SMF

I cut some photographic paper (the sort you usually print on under an enlarger, and fitted it into the film holder for my 4x5" camera. Exposed it at ISO3 (would have been better at 6 or 12) and developed it in a tray in paper developer (Ilford Multigrade - the paper is Ilford Multigrade RC), then stopped it and fixed it. After washing and drying, I scanned it, inverted the image (it's a negative image on the paper) in Photoshop and here it is:



Now imagine a whole sheet of paper, 10"x8". That would be a negative worth having!

Chris

Another, this time paper exposed as ISO 12, Ilford Multigrade developer diluted 1+14:



Chris

I probably can't find the right words to say it, but these photos are so rich, in spite of being black and white, they look like color photos of black objects to my eyes.

How cool.

I wondered if by developing the paper in Diafine I might get a little speed boost (I didn't) or whether it would tame the contrast (it didn't). Oh well.



Comparison shot using FP4+ in Don Quall's monobath:



Conclusion: shan't bother with Diafine for this purpose!

Chris

Back to Ilford Multigrade paper developer:



Chris

I've heard of paper negatives, but I have never seen them put into practice. You are getting some very pleasing results from yours, though, Chris.

- Murray

Next step is to do it with whole sheets of paper in a 10x8 camera. It's cheaper than film! I keep telling myself I'm not crazy enough to get into wet plate collodion. I'm not. Nope. No way. There has to be a limit.

Chris

Then again, you do shave with straight razors and you have made your own shaving soap; you are clearly very process-oriented.

I see wet plates as a definite possibility in your case.

Do you already have an 8x10 camera?

- Murray

Today's paper negative:



This is a curious little chair. It belonged to my grandparents, and back in the days when I could sit in it (it's only 12" across) it hadn't been recovered in velvet. You can just make out a circular depression in the seat where there is a round hole. Originally a bowl could be placed in the hole—it's a late Victorian potty! No doubt the rocking motion helped the motion......!

Chris

C.

C.

I like the way you are controlling the lighting on these.

- Murray

Yeah, just like Jeremy Clarkson driving around the Nürburgring for the first time! It's not so much control as unwarranted optimism.

Most of the light in that photo is from sunshine through a skylight, but there is a gynaecological light filling in (the kind you swing across to do a pap smear). I don't yet have a proper light, but will get one if only to let me use a yellow filter on it. Paper, being orthochromatic, is very sensitive to blue (eg sunshine) and gets terribly contrasty. A yellow filter will cut the blue and reduce the contrast.

Chris

This might be of interest (or not, as the case may be). I took the same photo twice using Ilford MG RC paper, and Ilford MG Developer. Both were scanned on the same scanner with the same settings, and both were exported from Lightroom with the same development exactly. The first has no filter, and the second has an orange Lee Filters Daylight to Tungsten full CTO in front of the only light used, and another Lee Daylight to Tungsten full CTO in front of the camera lens as well. Exposure was measured on a neutral grey card for the unfiltered photo, with an extra half stop for the second photo as that's what my spotmeter said was required when I checked the grey card through the filter.





In order to make sense of it, you should know that the beetle is orange, and the Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle is metallic pale blue (oh, I bet a lot of you knew that already!) I thought the orange filter would make the contrast less given the orthochromatic paper used, and that the orange beetle would be lighter. Perhaps I screwed up somewhere in the exposures, but as things stand, I prefer the photograph without the orange filter (which gives me a half stop less exposure time - hurray!) At present, it looks like the orange filter has increased contrast, rather than reduced it. Perhaps this paper isn't truly orthochromatic?

Chris

I like the first one, sans filter, better, also. It looks sharper or cleaner to me, while the second one, with the filters, looks "compromised."

The Beetle looks more sharply and clearly "black" in the first one (even though it is orange), while it looks like "compromised black" in the second. (I can't think of proper technical terminology to describe the difference I see in the image quality between the two Beetles.) The SPV has its blue parts darker in the second, though it doesn't appear to my eye to be negatively impacted in image quality as the Beetle was.

Hardly an expert appraisal, but that is what I see. Interesting experiment.

- Murray

Today's efforts:


Paper Negative Exposure Experiments by chrism229, on Flickr

The two on the left will be scanned later when they are dry.

Chris

An experiment with pre-flashing the paper by making an exposure (1/4 the 'taking' exposure) with a piece of plain paper in front of the lens.

Chamonix 10x8, Symmar-S 360/6.8, Kenthene RC glossy Gr2, Ilford MG developer, V850 scans:


Paper Negative #16 - no preflash by chrism229, on Flickr


Paper Negative #17 - paper preflashed by chrism229, on Flickr

These were actually the 5th and 6th exposures I took. The first four were attempts at guessing the exposure, using two CFT lights and one strobe. I ended up taking these two with eight exposures of one second, and during each one second exposure the flash fired twice! Obviously my guess at rating this paper at ISO12 was, umm, inaccurate, as my flash meter had indicated that a single one second exposure would do it.

Chris

Wow, I like both versions, but the pre-flash definitely reduced contrast and opened up the gray scale.

From the sounds of it, you ended up with an effective ISO of less than 1 (!).

- Murray

That is pretty cool.
Have you tried paper in a pinhole camera?
I've used a toilet paper tube and a tinfoil cap with a pinhole in it, taped to a Nikon FE body loaded with Ektachrome, but never tried direct to paper.

drmoss_ca wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2015 1:33 pmMost of the light in that photo is from sunshine through a skylight, but there is a gynaecological light filling in (the kind you swing across to do a pap smear). ...

... As one does.