Paper Neg vs paper positive ?

BADGER.BRAD

BADGER.BRAD

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,252
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,

I'm looking for something a little different to try and thought about making a cheap pinhole camera and using paper negs but what is the difference between paper pos and neg images ? Which would be easier/cheaper to use ?

Thanks all
 
The difference is basically what the name says. A paper negative can be used to make unlimited prints just like any other. A paper positive (Harman make paper that gives a direct positive) are more like transparencies in that they are one off, meaning they are the final result. I haven't done costings, but I suspect developing two sheets of paper (for the paper negative/print route) would cost twice as much and involve twice the work.
 
@BADGER.BRAD Take a look at Sirch's "tin can selfies" project (it's linked in his signature block) to get some inspiration on this.
 
Thanks Lindsay I'll take a look !
 
I used to use paper negs in my 5x4 camera when I had it.

I tried the Harmann direct positive paper but never had much luck with it. It seemed to be very sensitive to under or over exposure (and maybe development too?) and I think I ended up with a 60/40 or maybe even 70/30 split of dud exposures to ones that actually worked.

Paper negs on the other hand were more like 99% good exposures.

Not sure what the paper prices are like now but the direct positive paper always seemed pretty exorbitantly priced. For paper negs I'd either buy the 5x4 size or cut down the 10x8 sheets which I have for enlarging onto. I just use RC paper for enlarging so would buy the RC paper in 5x4 too and this made it a lot more affordable.

When you factor in all the dud exposures I got with the direct positive paper it only pushes the cost of the decent exposures up even higher.
 
Thank you No_photoh, some good info
 
No bother.

Just thought of something else that irked me with the direct positive paper, colours/tones whatever would be the right way around but the actual image is still reversed.

Does that make sense? White is white and black is black but left is right and text is backwards!
 
That's simply down to the lateral reversal inherent in an image from a lens.

Some years ago, at Focus on Imaging (NOT The Photography Show), Harman ran a portrait studio as a product demo. I still have my portrait, produced on 10x8 direct positive paper, processed in a rapid processor (only a few minutes wait for the dry finished print). The exposure was by flash, and worked by students.

I imagine that the small exposure latitude is caused by the very limited tonal range of paper compared to film - after all, it's basically a darkroom print and the exposure there has to be spot on. Double or halve it and the difference will be obvious, far more so than with a negative film where a massive exposure error can be compensated in the print.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top