Shooting on paper

[Damien_Demolder]

Anyone shooting on photographic paper and scanning the negs? If so what paper are you using, how do you treat it and what sort of results do you get?

Do you think scanning is better than contact printing through the paper?

It's fun, hey?

Know any good websites on the subject?

Thanks in advance.

damien

[mediaman]

Did this many years ago, with a 5 x 7 monorail.
If I remember correctly, Ilford had just introduced Multigrade. Side effect #1...reversed image [like looking at a scene, with a WLF on a TLR] #2...trying to workout an iso rateing for the paper [Very frustrating]and I do seem to recall [hopefully correctly]something like 200 iso.
This was calculated with "backward Engineering"
I reasoned that a lightsource [enlarger] exposed print time [8 secs @ f11 for the enlarger used]for a good "Average" neg.
And if I projected white light [no neg] at the same magnification on to a Kodak Gray Card, then took a meter reading of the card, read off the ev value.
Reset the meter,to 8 secs @f11,and read off the iso.[200]
However, this was a long time ago, and my memory may be "slightly differant" to actual reality, A good starting point for someone perhaps?

[taxor]

You could try exposing the paper through multigrade filters. I'm sure I read somewhere that grade 0 or 1 are ideal for paper negs and they handle large SBRs admirably. www.apug.org are always a good resource for this kind of thing.

[mediaman]

You could try exposing the paper through multigrade filters. I'm sure I read somewhere that grade 0 or 1 are ideal for paper negs and they handle large SBRs admirably. www.apug.org are always a good resource for this kind of thing.

But remember,no filtration is equal to grade 2 [normal]
This should make it easier to get started.
"Fine Tuning" of the paper neg [contrast etc] can be done on the computer, when printing.
[Tho this is an area that I have not yet tried ]

[Zou]

Damien, try www.f295.org. A great pinhole resource and lots of other 'alternative'/older photo processing discussion (glass plate/bromoil/etc).

ISO for paper apparently equates to somewhere between 2 and 10, depending on who you listen to. I think the general consensus is that paper is cheap enough to play around with.

I have only really mucked about with basic photograms, not 'proper' negative images through a lens/pinhole, so can't really offer practical help. Scanning obviously allows more scope for options afterwards. I tend to end up with mono images but sometimes the colours that naturally emerge in a sheet of MG can be quite interesting.

[Mojo_66]

Once used paper in a pinhole camera I made from a Pringle tin. The results were interesting rather than any good, but very enjoyable though!

[LargeFormat]

I tried using photographic paper in a large format camera (8x10 if I remember correctly). This was over fifty years ago and as a smallish boy I couldn't afford proper film. Needless to say scanners weren't around so I could only contact print although starting with a large negative helped. I do remember that the texture of the paper showed so I guess scanning would work better.

[hhmr]

........Anyone shooting on photographic paper and scanning the negs? If so what paper are you using, how do you treat it and what sort of results do you get?

Do you think scanning is better than contact printing through the paper?

Know any good websites on the subject?.......

Damien,

I've got a couple of examples on: -
http://www.pbase.com/hhmrogers/large_format

I first started using resin-coated Ilford multigrade (using the half-plate camera) and found that an EI of around 4 or 5 seemed to work. As my shots were all boring test shots in the garden I haven't put them up on my picture site.

When I finished building the Bulldog I went along to 'Mr Cad' to buy a lens and shutter and when the conversation turned to paper negs they pressed into my hands, free, a packet of huge sheets of very outdated Kodak FB Grade2 with a matte surface. They pointed out that resin-coated paper with its glossy surface would set up unwanted reflections inside the camera during exposure whereas matte, which implies FB wouldn't. I'm sure that's right. Preliminary results, two examples of which are on my site, suggest an EI of 1 would be about right.

I find that matte paper scans better than glossy on my flatbed. With the latter blank areas of sky seem to fill with all sorts of unwanted marks ans scratches even with carefully cleaned platten and paper surface whereas this seems to be less in evidence with matte.

I also made a card holder for strips cut from a 120 roll film which seems to work and is easy to develop. I'm using ortho cut film with the Bulldog as it is reasonably affordable and can be developed by inspection in a dish. I don't have any fancy tanks and am not sufficiently up to speed to develop pan film in the pitch dark; that's for later.

I correspond with a friend who has been using paper in a 19thC camera much longer and he sent me some of his results (glossy RC) to look at. His negs show the same problems in clear areas. It's odd but similar blemishes don't seem to mess up areas with plenty of detail. He recommends contact printing which seems to help with the blemishes. Scanning a nice matte FB does tend to allow the surface texture of real paper to show a bit, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I must try FB multigrade soon as I think that sort of emulsion may be a bit faster than graded paper (just guessing) and the added frequency response might improve tonality. I've been diluting the developer to slow things down so that I can remove the neg at what seems to be the right time. Effectively I think one is overexposing and under developing to ensure a decent tonal range when exposing the paper to the real world outside, rather than to the less contrasty rays of an enlarger, but if I've got the science wrong, please say.

I'm in the middle of making myself a nice big contact frame using a sheet of thick plate glass. I want to try printing though paper but I'm also thinking of playing around with big ink-jet negs on clear film from scanned LF negs, and possibly trying a few ancient processes. The trouble is I've only got a small temporarilly blacked out bathroom to work in and while 4 trays fit nicely into the bottom of the bath and a frame can be paced directly under the room light, that's about the limit of what is domestically tolerable (to me as well as to my better half).

Henry

PS I should say I've just started as a student on the Diploma in Digital Photography, so Luddism is far from my thoughts! H

[Damien_Demolder]

Thanks Henry - that's a lot of good information. It had occurred to me that gloss paper might create flare in-camera, but I didn't think it would be any worse than film, but I didn't think of gloss/scanning problems.

I'm hoping that by using RC instead of FB paper I'll be able to avoid the paper texture in this instance, but I also like the way it appears when you print through with FB.

God only knows when I'll get round to it, but I'm itching!

Thanks for that

damien

[mike_j]

It doesn't help with your project but am I right in remembering a firm called Gratispool which gave you a free film with each one developed. I think they used paper negatives - the results were dreaful.

[beejaybee]

I right in remembering a firm called Gratispool which gave you a free film with each one developed.

They weren't the only ones.

I think they used paper negatives - the results were dreaful.

The results may have been dreadful but the film they supplied was a perfectly ordinary colour negative film. ISTR most of it was supplied by Konica though the "free" films were branded only Gratispool.

[mike_j]

Your answer prompted me to do a litlle Googling and I was right.

Here is an extract from Gratispool's history

Having given away a free film, Gratispool ensured it was returned for processing by using a low cost type which produced opaque paper negatives rather than conventional transparent celluloid ones. Gratispool purchased the light sensitised 'fast' bromide paper negative material in bulk, intially from Criterion but post-World War II from Kodak, and made it up into roll film 'spools'. Although the 'spools' could be developed by most anyone using normal film developer etc. the resulting 'paper' negatives had to be printed by Gratispool's own purpose designed reflected light enlargers (Richard Stead recalls that his father's reflected light enlargers used 1000watt bulbs), rather than by the commonly available transmitted light method.

No doubt you are right that they switched to normal film later but they used paper BW film up to the 60's.

[beejaybee]

No doubt you are right that they switched to normal film later but they used paper BW film up to the 60's.

Thanks. In the 60s I was using Verichrome Pan in Brownies & Dad & I were developing the films at home.

[Damien_Demolder]

Okay, first attempt, so no adventurous location. The lens (Cooke Aviar Anastigmat series II f/4.5 210mm) is wider than I expected (33mm in 35mm terms), but the paper neg has come out well. Ilford Multigrade (pearl finish - thanks Henry) shot at ISO 5, 30 seconds (hence expression on his face!) at f/5.6. No filtration (had the box next to me but in my excitement I forgot to use them). I scanned it on an Epson V750. Slightly soft contrast needed a boost (levels and curves), so looks like I've avoided the high contrast problem.

I love the immediacy - got the shot, straight into kitchen, neg in 8 minutes, dry in further 15, scanned in 2 minutes, fiddled and printed in 10.

Looking at it now I realise why the scene seems unfamiliar - it's horizontally flipped.

Thanks to all for your help and advice. Expect an article some time in 2010!

[AlexMonro]

Expect an article some time in 2010!

I've been looking forward to it since the start of this thread. Nothing like the in-depth research we are accustomed to in AP!

[Zou]

Nice one. Just goes to show what can be achieved with 'old' technology.

[Damien_Demolder]

Okay, stage two. Still not outside or daylight, but getting a better hang of exposure. This one was f/11 @ 90 seconds, but possibly should have been longer. I can't decide between burning more of the top of the onion out and opening up the shadows on the front of it. A better reflector than my son's homework note pad would probably have done the job. ISO 5 again, and with no filtration (on purpose this time!). My father grew the onion - in his own manure he claims.

[spinno]

that's impressive...keep up the good work..

[Benchista]

My father grew the onion - in his own manure he claims.

I'm saying nothing...

Personally, I like that exposure - shadow detail can be way overdone IMVHO.

[zx9]

Okay, stage two. Still not outside or daylight, but getting a better hang of exposure. This one was f/11 @ 90 seconds, but possibly should have been longer. I can't decide between burning more of the top of the onion out and opening up the shadows on the front of it. A better reflector than my son's homework note pad would probably have done the job. ISO 5 again, and with no filtration (on purpose this time!).

Have you tried to merge both exposures? Sort of a large format, paper neg, HDR

Doh. Not very easy to ensure the darksides are in exactly the same place. And no point anyway because you would have used the filters if you wanted less contrast, or would the effect be different?