The Paper Negative

[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]

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]

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.