror in the light path to flip the image.

 

[bvy]

About DPP, you only get a mirror image. How do you deal with that? I suppose you could introduce a 45 degree first surface mirror in the light path to flip the image.

I think the answer is to not deal with it. Wet plate and Polaroid large format shooters don't deal with it.

 

[ciniframe]

I think the answer is to not deal with it. Wet plate and Polaroid large format shooters don't deal with it.

Does Polaroid type peel apart type film expose on the front or through the back of the film? Years ago, when I shot the old 108 film the pictures were not mirror reversed. I think the Fuji peel apart film works the same way.

 

[bvy]

Peel apart is different (not mirror reversed). I'm thinking specifically about the 8x10 films.

 

[removed account4]

hi joe

i have too much paper with writing on the back so i scan it.
hand coated i double duty some gets scanned others get printed.
i also wax them ( fb + hand coated ) to print, and that includes
xeroxes i have made at the copy shop ..