- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and the "ng" isn't missing! A new-to-me 25 ISO film from 35mm up to 5x4.
Washi
- Thread starter StephenM
- Start date
steveo_mcg
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,319
- Name
- Steven
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've seen it advertised but not tried it yet, I don't think it'll process in a Paterson tank and I've not got a darkroom so I've left it. But it does look interesting.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I cant figure out what it is or how to use it, that is the most confusing description/instructional dialogue I've read in a while.
Is it film or paper...is it positive or negative.....I've no idea, its so unclear.
youd think Fcall would read the description they get from manufacturers before printing it on their website, its just poorly translated from French to English and makes no sense if you dont know anything about the stuff.
Is it film or paper...is it positive or negative.....I've no idea, its so unclear.
youd think Fcall would read the description they get from manufacturers before printing it on their website, its just poorly translated from French to English and makes no sense if you dont know anything about the stuff.
OP
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought that the initial description linking it with the calotype process was a pretty broad hint, but the third paragraph which begins "Being a paper negative you develop it in paper developer usually 1+1 dilution and you can reuse the solution for several rolls or sheets." seems to put it beyond reasonable doubt that it's paper, and a negative. I've encountered paper negatives long ago in the far distant past.
The idea surely is that you get a negative with a "built in" texture screen so that your photographs will no longer look like photographs and therefore be Art.
The idea surely is that you get a negative with a "built in" texture screen so that your photographs will no longer look like photographs and therefore be Art.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you'd need to be above average on the anorak scale to be familiar with the calotype process.
Its a paper negative......well that is the very last combination of the words paper/film/negative/positive I'd have put together, but looking at the samples it makes more sense.
I'm definitely struggling to feel the aesthetic......
Its a paper negative......well that is the very last combination of the words paper/film/negative/positive I'd have put together, but looking at the samples it makes more sense.
I'm definitely struggling to feel the aesthetic......
OP
- Messages
- 5,607
- Name
- Stephen
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just a minimum exposure to the beginnings of photography is enough .
Fox Talbot's original negatives were on paper, and the resulting degradation of the image by the texture of the paper meant that the results compared unfavourably with the Daguerreotypes which were effectively direct positives on metal and capable of holding detail more or less to the limit imposed by the lens. They were negatives, of course, but when viewed from the right angle appeared as positives. You can get the same effect with film if it's underexposed and viewed obliquely. The negative process needed a transparent, non-textured base to match the Daguerrotype for detail, but happily someone discovered glass which had been handing around for a few thousand years without anyone coming up with a real use for it until photography came along
When I was a lad, there was a "free film" system run by (I think) Gratispool; you bought a film and posted it off to them for processing and you got another film back with the prints. Rather like the original Kodak system, but without having to send the camera as well. The negatives were paper or something like it. It would have been around 1960 give or take that I handled one.
.Fox Talbot's original negatives were on paper, and the resulting degradation of the image by the texture of the paper meant that the results compared unfavourably with the Daguerreotypes which were effectively direct positives on metal and capable of holding detail more or less to the limit imposed by the lens. They were negatives, of course, but when viewed from the right angle appeared as positives. You can get the same effect with film if it's underexposed and viewed obliquely. The negative process needed a transparent, non-textured base to match the Daguerrotype for detail, but happily someone discovered glass which had been handing around for a few thousand years without anyone coming up with a real use for it until photography came along
When I was a lad, there was a "free film" system run by (I think) Gratispool; you bought a film and posted it off to them for processing and you got another film back with the prints. Rather like the original Kodak system, but without having to send the camera as well. The negatives were paper or something like it. It would have been around 1960 give or take that I handled one.