# paper negative portrait



## mysteryscribe (Apr 2, 2006)

This was a street type portrait.  I had no control over the daylight.  Note the shadow from the glasses.  But it is a person on a paper negative.  I was interested in some reaction to it.  I can't decide.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Ps I know she looks a little like a turn of the century Mexican bandit


----------



## terri (Apr 2, 2006)

I love it.   :thumbup:    I wish the shadow from the glasses wasn't across her face, but it's still quite a fetching portrait.   Definitely has that retro look going.    Nice!!


----------



## DFB (Apr 3, 2006)

Hmm... I like the shadow, sure it doesn't make it look as good if you're shooting for a purely representational composition, but it's a cool shape.  


Plus, like you said, she could be a bandit and that could be her big moustache.


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 3, 2006)

so here it is as it would be if it were a usable shot


----------



## terri (Apr 3, 2006)

heh...somebody didn't clean up the sleeve when they were coloring. :mrgreen: 

Just giving ya a hard time!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 3, 2006)

mia copa


----------



## saulmr (Apr 4, 2006)

I like the first version.... Nice!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 4, 2006)

I am really curious both to which one people like and if it bothers you that it is kind of a strange sort of soft.  Paper negatives can be sharp but with no detail.  It is a strange look I think but I'm not sure how I feel.

Andy Terry forgive my smart attitude you were right and I need to be reminded that I should be more concerned with how things look... Mine is a mentality based on, if Im not going to sell it, I can be sloppy with it.  That really isn't true on a forem like this.  So please tell me when I get lazy I need it.


----------



## terri (Apr 4, 2006)

No worries, Charlie!  As a hand colorist, I just notice things like that, so naturally I'm gonna give you a hard time. :mrgreen: 

I like the first version better. The softness doesn't bother me at all - I appreciate it for how it was produced, and what it is. As a paper negative, you can't expect the sharpness or contrast of a film negative. And I like the tone of the first version, too. :thumbup:


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 4, 2006)

Well all I can say is its a good thing my old friend barbara isnt around to see that. I think you were a heck of a lot nicer than she would be. However there is no excuse for being lasy lol...

By the way just in passing what's your record for number of coats of oil paint to get an edge right. Mine is six.


----------



## terri (Apr 4, 2006)

oooo, gosh.... I find dark colors much easier to edge off for some reason. I remember working on some yellow dresses that gave me fits....probably 4 passes with the photo oils and a swipe with the pencil, which I smudged in. 

But, who's counting, right?


----------



## JamesD (Apr 10, 2006)

Cool!  What kind of camera did you use for this?  I've experimented with it in the past using a pinhole camera, and been reasonably pleased, so I've been considering piecing together a camera with lens for 4X5 paper negatives.  Did you  leave the paper on the negative, or separate the paper base from the emulsion?  I've heard of it being done both ways, and I always just contact printed though the paper--no messing with trying to remove it.

Thanks for renewing my interest in this technique!


----------



## mysteryscribe (Apr 11, 2006)

This was shot on one of my polaroid rebuilds to shoot film.  It was shot developed in a tank just like I would film.  Then scanned into the computer for darkroom work.  After which I upload it to a lab for printing.  I have closed my darkroom and now have a daylight film/paper negative place but not enlarger type area.  The negative pics up minimal grain this way but probably a lot of contrast.


----------

