# The Paper Negative



## JamesD

This is a continuation of a thread that got a wee bit off topic.  The previous posts can be found here: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47730


----------



## JamesD

For reference:



			
				JamesD said:
			
		

> There's a certain low level of light which will not expose paper.  I've read it described as "chemical inertia," meaning that the photons hitting the silver just aren't enough to start the reaction.  The analogy given was pushing a car:  it's hard to get the car rolling when it's stopped, but once it's rolling, it doesn't take as much of a push to keep it rolling.  Similarly, the few photons striking the emulsion in very low light just aren't enough to get the silver changing to begin with.
> 
> So, flashing is a technique used under an enlarger (or in a pinhole camera, I would assume) which gets the chemical reaction going, so that the light hitting the emulsion won't have to "push" as hard, allowing very faint light to keep changing the silver in the emulsion.
> 
> Basically, what you do is expose the paper to light (enlarger light, room light, lamp light, whatever) either just bright and long enough to barely fog it, or just less than enough to barely fog it.  You'll have to develop it, of course, to figure out whether you're giving it enough light (or make sure you're not giving it too much).  Once you've figured out the right intensity and/or duration of the flash, you flash another piece of paper and load it into the pinhole camera.
> 
> Which brings us to the reason why I asked in the first place:  if you try flashing the paper, it might give the emulsion enough of a kick in the seat to record your low-light scene.
> 
> Beware, however:  I've also read that flashing is temporary.  If you flash a piece of paper, then put it away, the effect will disappear, and you'll have to flash it again.  I think this applies to flashes which are just barely too little to fog the emulsion; once you have fogged it ever-so-slightly, I think it keeps the fog--but I'm basically guessing on this.  I have no idea how long it takes the emulsion to forget that it's been flashed.





			
				mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> We used to do that with slide film to kill some of the contrast.  I never heard of it for this purpose.  i would think you would need a stronger light that the low light of the studio.  Maybe aim it out the widow a the sky for a second or two then try it.  Im not sure.



I think that in this case, you just want a very little bit of pre-exposure, just barely enough to get some density if you develop it.  You'll have to try a few times to see how much you need.  I would go with something more reliable than the sky, myself; perhaps a card-board box with a hole cut at the top and a ceiling light, perhaps... put the paper at the bottom of the box, with the hole covered, under the light.  Remove the cover for the specified amount of time, then cover it back up and load it into the camera.  That way, you've got some consistency in your pre-exposure.

Not a pinhole, though.  That would pre-expose an image of the light fixture LOL.  Or, perhaps a small hole with a sheet of white paper over it as a translucent, diffuse source.  Hmmm....


----------



## mysteryscribe

or a shot of the clear blue sky or gray clouds


----------



## terri

JamesD said:
			
		

> This is a continuation of a thread that got a wee bit off topic. The previous posts can be found here: http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47730


 Hey, getting off topic is what some of us do best, Mister. :mrgreen: 

Thanks for pulling all this together again. Good stuff! :thumbup:


----------



## mysteryscribe

This morning I began my controlled (for me anyway) experiment with the paper negative indoors.  Okay I have the paper negs washing now.  I exposed one for two minutes and one for eight seconds the difference is remarkable.  However at this moment I'n not sure which is which.  To make the controll I developed them both in the same tank at the same time.  They got mixed up lol... I'm no scientist I'm an artist.... not a word terri...Ill post both in a few minutes when they wash and dry.  The difference is quite remarkable.   And not at all what I expected.  I have a good idea which is which based on previous paper negative results.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Okay I shot the same shot I thought at f8 @ 1/8 sec  then again at f32 120seconds... these are the two shots.  One neg looked good and one looked thick.  Somebody with more patience than me needs to verify it.  I tried to repeat it but cant get both shots to come out at the same time.  I'm giving up.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





On a retry I have one good paper negative it was shot at f32 for 120 seconds.  leading me to believe the better negative was f32 at 120 seconds.

It was a tricky lighting situation only in that all over the potato the readings were different.  I exposed for a spot just barely in the shadow then used it to calculate both shots.

The one thing I have done differnt from yesterday when I had such miserable luck with the paper negs is that I am using a different developer mix.  That could account for the better long exposures I suppose.  I think the 8sec is just over exposed and the two minute is better because of the light failure at that length of time.  That is just a guess.

My gut feeling is to go for the shorter exposure time in spite of these results.  i will be shooting more paper for a while and trying to get a better feel for it.

James you should try to figure out whether better negs are made with times as short as possible or times as long as you can manage.  I can tell you that on film if there is a difference it is slight but on paper it is real.  At least I think that is the case.


----------



## JamesD

By thick, you mean dark?  And I'm assuming that you were using lens and paper?  What brand of paper are you using, anyway?  I'm making a list of experiments to do this weekend... I may throw that one 150mm lens and shutter I have into a box this weekend, too, with a waxed-paper focusing screen.  I'm certainly going to do SOMETHING this weekend...

Oh yeah, the view camera project... hmmm.... I need to evaluate my priorities here before I arrive at a decision LOL.  The wood shop is closed on sundays, though, so I'll get at least SOMETHING done that day.

I'll get back to you on that.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Im gonna keep shooting some paper this week. Im suing a #3 rc at the moment and it does pretty good. Im thinking the exposure is different as the time drags on more than the retroprocity thing even. I am proably worng I know nothing about what we are doing just playing. The outdoor ones are perfect almost everytime. Its the inside that is making me crazy.

thick is an over exposed negative... thin is an underexposed one named for obvious reasons.


----------



## JamesD

I'll be using some old (outdated, I believe, but it was free) Ilford VC paper, and I'll probably try using the VC filters, just to see.

My range of lighting levels is gonna be a bit limited, probably, but I'll make what notes I can.  Perhaps I can turn a box into a mini-studio, with a variable-size opening for light.  We shall see.


----------



## mysteryscribe

For still life I use a trouble light from home depot and a sixty watt bulb... Very slow shutter speeds...


----------



## JamesD

I saw that when you posted about the trouble-lights before, and thought it was a great idea... so I went and got two of them, two sizes.  Right now, I've got a 100 watt in one and a 40 watt in the other, they'll handle 300 and 100 watts, respectively.

On pinhole day, I needed more light, so I made a reflector out of a sheet of foam-core board and aluminum foil...   I didn't think the plain white surface would be enough, so I crinkled up the foil, then carefully spread it back out and taped it to cover one side of the board.  It made the difference between the sucky second exposure and the nice third exposure that I finally used.

Later that day, I was down at the store and realized... those windshield reflectors that fold out accordian style, or even the ones with the flexible hoops you can twist up into a quarter their normal size... they're generally reflective, too, and quite portable.

One of my first shots, albeit on film, was illuminated with a single, army-issue flashlight.  It came out beautiful and moody.

I've used plain black or white cloth, cut straight from the bolt at WalMart, as backgrounds.  I've also got a canvas painting dropcloth I plan to use for a background, or maybe a lightbox, or something...

It's easy and fun to improvise! And most of it works good!


----------



## mysteryscribe

Ah the canvas painted backdrop. I got this wild hair to have a rembrant backdrop. Of course they sold for about two hundred bucks at the time. I mean for a decent sized one. I went to the paint store and bought a 9'x12' panter's dropcloth. Even after I cut out the parts with seams I had a respectable 6x8 foot drop.

I had seen a home improvement show about painting with sponges. So a can of black, a can of white, and a can of pink paint made it onto a 2x2 sheet of 1/4" plywood used for a pallet. A real sponge, I have no idea why I bothered, and off I went. The canvas was streched and nailed to a wooden frame first of course.

When I finished, I had a backdrop that changed with the lighting. No back light and it was dark and moody. With a backlight a million color variations. Add to that the wonderful fact that most of the labs in town recognized the background and refused to copy prints made on it without calling me first, and you have a double sawbuck wonder. I still have it rolled up in the abandoned studio. I made a half dozen more over the years but none like that one.

Yes colored cloth makes a good background it is usually non reflective. I always always planned to run black indoor outdoor carpet over the floor and up one wall to make a seemless black bridal backdrop, but alas I never got around to it. The benes of it are obvious it wouldn't wrinkle, you could use a vacumm with wand to clean it of dust, and it would absorb the light with absolutely no reflections at all.

The only thing about a black background is the bride better be blonde, or have a head piece or she has no hair in the pictures.

Reflectors: take a look at the office depot for those science fair boards. They are cardboard and have two wings. They make and excellent table top background and you can use them for reflectors as well.  That is if you cover them with something...  

One more note on reflectors: let me say just this.  Alum roof flashing, you can cut it with household scissor, attach it with spray adhesive and  it is a very hot reflector.  If it is too hot just drape a white cloth over it.  It is reasonably inexpensive and a heck of a lot more durable than foil.  I usually have a half roll laying around for camera projects.


----------



## mysteryscribe

okay I think I have figured out how to shoot the paper neg indoors.  Put a light on the subject at least enough to raise the light quality some.  I hit a still life with just a 60 watt bulb in a reflector from about three feet.  The exposure read 30 min I added 50% kentucky windage and the paper neg was perfect.  Well perfect enough for me.  It's drying now.  I'll post it when it is dry enough.

The film negative looked better of course but the exposure at two mintues was just fine.  now on to backlighted objects exposed for the shadow.  Lets see how that does with a small amount of front light.


----------



## mysteryscribe

This is a 45 minute paper negative print.   Light was one single 60 watt blub in a trouble light.


----------



## JamesD

Forty-five minutes?!


----------



## mysteryscribe

I got to tell you about the camera I shot this with.  Okay the frame is a polaroid 250 zeise range finder ect... the back is one i made to shoot 2x3 film or in this case paper negs.  But the really interesting thing is that the polaroid focuses by racking the lens in and out on the camera frame, but I put a lens with a moveable front element.

So set the lens on infinity and the camera focuses it down to five feet or so.  But even then you can rotate the front element like with a modern slr and the lens focuses close.  

How close I have no idea, I haven made a shot that put it out of focus yet.  My only regret is that I didn't buy a better lens for this camera.  It has a very cheap f11 anastigmat lens.  Probably the worst one kodak made.  Still it does okay with a f90 pinhole stuck inside the lens.


----------



## mysteryscribe

yep forty five minutes for the paper... the film was two minutes....

Oh yeah my Time setting stopped working as it often does when I do stupid things.  But at the last mintue I figured out something.  I set the camera up left the dark slide in... opened the lens on bulb... used a rubber band to hold it open so I didn't have to stand there...  set the kitchen timer... pulled the dark slide... took the timer and went to watch law and order.  It worked as you see above....  Stupidity is the mother of invention....


----------



## JamesD

LOL Hey, if it works....

The information on the lens is interesting.  The one I'm planning to use in my upcoming view camera project is a Kodak f/4.5.  I'm using a bellows, but the ability to alter the focus of the lens itself to focus closer might come in handy, I suppose.


----------



## mysteryscribe

ah yes the bellows does the real focus.  If you bellows is long enough you don't need the moving front glass.  You can just keep racking the bellows out.

I have a 3x4 press cam made from another 250 polaroid that has a kodak anastigmat 4.5...

Some of the stuff on the retro camera is paper negs shot with it.  It is a really nice lens.  It's from the thirties.  I have several bellows from old polaroids around.  I gave some thought to making a box view with them.  You know like the really early ones from the turn of the century.  I still might do that.  I have learned a lot about light leaks over the last couple of years.  Had them about everywhere you can have one I think.


----------



## JamesD

For my project, I'm going to devise my own bellows.  Should be interesting--perhaps the most interesting part of the project.  Of course, that allows me to make the bellows as long as I like; I might make a couple of interchangeable ones ranging from "normal" to "extra long."

Longer bellows means closer focus, right?


----------



## mysteryscribe

yes the closeness of the focus it like that some of the older roll film cameras had an extention bellows on front.  Not sure just how they worked but it was something like my movable lens camera.  You would rack it out as far as it would go, the switch to another moving bed to rack it some more.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I just finished shooting a paper negative in my studio.  It ran for 90 minutes exposure and was perfect, as much as I can manage anyway.  The secret seems to be in adding enough light to make the light active not passive.  I'm not sure I said it right, but it's the only way I can describe it.

And of course I'm not sure that it really works that way... This is purely antidotal evidence your honor.


----------



## JamesD

A threshold, then, perhaps in addition to the reciprocity failure?  I shall have to research this!


----------



## mysteryscribe

so how is this for freaky


----------



## Hertz van Rental

FYI:
Film and paper can both be 'flashed' to boost film sensitivity.
The proper name for it is _latensification_ and it is an applied use of reciprocity effects.
The mechanism whereby a latent image is formed is a little complicated (and it's still only a theoretical model proposed by Gurney and Mott in 1938 ) but to put it simply, a latent image only forms if enough energy is put into the system to effect electron movement.
Even simpler: consider trying to push a car. It's very difficult to get it moving and takes a great deal of initial effort. But once you do start it rolling it becomes considerably easier.
Latent image formation is a bit like that. In order to get an image to form you need to input enough energy in to overcome the emulsion's resistance to change (_hysteresis_). 
At low light levels this doesn't happen - particularly in shadow areas.
'Flashing' film/paper puts that extra bit of energy into the system to get it moving.
Flashing can actually be done before, during or even after exposure to give pretty much the same results.
Because it increases the sensitivity of the film/paper to _low_ levels of illumination the effect is generally more marked in shadow areas - which is why it has the effect of reducing image contrast (flare does exactly the same thing for the same reason, by the way).
The level of sensitisation is affected by the amount of 'flash' you subject the emulsion to. The more you give it the more energy is put into the system and the more sensitive the emulsion becomes.
Up to a point.
Too much 'flash' and you will begin to fog the emulsion, which is not what you want.
In practice 'flashing' prior to exposure - pre-flashing - is by far the easiest thing to do.
It is best done in the darkroom using an enlarger.
You need to stop down the enlarger lens to the max and move the head to the top of the column - the dimmer the light the better. A piece of ground glass or tracing paper in the neg carrier will help give an even illumination.
Then you do a test strip with a range of exposures and process.
You examine the results and find the exposure time that just starts to register - and choose the exposure before that. This means that you will give the emulsion the maximum amount of light possible without fogging it.
Naturally this will also mean you have achieved maximum sensitivity.
Once the emulsion has been flashed it will be OK for maybe 30 minutes or more before use. It's difficult to be exact as ambient temperature has an effect (colder will slow things down).
If you do flash before use, always leave the emulsion for the same amount of time before use every time you do it. This leads to consitency and predictable results.
If you find that contrast is too low then reduce the flash exposure a little and try again.

The downside is that, as flashing increases sensitivity, any light leak in the darkroom or shortcoming in the safelight will be enhanced and may pose problems.
Also the base level fog of film and paper increases over time (and is affected by storage conditions). Flashing will also enhance this and it might become intrusive.

Without spending a lot of time and effort - and a densitometer - flashing is largely a matter of trial and effort. But the method outlined above does work and is the easiest one I have found.


----------



## mysteryscribe

yeah what he said..


----------



## mysteryscribe

okay if a simple 60watt light bulb will make the paper neg act as it should, i wonder how small a light is needed to 'boost' it.  A camp lanter, a flash light, a pinlight a candle.   hmmm interesting thoughts.  Not sure a I want to go with an exposure longer than two hours.  The paper rose above was about 90 minutes.

I do have a 15watt light bulb from a fishtank light I bought to use as a back light for my scanner.  I wonder.....................


----------



## Hertz van Rental

Work out what the exposure was and then give the emulsion a flash of around 5% of that exposure beforehand. It's a reasonable starting point for a little trial and error.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Flashing paper isnt what I am interested in.  What I am really intersted in is how much booster light is needed for the images to read reasonably true to the meter.  So far 60watts does it.  I have a 25 and 15 watt bulbs  I think I'll give them a shot over the next couple of days.  Just to see how low the boost light can be and still combat the other problems of a iso 5 media.

The reason the ones today took so long was I had the overhead light out.  Got a pure 60watt boost, at about four feet from the vase.  I think i will switch out the bulbs to keep the distance at about four feet or less.  Just an interesting test.  I know i couldn't get much of anything from the dim studio light from the two small windows.  So this will be interesting.  I may have to go back and shoot a base just to be sure I wasn't guilty of being sloppy at first.


----------



## JamesD

You rock!

Interesting that you can flash after exposure.  Seems like the "photonic data" which doesn't cause the emulsion to change would be lost... But you've been at this much, much longer than I have, so I'll take your word for it til I can try it myself (and find out that you're right).

Also, that's the first time, I think, that I've seen a starting figure (5%, you mention).  Actually, that's the first time I've seen a lot of the specifics you outline.  Is there a printed or web reference with even more detail?  I find it all quite facinating.

Thanks again,
-James


----------



## Hertz van Rental

JamesD said:
			
		

> Is there a printed or web reference with even more detail?  I find it all quite facinating.


I'm afraid that the short answer is 'no'. Or at least what work has been done in this area is highly specialised and the papers that have been written are very technical. There is nothing of a practical nature that I have found.
Most of the work that has been done is centred around Astronomy, as that is where the bulk of low light level exposures takes place. The best paper on the subject I have found (but I have to admit to not having looked very hard) is in the Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics for 1979 - _Advances in Astronomical Photography at Low Light Levels_ by Smith & Hoag. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ARA&A..17...43S - but be warned, it is very specialised and most of it is to do with hyper-sensitisation.

As for 'flashing' during and after exposure. If you understand the theory of latent image formation (electron movement, nucleation, that sort of thing) then you will understand how it works.
I won't go into it here, though, as it would take me about a half-an-hour lecture with diagrams and a short quiz after to explain it properly.
I will say that the illumination level required for post-flashing is extremely low - an exposure of around 30 minutes would be required to make an appreciable fog on the emulsion.
The figure of 5% for pre-flashing is just a starting point and easily arrived at.
The exposure required is just below the one that makes an appreciable fog on the emulsion.
5% is 1/20th.
If the exposure for mid-tone grey is X.
Then the exposure to just record shadow detail is X - 4 stops (or X/16)
1/20th will be just below that and on the threshold of exposure. Simple.


----------



## mysteryscribe

easy for you to say.....


----------



## JamesD

Thanks, Hertz.  I've skimmed that article, and it's interesting stuff, particularly since I'm a technically- and scientifically-minded person (believe it or not), and my favorite scientific field was always astornomy (followed by physics and chemistry).

You've been quite helpful in this little endeavor; hopefully, it'll result in something handy for future paper-negative photographers (assuming we're not the last).

Looks like I've got a bunch of experiments to try this weekend.  But right now, I'm gonna go take some pictures before the sun goes down.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Well from the non scientific member of this expedition in search of the paper negative, let me say,  "There is a place in my bag of tricks for the paper negative."

Funny but today I shot two film shots and wished I had loaded one side with paper.  I think the subject might have been better on paper.  Smoother paper negative prints have a more retro look about them.  At least that's my thinking today.


----------



## JamesD

Before I do anything further, I need to calibrate my exposure process...  and write it down.  Apparently, memory is not serving.  I went out to get some pinhole images before the sun set, and I'm glad I came back after exposing just one.  It was hopelessly overexposed, and if I'd used the same metering, I'd probably have wasted all the paper.

I think what I'm going to do is make several shots of the same subject, from completely underexposed to completely overexposed.  This will give me a couple of guides:

1.  An indication of the metering correction I need to apply.
2.  A visual incication of which way I need to take the exposure next time I try that or a similar subject in that or similar lighting.
3.  A guide for printing less-than-optimal negatives when I fail to expose correctly.


I'll likely do the same thing with prints of the optimal negative to give me a ballpark figure when I'm printing.

I should probably do this for both bright-light and low-light situations.  And, of course, I'll have to do it all over when I start using the view camera.


----------



## JamesD

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Well from the non scientific member of this expedition in search of the paper negative, let me say,  "There is a place in my bag of tricks for the paper negative."



This is a great quote!


----------



## mysteryscribe

James I'm not sure how you are doing it but It drove me nuts for a while. I do it this way... I set my meter up for 5 iso. I read the meter and shoot it. I have a chart that coverts ev to time at the fixed aperture. 

I also ad 30% to 50% exposure if the time exceeds one minute. Since I develop in a daylight tank I never get to see the neg till it is done. I always develop mine the same.... 1oz dektol /1oz d76 to 4oz water.. for two minutes at 68 degrees. That has been the most consistant for me so far.

It is probably a good place to start, but not likely to be what you need you are making contact prints where I am putting mine directly onto a scanner.


----------



## JamesD

Okay, I think I'm leaving the paper neg + pinhole to daylight only.  I've spent the last couple of hours exposing repeatedly, and have yet to arrive at a workable negative.  It's simply too long an exposure.  I will say this, however:  I preexposed the paper under my enlarger for five seconds, f/16, at the lowest light setting, just to the point where it didn't fog when developed, and it does make a difference in the image.  The main effect is that it brings the image out, equivalent to perhaps one stop of exposure.  Not much, but still visible.  Considering that the last exposure I did was 30 minutes, and would likely need to be at least two hours... that's two hours knocked off--quite a difference.

I may revisit ph+pn later on in life, but for now... nah.  Paper negs, however, still fascinate me, and pinhole still fascinates me.  I just don't have the patience for them together right now.

Tomorrow, I begin on my biggest project ever: the view camera.  I'm not sure how long it's going to take, but I might have it done by sunday.  It's hard to say.  Once it's complete, however, I'm going to begin by using paper negs in it, and later on, perhaps film.  When I've got it down pat, I might return to indoor-pinhole.


----------



## mysteryscribe

good stay at it... The view camera is a lot of fun... Today I loaded one film holder went out and shot two negs it is more fun for me to figure out what to shoot and how to do it, than it is to just go burn film.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

JamesD said:
			
		

> You've been quite helpful in this little endeavor


I do my best  

One final note:
Pre-flashing at around the 5% mark (max flash; max sensitisation) is capable of producing nucleation centres that have some stability - we're talking latent sub-image here... - and the emulsion can stay sensitised for several hours, maybe even as much as a day. Useful to do a batch in the darkroom before going out to shoot.
Lower levels of exposure do not have such a lasting effect and there is a cut-off point where the effect of flashing will wear off in a couple of minutes. There is also another where flashing won't have an effect at all - it regresses virtually as you do it. Unfortunately it is not possible to predict where these points are with any useful degree of accuracy.
Trial and error I'm afraid.


----------



## mysteryscribe

okay I just started a four hour exposure with a 25watt bulb on a paper negative. Now yall have me all curious. If, and that's a big word, I remember to close the shutter at the end of four hours, I'll post the results good bad or ugly.  If i forget and am late it might be a good thing since four hours is the meter reading without any additional "low light" time.


----------



## mysteryscribe

as promised







So four hours still makes a good image... I think it is possibly the quality of the light as much as the quantity that causes the problem.  Actually I always thought that.  Still to make a paper negative by moonlight must be quite the trick, but a streetlight would do just fine I think.


----------



## mysteryscribe

There is a civil war reinactment next weekend near me.  I feel a lot better about shooting paper negatives now than I would have a month ago.  I still think I will shoot mostly film, but a few paper neg portraits might be in order.


----------



## JamesD

That image is great in color!  I saw it on the other forum.

Some Civil War-esque portraiture would be great!  I'd love to see it.  Seems like this is a good medium for that type of image.  Plus, since the reenactors are usually all about the period thing, they'll probably be more than willing to sit for you.  That'd be a fascinating series, and I'd love to see it.


----------



## mysteryscribe

On a good day, with one of the full aperture cameras, the time would be just a few seconds. so yes I think  it can be done easily.  I am thinking I don't have enough film holders.  I think I can use the 3x4 it has enough holders for this project.  Of course I'll be developing it for a week which is good to.  I can always use the push to work every day.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Lessons I learned from yesterdays shoot and my development...

1. Trust your light meter don't overthink the exposure there is NO latitude.

2. Make you system and work your system... don't try to tinker with it as you go along.

3. if you feel the need to improve on 2 above do it with test not good shots.

4. Mix developer daily and throw out yesterdays just as soon as you walk in the door.

5. Flush all tanks & lids *THOROUGHLY* between uses.

6. It may be possible to shoot paper at higher iso out doors by making hot shot chemical loads (investigate same)

more as I figure it out... if you shoot paper, please share your experiences I am trying to get a handle on this stuff.


----------



## JamesD

Absolutely right about the latitude.  Which actually makes sense:  if you've got five stops from max shadow to max highlight, in both your print paper and you film (which is also print paper), then you're gonna have to get it right smack dab on...  Plus, you've only got five stops of sensitiviy.

To help with this, I've been using Dektol at 1:5 for the negatives.  It seems to help, but I really should make several shots of a subject using the same exposure, then develop half in Dektol 1:2 and half in 1:5.  That's the only way to really tell for sure.  I'll have to get on that.

Oh, and with contact printing, I've been able to extend the range just ever so slightly by using soft contrast filters--I think.. More testing required.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I absolutely agree with all that.  The first thing for me to do. Is to see if i can rasie the outdoor iso of the film with chemical mix.  Iso 5 is to slow for a paper negative.  It is okay for pinhole but for use as an all purpose film subsitute in primative techniques, I need to get the bright light speed up to about 25... I can live with that.

Five is okay to set them down in a chair in the shade and say now hold very still.  But out in the bright light when they are walking about, it need to be at least iso20.  From todays accident I think it is possible to do.  I mixed a very hot load of chemicals and they turned the paper black but with a hidden image in it.  If I can control that image I should be able to work out an iso for the paper that is higher.  Who knows.  I would love to be able to make primative images in a walk about way.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I've been thinking we need to start a new gallery type thread here like the retro thread.  You can pick the name but make it all paper negs.  Everything from pinhole to primative lens to retro even the people with the graflex cameras.  You could mostly likely shoot paper negs in your 645 even matter of fact i know you can.  Just a gallery with nothing but paper neg pics.  When we do YOU have to post pictures to.  If you want to put some in a festival, you have to show us first lol.  

We also need people who are willing to do critigues not just atta boy the prints to death.  It's a different kind of bird who wanders into this jungle.


----------



## JamesD

You're right, I haven't been posting many--or _any_, really--images.  Truth is, I haven't taken many.  I don't get out to take enough 35mm photos, and the paper negative stuff is darkroom intensive... and my darkroom is a pain to work in.  It's a closet, with the oversized enlarger sitting on the floor.  Not exactly prime working conditions, if you know what I mean.  I also don't have a changing bag, which makes even film a pain, sometimes.  Add my work schedule into that....

I'd thought about using paper in a roll-fed camera.  Unfortunately, 10 inches of paper isn't much... about six shots in 135 format if I use a clever system to replace leader and trailer, and then I have to add sprocket holes too LOL. It's only five shots in in the 6X4.5 format.  Then, there's the problem with enlarging them.  I won't say it can't be done, but I steadfastly refuse to add any sort of computer manipulation into the process.  My current aim is to learn and become proficient with darkroom processes.  So, I've been sticking to the 4X5 format.

As for the festival... I haven't the foggiest what I'm going to be doing.  I might wind up doing a few postcards... I'll have to see what I can work up.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I was thinking in the medium format make the roll like a 220 roll.  Just a leader taped to the film then a traler taped to that.  Develop it in a film tank.  Make several three exposure rolls.


----------



## mysteryscribe

On the card thing... several years ago when I was doing festivals.. I had a set of note cards.  made the print in one corner then folded it up.  Got hold of some envelops from wedding invitations matched the color pretty well and set them out to sell.  To give you an idea how well they sold... I think my wife used the last one last year lol..


----------



## JamesD

I have some ethical reasoning to do with the whole arts & crafts booth thing, anyway.  I'm not inclined to charge too much for them.  If the price is low, it'd fit both the photog's bracket (I'm really not very good) and encourage sales (maybe).  In that case, it'd be enough to pay for themselves and replenish my film-fund a little (which term I really need to rename "darkroom fund").  In the past, that's how I've worked... if someone wanted a copy of a print, I'd typically ask for however much it was to get the reprint made (I was working with WalMart 1-hour then, and the enlargements weren't too bad) and suggest a donation of a buck or two for the film fund.

I'm not one of those pretentious tyros spoken of in "that other" thread, but at the same time, I'd feel bad if someone else locally was trying to make a living off prints similar to mine and I was driving down the market value.

Eh, I'm just rambling.  I'm rearranging my darkroom, so I'll get back to it.


----------



## JamesD

Hmmm... just found a roll of TMax that needs dev.... I wonder what's on it.... :scratch:


----------



## mysteryscribe

best investment you can make is a changing bag.  then you can do your developing in the kitchen sink anytime


----------



## JamesD

Okay, I'm itching to do something.  Tomorrow, I'm going to make myself another 4X5 box and try to mount that 150mm lens in it.  I can use the same back as I've been using for my pinhole... but I really need to make another one, maybe some kind of holder with a dark slide to make field photography easier....


Yeah, I think I can do that... cardboard and duct tape.... Hmmm...


----------



## mysteryscribe

ah think masonite


----------



## mysteryscribe

I have been mulling over your donation thing and I really like it.  If you are in it for the fun, then you should try to make a product that isn't competeing with the "real" photographers.. Which by the way is a joke.  Nonetheless I see your point.  I personally like to stick it in their eye.

The post cards,,, or note cards ... or stationary markets should be non competative.  

Long ago, in a galaxy far far away, before there were digital camera that would make an 8x10 print without some pixelization, I tried a series of experiments.  I was looking for a way to make a print that I could use even with the drawback of the 640x480 image size.

I'll share a secret with you guys.  You can run a piece of water color paper through a color ink jet and get one hell of a print.  Im not kidding, your ink jet inks absorb into the paper in a different way.  It looks like a water color painting somewhat.  The paper is thick and stiff but it will go through.  I'm not sure what damage it would do to the printer but I know you can do it at least a few times before it burns up....I expect its a mother on eating up ink.

You know that print of the kids on the marry go round... I bet you could take that process print a print very light on regular textured paper in an ink jet and make a nice note card.  The image and convenience of the folded up card is a nice thing to sell.  But that is just a little thing for your ego you wont get rich at it.  You also won't be robbing anyone else.  I have never seen any other photographer selling them at an arts fair.

I should really make some more.  I take mine to the office depot to print.  They have the colored papers.  Color paper with black ink seemed to do okay.  I think you can take them the jpg on a floppy and they can positon it on the page for you and everything.  Those guys are my printer.. I have a matrix just for contracts and labels.  If I need a real print I swing by the depot.


----------



## JamesD

Allrighty, I've just run a ten-inch strip of Ilford MCIII through the Mamiya 645.  It's in the wash.  The emulsion is toward the inside, so I can't see too much on it, but it did make images.  I rated it at about ISO 6, with five or six exposures starting at f 2.8/4sec, f 2.8/2 sec, f2.8/1 sec, f4/1sec, f5.6/1 sec, f8/1sec.

A couple of observations...

- Paper is thick and squirrely.  It took a couple of tries to get it positioned at the same point on the backing paper as the original film.

- Paper is not the same width as film.  It therefore requires cutting.  If you don't get it cut exactly right (especially if it's a little wide) then it will be a serious pain in the posterior to get it on the spool.  It will make the camera stiff to wind.  It will make the reel hard to load.  And it will cause at least one edge (probably the cut edge) to fray.

- It's a little difficult to cut paper in the dark; ie when your safelight bulb has inconveniently burnt out and you have to wait for the one you've ordered to arrive, because the local shop sold you the last one they had several months ago.

-  Scotch tape is difficult to stick accurately in the dark.

-  If you pull scotch tape off rapidly, it makes static electricity discharges.

-  At ISO 6, it doesn't appear that these static discharges are terribly bothersome, provided you stick the tape on the BACK of the paper, not the emulsion side.  This is good practice, anyway, because scotch tape will RIP the emulsion right off. (I knew this beforehand from having taped a print to something once.  Bad juju.)

-  If you've given people the advice of "Stick a sheet of paper or a card with a number written on it so you know which exposure is which," then you'd damned sure better follow it, and if you don't, then you deserve what you get.

Okay, wash is up.  Lemme go see.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Okay you can cut the paper a little narrower than the backing it isnt a problem. The film you are replacing is approx 2 3/8 inches wide. 2 1/4 should be good for you.  You wont need the full tail of the black backing since the paper isnt as long as the film was, you can eliminate a good sized chunk of it... 

To roll it up you without the hassle factor. Put a paper clip on it at the spot where you want to tape it. Then roll it up from the back end. Only tape it when you get it rolled to the paper clip. That will allow it to move around a wee bit. I use masking tape or draftsman's paper tape to secure it.

If the roll is too thick while going through the camera, then proceed to using it like 22o film. Roll your trailer on to the spool. masking tape it to the paper end. roll the paper neg onto the spool (no backing). Tape your leader onto the end of the paper neg and roll it onto the spool. This will allow you to handle the neg before and after you shoot it, but it will cut the thickness almost in half, since there will be no backing over your paper negative.

Cutting in the dark is tough alright. I cut mine inside a box with a changing bag for access. It is worse than cutting in the dark. 

I have heard that the static charge will do something, I have never had anything effected but it might do it to someone else but they are cute to look at when you tear the paper.

If you are running in the 645 you should be able to get 6 to 8 negs i would think. More than with the pinhole. Your best bet will be a old style press cam since you are in a building mode.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I tested a 'new' old camera I built yesterday with paper negs. It's much cheaper for testing light leaks. I had to fix just one leak so I was thrilled. In the process I began testing for higher paper neg iso by the wonder world of chemicals.

I got iso 25 to print but it was under exposed. I got the bright areas on film but the shadow areas were gone almost completely. I didn't stretch it all the way to the chemical limits though. I frankly don't think the paper was marked at all in those areas at iso25.

It looks like one stop or iso 10 in the bright sun is going to be the ticket. The chemical load didn't really seem to make much if any differnce. I'm going to see if i can find the speed of the early albumin negs. I would be very interested in knowing.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I stumbled onto this it is historically interesting BUT note the mention of waxing the paper to make it more transparent for printing. If I were going contact prints of photo paper I would check this out.

I think I will anyway since I also scan negs it might make scanning paper negs more efficient.

I had a thought just now, google is full of pin hole enlarger info. That should solve your enlarger problems.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I ran some test on the paper neg today and I am 100% sure you can increase the speed to iso 10 by adding 50% more chemical strength and adding 50% more time to the development.  Im going to shoot for going to iso 25 before I back off lol...


----------



## mysteryscribe

The camera I built and shot paper negs in today is a waste.  At least Im pretty sure.  I'm not real big on dead sharp prints but these were so soft, I couldn't bring myself to work on them.  I think there may be something wrong with the rear lens element.  I thought it was just the coating but it looks like it might be more.  No problem I had all the parts laying around so it is no big deal.

I think I am going to switch to the good 3x4 and shoot some film tomorrow.  Maybe go to the cemetary.


----------



## JamesD

Charlie, I took your phone booth image, printed it out, stuck it under the enlarger, and loaded a special carrier with a piece of paper.  The enlarger was already set for 4X6 prints, so that's the size I printed it at (in positive).  Then, with a bit of metering magic, a trouble lamp, and a wrist watch, (and a bit of trial and error) I calculated a 30 second exposure.  This produced for me a 135 format negative of the original image on paper.

Here's the kicker:  after drying, I loaded this negative into the enlarger, at f/4, and the brightest light setting, and turned it on.  To my surprise, the projected negative is quite clear, even with the backing still on the paper.  This should be an interesting print... I'll have it sometime tomorrow.


----------



## mysteryscribe

that actually crossed my mind last night while we were posting things.  I disregarded it because of the paper grain but it could be interesting.


----------



## mysteryscribe

James, 

I'm out here experimenting again. I haven't finished yet but i'm finished for now. It must be 120 degrees in the old studio lab. I can't bother with the ac for twenty minutes at a time out there.

I think I can kick the iso (asa) up to 20 on the paper by doubling the development time. Have you tried that. I have no idea what the effect on the paper neg will be, but from the one I screwed up, it looks negligable.

Wrong the best I can do is iso ten for ten minutes... It isn't worth it since I'm going to need a tripod anyway.  Might as well go for the lower development time.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I am absolutely determined to get the speed of paper up.  I found out I was using the super slow developer before so I did it again at asa 20 with double the normal development time.  The negative had no whites but that wasn't a bad thing.  It got rid of that terrible over constrasty look.  I'm going to do it again to see what happens.

Since the time isnt all that much now down to 6 minutes, I might try kicking the iso up one more time but just to 25 and develop it the same.  The strangest thing is that the negative almost looks like those peel off papers from the original polaroids.  Don't tell me I have gone to all this touble when I could just used the negative side of a peel apart polaroid print to get this same look lol.


----------



## mysteryscribe

okay this is iso 25 1.6 reg develop time






It looks okay bigger to just like a paper negative. Tomorrow im going to try for iso 50. If i can get to iso50 without it changing to much this might be a viable film alternative and something I want to shoot as retro.

If I fudge just a little I can get a 4x5 and a 3x4 paper neg from one single sheet of 5x7 apaper or 1 4x5 and two 2x3 Since i have a couple of different camera for each size it should be fun. Just one more kick up and im ready to give it a go.  

By the way there does not seem to be a grain issue... There might be and im not seeing it but I didn't notice one on my single success.


----------



## JamesD

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> okay this is iso 25 1.6 reg develop time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> By the way there does not seem to be a grain issue... There might be and im not seeing it but I didn't notice one on my single success.



I want to see this one larger, Charlie.

Also, there shouldn't ever be a grain issue in any negative that isn't enlarged, I'd think.  It's so tiny that you just couldn't see it.

Also, what's your developer formula again?


----------



## mysteryscribe

believe it or not the larger one got lost in the computer I will have to make another from the negative. I'll do it later tonight or tomorrow

okay for iso25 develop five minutes in this

to make the stock solution it is equal amounts of dektol and d76.

then mix that with water 1 to 4

Tomorrow Im going to shoot and event but after I might give it a try at iso50 That would put it right up with film.

I forgot to add the temperature is hot as hell....


----------



## JamesD

So how's it turn out?


----------



## mysteryscribe

The iso fifty hadn't been very successful yet.  I'm not sure just what it is.  I might have streatched the paper as far as it will go with the 25.  I have to do some more tomorrow.  

I did shoot a living history 1800 style wedding today with a big old camera that I'm obsessed with.  Actually it was fun, as usually happens when I go to one of those retro things, I get asked about the cameras and spend several minutes as the center of attention.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I'll make the larger version of the shot on my porch tomorrow.


----------



## terri

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> The iso fifty hadn't been very successful yet. I'm not sure just what it is. I might have streatched the paper as far as it will go with the 25. I have to do some more tomorrow.
> 
> I did shoot a living history 1800 style wedding today with a big old camera that I'm obsessed with. Actually it was fun, as usually happens when I go to one of those retro things, I get asked about the cameras and spend several minutes as the center of attention.


That sounds like fun!  I'd like to see some of those pictures, if we could, Charlie.


----------



## mysteryscribe

probably will be some in the retro gallery tomorrow afternoon.  If I don't decide to write instead


----------



## mysteryscribe

I have been unable to reproduce the asa 25 image.  I have no idea what I did yesterday or what I'm not doing today.  What I am going to do is build a new daylight 4x5 tank and see if I cant get a little better results with it.  More consistant than hand rolling the tank to use less chemical, I hope I will have it tomorrow.  I am also going to switch cameras.  The 4x5 eats up materials.  I'm going to try to work the kinks out in 3x4  I was trying to test the new 4x5 at the same time but I already know that it is sharp I found out from a negative I did earlier.

So tomorrow I plan to cut a bunch of 2x3 papers and get the twenty five times down then try to push it once more.  ASA 25 is just two stops that shouldn't be a problem at all.  Fifty might be one stop too far but I cant see that either.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I shot paper at asa 25 all day... The times to get a decent negative are running over 20 minutes this is not practical. However I expect that one could run d72 (dektol) at 1 to 2 and cut that significantly.

I'm going to give up since I really don't care enough about paper to persue it.  It is a novelty that I can live with at iso 5


----------



## mysteryscribe

I was looking on ebay for a better lens for the 4x5 when I saw something that really made me laugh.  Someone was selling a very cheap early kodak shutter.  They had stripped it from a folder then removed the glass and fitted a pin hole in it.

Now I have made and sold some pin hole cameras on eba, but it never occured to me that anyone would buy a pinhold lens and shutter assembly only.

In case you are an early camera person it was a dak shutter one of the cheapest made ones.  I kept thinking of all those shutters I have junked.  time to look around the place to see if I have any left.


----------



## DocFrankenstein

This doesn't make much sense from theromdynamics point of view.

How much of a sensitivity increase are we talking about here? Comparing a preflashed/non preflashed papers.


----------



## JamesD

It does make sense from a thermodynamics point of view if you consider the other effects which come with push-processing a photographic medium.  As with film, you increase contrast, but narrow the latitude.  The grain increases--although, the size of the negative minimizes the effect, just as it does with large-format film.

It's a set of tradeoffs, not a something-for-nothind deal.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I swiched out the lens on a 3x4 camera since it was a pain to cut the film from a 4x5 sheet.  The only advantage was the ability to use the rangefinder which I cant do with 4x5,

So what was left was a completely funcional 3x4 camera without a lens.  Bearing in mind that someone things a shutter on a pinhole camera is a good idea I mounted on and make the 3x4 pinhole.  I will most likely shoot only paper in it.

I am shooting it as we speak and have been for the last hour and have one more to go.  then I will see how the darn thing works.


----------



## JamesD

While I'm in the darkroom tonight, I'm gonna spool up some 120-format paper.  I've got a couple of spools available now, so I've got no reason to shoot.

Except that the Mamiya 645 100s is positively a brick.  I mean, can a camera weigh any _more?_


----------



## mysteryscribe

645 is probably pound for image size the worst.....

Now I have tried all day to get paper to shoot at iso 25... I got it twice but then it stopped working.

I preexposed it like this ( shot a piece of white paper five stops underexposed)  then shot the paper neg at iso 25  Twice i got it dead on and three times 1/2 to 1 stop under exposed.  

I also changed the chemical mixture and time.  Doubled the concentration of the chemical and added 50 to the time.  Neither seems to have hurt the paper negs  Not sure how much they improved them either.  After I rest I'm going back to give it one more try.


----------



## JamesD

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> 645 is probably pound for image size the worst.....
> 
> Now I have tried all day to get paper to shoot at iso 25... I got it twice but then it stopped working.
> 
> I preexposed it like this ( shot a piece of white paper five stops underexposed)  then shot the paper neg at iso 25  Twice i got it dead on and three times 1/2 to 1 stop under exposed.
> 
> I also changed the chemical mixture and time.  Doubled the concentration of the chemical and added 50 to the time.  Neither seems to have hurt the paper negs  Not sure how much they improved them either.  After I rest I'm going back to give it one more try.




Good deal, Charlie.  Pre-exposure is one of the things I'm going to try with my rolls.  I'm writing an article for my website about the paper negative, and my experimental images are going to go as illustrations. So, we shall see.  This is an area where guys like us can actually do some useful research and contribute to the photographic field, and I think that's exciting, yanno?


----------



## mysteryscribe

JamesD said:
			
		

> Good deal, Charlie. Pre-exposure is one of the things I'm going to try with my rolls. I'm writing an article for my website about the paper negative, and my experimental images are going to go as illustrations. So, we shall see. This is an area where guys like us can actually do some useful research and contribute to the photographic field, and I think that's exciting, yanno?


 
Well i continued on and I think preexposure is a crock.... What I came up with as a guesstimate so far is that paper when expose in sunlight or mostly sunlight it iso 20  when exposed on a cloudy day or in light shade it is iso 10   when exposed under studio lights or in deep shade as in on my front porch it is iso 5.. it isnt the volume of light because a light meter measures that, it is the intensitiy of it which nothing can measure.

Which may account for why print paper reacts differently when exposed at different fstops on the enlarger regardless that they might have equal amounts of light.

anyway I made a quite satisfactory negative earlier outside at about iso 20 but couldnt do it again cause, the sun has been playing hide and seek all day.  Under the studio lights the pre exposure had no effect whatsoever.  You see what you get though.  I am curious to see if it is the same...


----------



## JamesD

What kind of studio lights are you using?  Color temperature will _absolutely_ affect exposure, since VC papers are not sensitive to warmer colors, ie red, orange, and yellow.  Household tungsten bulbs are notoriously lacking in greens and blues.

It's interesting, though, that exposures are longer than metered in shadows and when its overcast.  Those types of light are generally quite blue-heavy  I'll have to try it, as well, see if I can figure out a logical explanation.

Even so, you've found a technique that works, and that's excellent.  Anyone else reading here who decides they want to try it will have that essential baseline starting point.  Me, though, I wanna know _why_.  I'm probably just too intellectual for my own good LOL.


----------



## mysteryscribe

shot under household lighting... trouble lights with 100 watt bulbs 5iso
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





paper negative of course


----------



## JamesD

I always do stupid things when I'm running experiments.  Seriously, it never fails.

I loaded the "120" paper strip into the daylight tank and dumped in the Dektol.  After the appointed time, I dumped it out and set to rinse.  Then, I poured in the fixer--only, halfway through, I looked at the bottle, only to realize that I wasn't pouring in fixer, I was pouring in TMax.

So, what can you do?  I poured the TMax back out and re-rinsed, then put in the fixer.  This was an ISO determination test, so... The only salvageable thing I got from this test strip is the excess before the first frame.  I now know exactly where to tape the paper to the 120 backing paper for correct positioning. That, at least is useful.

Now, to load up the second roll and try again....


----------



## JamesD

Okay, near as I can figure...

Using household tungsten lighting as the sole light source, Ilford MCIII RC paper can be rated at about ISO 3.   ISO 2 if shadow detail is required.

This was the setup I used to arrive at this conclusion:

On a black cloth background, I set up an 18% gray card and a sheet of white paper.  I aimed a 60-watt tungsten light bulb in a bowl reflector at it at a range of about two feet (60 cm).  Incident light meter set at ISO 6 indicated an exposure of 1/8 seconds at f/2.8.    I verified this with my SLR's TTL meter on the gray card.  I shot five exposures, all at f/2.8:  1/8", 1/4", 1/2", 1/15", and 1/30".  The exposure at 1/4" showed a nice density for the gray card, and at 1/2", the black background was beginning to show.

I processed the paper is Dektol 1+4 for 90 seconds at 75 degrees F (24 dec C).  Normally, I use Dektol 1+5 for 120 seconds, but I elected to use my standard print process this time.  At some point in the future, after I've established good baselines, I'll vary dilutions and development times.

Not the most scientific of tests, but I lack a densiometer, so it'll have to do.  It should be accurate enough for general usage.  Tomorrow, I'll spool up some more and run the same test outside in the sunlight.  After that, I'll run the same set of tests using VC filters to check out contrast variations, since this is VC paper.

So, this can serve as a starting point for those interested in this process.


----------



## mysteryscribe

So why am i developing mine for four to five minutes at a dilution about the same thought I mix mine with film developer as well.  Interesting.  Anyway I am waiting for the outside shots be sure to get some in bright sunshine as well as shaddy spots.


----------



## JamesD

I'll have to recalibrate my printing process as well in order to make sure that I'm getting the right shade of gray on the output end, which I'll also do soon.  After that, there might be a slight adjustment in the final ISO number, but I doubt it.  Of course, with such a narrow exposure latitude, the final ISO number will be highly variable, anyway, depending on the subject and the highlights and shadows around it, and how you want to represent each in the final image.

Also, I developed for 90 seconds in Dektol 1+4 because that's the standard I use for prints.  I'm establishing a baseline; later, I'll look at other times and dilutions and see whether they extend the range at all.


----------



## mysteryscribe

For those of you who tinker with paper negatives I tried again today to shoot one inside for another still life.  

Actually I spent the morning building an 8 x 10 daylight tank.  I used a couple of empty chemical bottles to do it and it seems as thought it is going to work.   I stuck a flower in it and was going to do a still life.

Now there are a couple of things that seem to work for me but I also keep forgetting them so let me try to outline them.

In almost any daylight you can double the iso at least, without making any changes to how you develop it.  If you try twenty in the bright sunshine and I have with mixed success, you can add 50% or so to the development time.  Just a place to start..

NOw in the studio what I relearned yet again today.  If your meter reads less than a minute trust it.  If it reads over a minute, double the exposure.  That seems to take care of the retroprosity effect... at least for me.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Since people grow and evolve you will be interested to know that I have decided to finally build a dedicated paper negative camera.  I am paring down the numbers of cameras I have laying about.  Well the ones that I built anyway.

Tomorrow I am going to use one of my cameras that is leaking light through a back I DID NOT build, to build a 3.5 by 5 paper negative camera.  I am going to permenantly mount it to a tripod

why 3.5 by 5?  it's the size of a half sheet of 5x7 paper.  I will no longer be cutting four of five different sized pieces of paper for negatives.  I still have film for my 4x5 and 2x3 cameras that is precut.  I have one good 120 camera that I built and a couple of junkers laying about.

Now I plan to do something with a couple of3x4 cameras I have about as well.  Anyway I think this might be the last build I need to do.  EXcept lol I do think I might build another 4x5 field camera.  The studio 4x5 is a pain to work with at the park or the lake.  Im not sure how I feel about 2x3 yet.

anyway the search for the perfect paper negative solution continues.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I feel such an idiot.  I really am making the kinds of mistakes that first week photography students make.  

Okay it took a little build and rebuild of the paper neg camera but I got it done.  So I decide that I'm just gonna take all the paper out of the dark box in my lab and go to the bathroom kill the lights and cut it all.  

I found two boxes of paper in my dark box.  Yes both 5x7 but two different types.  Duh all those days of not being about to figure out if the the iso outside was 10 or 25 guess what the paper develops differently.  I shot some of the thick paper outside at iso 25 and it did perfect.  That wasn't even pushing it at all.  I might just push it 50 percent to see if the negative isnt just a little better.

So here is the difference. One is arista edu ultra.  iso 2 to 10   the other is arista rc plus grade 3 is the fast one 5 to 25  it is also thicker.  Don't know what difference that makes but I can tell which I have by the feel now that I know.

iso 25 makes it high usable outside.  Inside on a tripod so no big deal.  So now i have a good veristle field paper negative camera.  And way way to many other ones.

The plus is about double the cost but still that give me 200 sheets from a box of a hundred pieces..  Cost twenty bucks for the good stuff or ten cents a shot.  Slower paper is about 13 bucks for 200 shots. or about 7cents a shot....  I think when this finally runs out in my next lifetime, Im going with the plus again.

Just thought I would let the two or three other guys know there is a big difference in the paper.  I would love to find some contact paper.  I think it is even faster.  

Hey phil is contact paper faster than regular printing paper.


----------



## mysteryscribe

For those of you foolish enought to be trying paper negatives let me say there is a huge amount of exposure difference between the papers just like film.

The arista plus in the sunlight is 1so 25  which is a respectable speed.  I shot it again this morning and got the times for my developer worked out.  I think if it were an emergency you could push it to iso 50 by trippling your development times.

arista ultra is about iso 10 in the sunlight just to give you an idea of the difference.  you can probably cut iso in half for both under indoor light.  It might go back up for strobe.

This shot was made at 1/25 of a second f8  developed 4.5 minutes in my own developer.  the spot is some kind of flair or light leak i need to work on but the exposure is fine.


----------



## mysteryscribe

First of all I'm not going to stop shooting paper negatives.  They appeal to me on many levels, but there are a couple of things I don't like.  Actually only one.

I don't mind the loss of tiny details.  I shoot for the shapes and relationship of things not the grain of the wood.

I don't mind the lack of latitude in the exposure.  After all I'm not shooting on demand.  Unlike nuclear war I do have 'do over' opportunities.

I hate the length of the exposures.  I don't mind the ones under a minute but some of them can run hours and that gets to be a drag.  There is very little latitude in the paper negative which is fine.  It just means i meter more carefully.  Using the paper neg with a lensed camera cuts the exposure time down and that helps.  Generally speaking I like paper negatives.

For greater detail or for shoots requiring that I shoot people on the fly it is film all the way.  For almost anything else paper will do nicely and fits into my general feel these days.  Hey i'm a retro kinda guy.


----------



## terri

For fun, and with the right subject, I can see where paper negatives could be a lot of fun. You've certainly experimented with them more than most people would have. 

I can be extremely patient for art's sake (traditional hand coloring, bromoil printmaking are not quick processes) but I doubt I'd have the patience for paper negs. So I tip my hat to your efforts, Charlie! You've gotten some very nice stuff.


----------



## mysteryscribe

hell terri
I cant stop now i just gone a hundred sheets of 5x7 paper in.


----------



## Jeff Canes

So what about shooting more outdoors in good light?  

I loaded my holders with paper a week or so ago but I have no Dektol can in use D76 or another film developer?


----------



## mysteryscribe

shoot them at iso two at first.  use the d76 with the regular not the double delusion and try it for the same time as film.  After you see the first one you may have to adjust the time.

I expect it will be the same time as iso 100 film but you may have to adjust and please let me know about the d76..

I make a developer I use for paper and film.  I mix half d76 stock soluter with half dektol stock to make my own stock solution.  then i use the stock 1 to 4 for about half the d76 time and the same time as the 25% more than the dekol time for paper.  I dont get noticeable grain and it cuts the developing time in half for d76  And I dont have to juggle developers.


----------



## Jeff Canes

That would be like Plus-x in d76 at 68deg for 7min I fine with that developing time. 

But I would prefer to shot at a higher ISO like 10; ISO 2 will require a longer exposures


----------



## mysteryscribe

I could never quite put a handle on pushing paper past the max time....  I develop mine in a daylight tank for about four minutes which usually doesn't seem to get any better with more time.  Try it and see.  Shoot the first one at iso 2 at seven minutes developemnt time.  The two will work at some development time.  Play with the time till you get a negative youi like the try pushing it up to 10 that would be about two stops.  Use the 40 percent rule for the development.  that would be about a hundred percent addition time in the soup.  See it that helps.  It just might I never tried it with d76 staright.


----------



## JamesD

I expose at ISO 6, and I've developed in TMax developer before (1:4 dilution) with good results.  Some experimentation will be required to get the absolute best results, but it took me less than an hour (including exposure time using a pinhole camera) to get good images with just a bit of experimentation.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I think i have come to the conclusion that paper like film has different speeds so I should have said to test yours jeff.  Mine is arista ultra and I can't get more than iso no matter what I do.... However at one time I had a different type paper and could push it to iso 25 but that was only once.  I could never dupicate it.  Ten with that paper was doable in the bright sunshine only.  

Im at a loss but if I shoot it at iso2 I almost always get somekind of negative.  If you pan develop you have a much better change of working with the speed I think.


----------



## Jeff Canes

I dont want to mess round with long exposures, been playing with the dial on my light meter, at 2 iso seem to hand hold one would need very good light at less EV 16 that would let me shot f4 @ 1/60, on the tripod seem I would want to say with at less EV8 light to keep exposures under 4 minute are so that I can live with.

For the first 10 are so paper negative I used Foma paper shot it as if it was iso 6, got one good print, now I have some ilford with back printing so at less the paper will be loaded right, hope to try that soon.

Truthfully so far I am finding this 4x5 camera and process very cumbersome, time consuming and cumbersome (aka pain in the butt), those add up to frustration in my book

Also the lack of a good darkroom does not help; the only good part about mine is the build in chair


----------



## mysteryscribe

I have NO darkroom.... 

1. load and unload in a dark bag over a blacked out cardboard box. 
2. Cut the paper in there, load it in the film holder... 
3. shoot it... 
4. unload it to a black taped over peanut butter jar with a home made light baffle... 
5.develop it.... 

6. if I did it right I scan the paper negative... 
7. If I did it wrong see step one.

TODAY i am experimenting with stobe light and paper negatives. The shots look terrific, but the light is only strong enough for a two foot seperation between the light and the subject. More light and I could do a portrait.  probably wouldn't need to bounce with anything.


----------



## JoeVanCleave

This has been an interesting discussion. I've been working on calibrating my paper negative process to the use of a light meter and glass lens/shutter cameras. Up until recent, most of my paper negative work has been with pinhole cameras.

This thread: http://www.f295.org/DIYforum/cgi-bin/forum/Blah.pl?b-bw/m-1158807481/ discusses some testing that I did, using my normal Arista RC grade 2 paper, with a Poloroid Land 800 camera.

The results tend to reveal that for my process flow, Arista RC grade 2 has an effective EI of around "2". And, as the tests reveal, there's little or no discernable reciprocity effect between shooting in bright daylight verses shaded daylight, or cloudy daylight.

I have found, through years of working with paper negatives, that the cost, handling and processing tends to be much more forgiving than with sheet film - even with ortho sheet film. Paper simply doesn't have the issues of scratches and residue/spots like transparent film.

I've also been enlarging my paper negatives. To do this, I open the enlarging lens all the way open; careful use of a grain magnifier will enable one to focus for the grain of the emulsion. Be sure the negative is placed emulsion side down in the carrier. I then keep the lens wide open for the test strip and subsequent full prints. Depending on the quality of your enlarging lens and the alignment of the enlarger itself, you may see some soft focus in the corners or edges of the print. The results are a bit softer than enlarging film, but the effect also tends to tame the inherent high contrast of my condensor enlarger, since the effect of back-lighting the emulsion through the paper backing acts like a diffusion light source.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I gave up on pinhole and went to all glass.  I shoot paper now when I dont have to have a lot of negative with a lot of fine detail.  It makes very good still life when I just want the objects not the dirt on them.

I scan all mine though dont print anything paper.


----------



## mysteryscribe

As you know I have been working with hot chemicals and my own mix. So today I tried straight up d72 clone. At first glance this seem to the be the dirty.

At straight development the the iso with just plain household bulbs seems to be iso.01 actually zero I think.

with the same developer yesterday outside in the sunlight I managed to rate the paper at iso5 and have it do well.

I have always been able to do iso 2 in the shade and under bulbs if I more than double the time in the bath. I'm going to try iso2 with bulb and double the time in the developer tomorrow, but I expect it to work. Maybe this year I will be able to set up a table of time and temp for paper negatives. That would be kinda neet the gurkin table lol...

Im going to switch to working pure dektol clones as no one want to mix developers.  And the dektol clone is much more economical anyway.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Message for James...

Did you ever get your view camera made????


----------



## JamesD

No, no I haven't yet.  I've still got the pieces, gotta get them jointed and glued together, then assemble the film holder, the lens board holder, lens board, etc etc.  Also, the hardware may cause a slight problem for me.

However, this is something I've been giving a lot of thought, just today, in fact.  I'm going to be needing it.

On the other hand, I've manufactured for myself a set of precicion-drilled pinholes (you may be hearing something more on that in the coming months), so I can start getting seriously back into pinhole photography.  That's one of my tasks tomorrow.  This weekend (half over already) is supposed to be a photography weekend.

So, there's some progress in some areas, and not enough in others.  Just give me a little time, and I'll get on it.


----------



## mysteryscribe

Okay, I was going to send you a view camera so you would get back to shoot paper but if you are that close it wouldn't be worth it.  It ain't much of a view camera anyway.

No matter how precise I am with a pin hole and how well it is exposed mine always look like crap to me.  Give me glass on paper anytime.  Take a look in the portrait section for a picture of me and my on loan graflex.  It was a gift but I cant take it I'm too much into my junk cams.  But i do love to shoot with it.  I might keep it just a while longer.


----------



## JamesD

I wouldn't really say I'm close... Right now, it's a collection of straight pieces; I have to joint them, connect them, add the hardware; manufacture a bellows; design and construct (or otherwise acquire) film holders; find a tripod (mine's a bit flimsy); fashion a lensboard holder... the list goes on and on.  I think I may begin with a bag instead of a bellows, though; should be easier to construct.... just layer black cloth in a tube with a circumfrence the same as the perimeter of the front and back.

Basically, I've got all the pieces to make the parts of the frame and standards.  The rail and the rail connection pieces are lacking, but once I figure out a design for them, they shouldn't be too hard.

And, of course, I haven't tried my lens at all to make sure that it'll work.  But, I may get that done this weekend.

So, there it is.  I'm a procrastinator.  At my projects' expense.


----------



## mysteryscribe

well if you want a poorly made but junctional view type (swings and tilts)  camera let me kind.  the lens aint much and it shoot 3x4 negs but I do have a couple of film holders I can send along.  What it doesnt have is a functioning time setting it does bulb on both bulb and time I think.  the lens is like f11  and max speed it 100 it isnt a great lens but it does work.  You might need to clean it a bit lol.  You can also remove it and mount your own lens on it.  So let me know.


----------



## mysteryscribe

I think I can finally give some exposure advice on paper negatives that is workable. In my current writing project I discovered that the earliest exposure calculators were not mechanical but rather situational. Ie if the thing you are shooting it in the dark shade and the day is sunny the exposure would be. The calculate/guide would be a book almost of all possible situations.

I kept that in mind as I worked this out. If you shoot your paper outside in an average light and the iso is 2 then keep your meter set on two but if the light is from incandesant bulbs add one stop... if the light on your subject is bright sunshine subtract one stop from the meter reading. That seems to work just about every time. Anything in the shade is the meter reading it seems. It's just when the light is incandesant you need to add the stop. I found that rather interesting.


----------

