AndyG2
newbie
Reged: 23/11/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Hello, I'm new to this forum and new to Large Format. I remember reading somewhere that in the old days prints were made from large negs by making contact prints using sunlight as the light source.
Is it still possible to do this using modern papers? I was thinking along the lines of four 5 x 4 B&W negs under glass in direct contact with a piece of 10 x 8 photo paper. Is it plausible and if yes, roughly what sort of exposure times would be needed on a sunny day?
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6283
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I remember reading somewhere that in the old days prints were made from large negs by making contact prints using sunlight as the light source.
Using what was know as "Printing Out Paper". Expose, fix and wash, no developer needed.
A few years ago there was an article in AP stating that this was being made again. It may well have died off again in the interim. Try the usual "retro" sources.
I would think that ordinary paper is far, far, far too sensitive to expose by sunlight - though a minute or so of full moonlight might work. The other nice thing about POP was that you could judge the density of the print whilst it was being exposed because of its self-developing nature.
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 4049
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Quote:
I would think that ordinary paper is far, far, far too sensitive to expose by sunlight - though a minute or so of full moonlight might work. The other nice thing about POP was that you could judge the density of the print whilst it was being exposed because of its self-developing nature.
I would've thought so too. You'd have to do a flash test I reckon to see what the sensitivity of the paper is. Wonder if tinted glass over the set-up would give a longer manageable exposure?
--------------------
BSRIPN (Officially full of it..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
LargeFormat
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/10/2006
Posts: 1912
Loc: Cumbria and Buckinghamshire
|
|
Kentmere, and possibly others, still do it.
http://www.retrophotographic.com/retropoppapers.htm
|
DaveS
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 817
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
Kentmere did, and it was stocked by Silverprint, but the last time I looked (A couple of days ago) couldn't find it, perhaps it vanished when Kentmere was bought by Ilford.
Have you thought of making salt prints? They work well in sunlight.
Dave
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
zx9
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1873
Loc: London
|
|
Interesting idea, but why not use a light bulb to expose the paper, could be turned on and off again in say ten seconds or so. Then dev and fix in dishes as normal, OK you will still need a "dark room" and safe-light but this time of the year that's not too difficult.
--------------------
Regards,
ZX9 (Keith Hudson)
My Flickr
|
hhmr
Reged: 21/04/2005
Posts: 386
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
Interesting idea, but why not use a light bulb to expose the paper, could be turned on and off again in say ten seconds or so. Then dev and fix in dishes as normal, OK you will still need a "dark room" and safe-light but this time of the year that's not too difficult.
Hi,
I've just finished making a frame for large contact prints. It will take just a bit bigger than A4 but I'm thinking of ordinary 5x4 negs at first. I too have been thinking along the lines of switching the bathroom light on and off for a few seconds (while otherwise working with a temporary blackout and safelights). The bathroom bulb will be just over 2 metres above the height of the frame. Suggestions anyone about how many watts for the bulb? Also, how does multigrade paper react to the new energy saving bulbs, compared to tungsten? I shall try a 60watt tungsten bulb first but someone's actual results might save me a bit of time and paper experimenting.
Henry
|
zx9
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1873
Loc: London
|
|
Henry, I think the modern compact fluorescents will be difficult to use as they do not turn on instantly, a good old fashioned tungsten lamp is more consistent in this respect.
As for times, it will be very easy for you to find out how long an exposure is required by doing a test strip.
Expose all the paper for say 5 seconds, cover up a couple of inches of paper with an opaque object (the packaging your paper came in ). Make another exposure at the first time, cover up more of your paper and make an exposure at double your starting exposure time.
ie. 5sec, 5sec, 10sec then 20sec.
Process your paper and you will have a print with varying densities, with equivalent exposure times of 5sec, 10sec, 20sec, 40sec. ie. exposures increasing by 1 stop each time.
Sorry if the above was obvious but you can answer your own exposure time question in less than five minutes.
--------------------
Regards,
ZX9 (Keith Hudson)
My Flickr
Edited by zx9 (25/11/2008 14:03)
|
hhmr
Reged: 21/04/2005
Posts: 386
Loc: London
|
|
Quote:
........Sorry if the above was obvious but you can answer your own exposure time question in less than five minutes.......
Well it was a bit! I was hoping somebody had actually got some personal experience of such a set-up to save me reinventing the wheel and to save at least some of those test strips. Last time I did contact sheets (of 35mm negs) it was in a proper darkroom where the light came from an (empty) enlarger, all nice and convenient and the light source only about 18 inches from the paper. Perhaps 'boringly clinical' is as true as 'nice and convenient'. I've been observing the behaviour of energy saving bulbs for a while and I note some makes cut in pretty quickly whereas others take for ever. Do you happen to know, is there a UV component in the light from energy savers? I don't really want to shell out for a 'tanning lamp' light source unless I have to if I start trying alternative processes, which was in my mind when I knocked up the contact frame.
Henry
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6283
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Do you happen to know, is there a UV component in the light from energy savers?
Yes, they work by making lots of UV light which makes the coating fluoresce in the visible range. Clearly there is some UV leakage, how much depends on the quality of the coating. My guess is that the cheaper the bulb was, the more UV will escape.
|
AndyG2
newbie
Reged: 23/11/2008
Posts: 3
|
|
Thanks for all the answers. I will try to get some POP paper but if that's not possible then the lightbulb method seems like a goer.
|
DaveS
old hand
Reged: 22/06/2007
Posts: 817
Loc: Acton, West London.
|
|
I do know that fluorescent lamps are not recomended as room lighting when doing salt prints, because of the strong blue / UV componant, causing fogging.
The last ime I did any salt or POP I used a Philips Facial UV unit which cost about £50 from Chav's Emporium (AKA Argos).
--------------------
DaveS's Flickr Photos
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
