Paper Negs - Questions

[Nomad Z]

I'm keen on trying paper negatives in my 5x4 and have some questions...

Does it make a difference whether the paper is gloss, satin or matt?

What about paper grade and contrast? Is the dynamic range such that a high contrast subject could end up with blown highlights or thin shadows? Can multigrade be used to mitigate this? (I assume a lower grade of paper is better.) If I didn't want to use multigrade filters, what would be a good general purpose fixed grade? (grade 2?) On the other hand, is multigrade the better general purpose choice insofar as it presumably allows the contrast to be tweaked to suit the subject? If so, are there any MG filters that will work with a largish lens (82mm filter thread)?

 

[Knikki]

Do I get from your question that you are going to take some darkroom paper, eg Ilford Mulitgrade paper, stick that in your 5x4 and try to get a picture on it?

I am not sure that it will work, because as soon as you open the shutter I would image it would just fog the paper.

However there is a paper from Ilford called Harman Direct Positive Paper http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=65 which is designed to be used in 5x4 cameras.

It is very slow, like ISO 6, and very contrasty, I have read that pre-flashing the paper helps get more tones but you will have to search for that on the interwibble.

 

[john.margetts]

Ordinary 'darkroom' paper works very well. It is no more going to be fogged by opening the shutter than a glass plate or piece of cut film would. ISO is usually around 5 but you need to experiment to get a usable EV for your setup.

 

[Woodsy]

Do I get from your question that you are going to take some darkroom paper, eg Ilford Mulitgrade paper, stick that in your 5x4 and try to get a picture on it?

I am not sure that it will work, because as soon as you open the shutter I would image it would just fog the paper.

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Knikki]

Eh? How do you come to that conclusion?

Lack of knowledge, i assumed that darkeroom paper would be more sensitive than the Direct Positive paper, however i have been corrected which is fine.

 

[Nomad Z]

Lack of knowledge, i assumed that darkeroom paper would be more sensitive than the Direct Positive paper, however i have been corrected which is fine.

The chances of it getting fogged are effectively zero. About the only risk I can think of is some leakage through the edge of the film holder when the dark slide is removed, but conventional film seems to manage okay, and that's much more sensitive than paper.

Anyway, been doing a bit of research, and it seems that the multigrade filters idea can be made to work, and that bringing the paper grade down seems to be preferred. Some papers are also very sensitive to blue light. For now, I'll try with and without the K2 yellow filter I have, which should hopefully take the paper down to a lowish grade.

I also got some pearl and satin finish papers (already had gloss, but it's old, and not used by me so far). I want to see if there's any difference in apparent contrast and in possible reflections when scanning.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Bromide paper of the single grade kind is Blue sensitive only and should not be used with filters.
Multigrade controls the contrast by the use of filters, and has a colour sensitivity with in the multigrade filter range but not much more.
both can be processed under their respective safe lights.

Blue sensitive emulsions used to be called "ordinary" as against orthochromatic or panchromatic. The effect of using "ordinary" is that red appear totally black when printed, Yellows very dark greens somewhat lighter and blues very light. Early cinema films used ordinary film. " so think of that look "
The choice of paper surface is more a matter of what is needed for scanning. Silk and the like scan badly with the image spoilt by the patterned reflections. Depending on the scanner a glossy surface should be sharper whilst a matt is likely to give a softer result which may help in reducing the maximum black.

Early photographers did use paper negatives and printed them by shining the light through them in contact with wth printing paper. this gave a fibrous texture to the image. this was sometimes reduced by oiling or waxing the negative especially for the early attempts at enlarging. Though using an enlarger by reflection in the manner of an epidiascope was more effective.
I used such an enlarger as late as the 70's, to save making a copy negative, when only a print was available.
They were hot and slow but very effective.