# paper negative (life)



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

one of eight shots from the park on paper negatives today others later.. It looks much worse on here than my computer but oh well


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 29, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> ...on paper negatives...



I'm not familiar with "paper negatives."  Tell us more about that.

Pete


----------



## Christie Photo (Mar 29, 2006)

Wait a minute....  are you putting paper right into the camera?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

For about three years since my retirement I have been working in retro. Building cameras ect.. working with antique lenses and bodies. I began working with paper negatives about a year ago and am still getting the hang of it. Basically you can shoot a paper negative in any camera that accepts film holders of any size. The one today is a 2x3 but I have 3x4 and 4x5 paper negative cameras. 

The camera this was shot with is a 2x3 made from polaroid body and a kodak lens... I installed a fixed f90 apureture. Paper is iso about 10 or 5 I think ten in the sunlight and five in the shade actually but Im not positive yet.

Hertz worked out something for me there is a point where enlarging paper (which is all it is) reaches a saturation point. Longer exposures don't make a difference otherwise it is pretty much like shooting film. You get very different looking negatives. Very little detail and smoother I think. Im still teaching myself how to do it.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

second from the park shoot paper negatives


----------



## terri (Mar 29, 2006)

What kind of paper is this here, Charlie?    It has a very attractive hue.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

its a plain old arista #2 rc ... I have a tint program actually three that I use to get the color.  I know its strange but nothing else will do that color.  funny thing though the paper will not come out black and white on the scanner

It looks like it is solarzied on the scanner.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

I shot eight shots today out there and I have processed four into the computer but they are far from finished.


----------



## terri (Mar 29, 2006)

I think they look great, the majority of the time, and I really like this toned look. At what point are you fixing the paper out?


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

The paper has black and white it is just going into the computer from the scanner as gray like it was solarized.  Having devil of a time making it white again.  I have worked my way down from 6 to two minutes developing.  Unless you can tell me I'm going to do some research I have heard of a process to reverse the black and white.  If i can find one I will have a true positive print from the can to work on.  That would be nice.  Taking it in as a negative is very hard to adjust the colors.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I know you hate green tint so this is my perverse nature showing through....


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

Another paper negative from today


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 29, 2006)

Just a second version


----------



## Rob (Mar 30, 2006)

Awesome stuff. Must be a liberating feeling taking it back to basics in that way.

Rob


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 30, 2006)

I don't know about that rob, but it is a different way of thinking entirely. When I shot digital or even 35mm it was hey I like that click... This angle might be better click. Oh wow this angle is even better click. Now I only have 8 shots so I have to be sure they are the ones I want. Then I have to be aware of the situation and try to imagine what it will look like on the media.

I'm still learning, I just thought the trip to knowledge might be interesting to someone else. Some of the lessons I will be learning can be transposted to most anything I think. Then again maybe not and since the number of people shooting with cut film holders is minimal this is very much a limited interest kind of thing. Some will be confused by it lol.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I finally figured out why things look so much better on my computer than they do here. The host further compresses the picture losing more of its image. In the future I will have to send up smaller files in order to maintain as much as possible of the original look of the shot sorry in advance.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 30, 2006)

So this is a shot with both paper negative and super imposed image from a negative I am trying to decide.

pros for paper less cost of material negative and chemicals....much faster development time.  older looking i think.

pros for negative.... more detail faster exposure..
so what do you think im serious what is your opinion


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 31, 2006)

The paper is getting easier to work with for some reason.  I guess it is the hundreth monkey thing.


----------



## Torus34 (Mar 31, 2006)

I'm just starting with paper negs.  Made an f400 8"x10" camera.  Using Ilford VC RC single weight.  Will check out effects of using color head enlarger for positive print exposure.  This may improve contrast control.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Mar 31, 2006)

ah you plan to print through the negative. I just scan mine then go digital darkroom. The hardest part for me is making the negative I tank develope them. But I like the softer prints that they make. Let me know how much grain you pick up from the paper fiber I'm curious.

I have been shooting mine in a camera with lens so I like the way they do.  My pinholes were less than remarkable.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 2, 2006)

I went out to shoot picture yesterday.  I had the exposure/ development time down pat day before.  When I opned the tank this time they were slightly over exp0sed or developed.  I have come to the conclusion that, for Me at least, I am going to have to make a couple of throw away shots everytime for a while.  Just so thta I can make the fine tuning before I make the development.  If I see one wrong, I think I can correct the batch.


----------

