I have a theory here.... tried this when I was in college like 20 years ago - very similar result. If I recall, we discussed in class and the instructor said that UV light could be causing the detail blowout in the skies and brighter areas. Apparently UV light can expose the paper as well as visible light where as sheet film handles it better and isn't as impacted by UV. Idea is kinda supported by your yellow green filter tree image. Wondering if slapping on a UV filter would keep some of that detail. Just speculation based on 20 y/o memories tho haha.
Ya, I just took Alternative Processing at my community college . We used direct sun UV light with lumen printing and cyanotypes, and a UV box for Van Dykes and Platinum. You can make digital negatives using Bostick and Sullivan curves in Photoshop for prints with more detail . The curves are drastically different, so a digital negative helps a lot. You'll need a frame, and transparency paper.
If your prints are developing fast, as with a darkroom enlargement I would take that to mean the image is significantly overexposed. So is the IOS really a 6 (for you at least)? I saw a gentleman on RUclips doing some very large fine art prints from paper negatives. I’ll see if I can find him again. In any case, high contrast images are not all that is possible with paper negatives. I’d dilute your developer a lot more as already suggested. Test filters. Remember the emulsion on the paper and film are different and react differently to filters and types of light / wavelengths of light.
Good to see you trying paper negatives, Kyle. I've shot paper negatives quite extensively and I have a few suggestions to help with contrast and paper curvature. a) The paper curve may well be be because the paper needs to be trimmed to fit a paper holder even when you are using paper which appears to be the right size, eg 4x5. The problem is that 4x5 film does not measure exactly 4x5 and the film holders are made to fit the actual dimensions - but 4x5 paper really is 4 by 5 inches. I've never purchased 4x5 paper because it's actually cheaper to buy a larger size such as 5x7 and cut it down, even though there is some wastage. I recently loaded some 8x10 paper into 8x10 holders and that had to be trimmed to fit. b) I may have missed you stating what ISO you shot the paper at. I shoot Ilford MG RC paper at EI 6, after preflashing, but it is best to carry out your own tests. c) Preflashing the paper before loading the holder with help to reduce contrast - again a test is needed to find out the right exposure d) Diluting the paper developer more than usual also helps to control contrast. I use Ilford Multigrade paper developer diluted 1:20 compared to the usual dilution of 1:20
Martin Henson has posted a video shooting paper negs. He did as you suggest and pre flashed the paper. He also used a heavily diluted film developer (Rodinal?) and developed by inspection.
Question : I never used paper in an out door setting , it seems the paper with the emulation wants to curl due to the bare and then coated sides of the material. I wonder if there is enough warpage , to affect the quality of the image ? In my Rollei 55mm F4 I have a glass plate , that came with the E series in 1961 , that plate many cast aside , but it does indeed hold the file perfectly flat , the only problem you will have is if your camera has dust in it , or finger prints on this plate, that is why many have told me they remove the glass plate. I like the flat film plane though and keep the plate in. Getting 28 rolls developed and high resolution scanned , costing over 970.00 at BLUE MOON CAMERA and MACHINE , Portland Oregon.
This is EXACTLY how I started a little over a year ago. I was given a 1920 Conley 5x7 field camera and after a little research, Ilford MGRC 5x7 was far cheaper to experiment with!
Ilford also has direct positive paper which isn't that expensive. I have a box in my fridge that was gifted to me, I'm looking forward to getting out to shoot it.
Did you watch the recent video's of Martin Henson? Those are really worthwhile when you start with paper negatives. I always develop my paper negatives to completion in Rodinal 1:50 so the development is consistent. You can also preflash the paper to get a little more sensitivity, and use the filters you would use for darkroom printing before your lens to tame the contrast. Personally I like Fomaspeed 311 paper better for paper negatives, outdoors you can use ISO 9 for this paper.
Loving the cemetery shots that were in deeper shadow, super atmospheric. They have a real character and seem like really fun to develop too. You've reminded me I need to try a home dark room and printing by hand.
This reminds me of William Henry Fox Talbot who was an English scientist, inventor, and photography pioneer who invented the salted paper and calotype processes, precursors to photographic processes of the later 19th and 20th centuries.
You made this video at a propitious time for me. The owner of my local photo shop forced a very nice 5X7 camera on me in spite of my objections, lol. Just the other day I thought I’d shoot darkroom paper so thank you for the inspiration. A couple of things: I’d read somewhere that the papers’ contrast could be reduced somewhat by flashing the paper prior to loading into the holders. Just a quick exposure to light. And at one point, a direct positive paper was being made just for this type of use. Could still be around. If memory serves, its iso was 125…
Here is another thing to keep in mind. Like the early wet plate negatives of the 19th century, the paper negatives are very sensitive to blue light. That is why there is little/no detail in the sky. Just look at some historic prints (pre-dry plate), and the skies are all blown out. But there is more. The paper negatives are very insensitive to red light (that is why you can use a red safe light). Out it the field, taking a picture, anything red will be underexposed. So you need to keep that into account. For me, I am working on a project filming barns in my home state of Wisconsin USA. Most barns are painted red. That combined with the over sensitivity to blue light can really have an unwanted effect. So, I usually plan on using film for the red barns,and go back to paper negatives for most the other work.
Hey Kyle; I shot paper way back in the day, super cool to see you doing that today. We didn't have the easy way of getting a negative in the day I did have some old film with the same ISO (ASA) of 6 loved the stuff but it was old and not available any more. Most people in the day used paper in the pin hold cameras, making for some stupidly long exposures. Paper is really tough to get any detail in the sky just no dynamic range, but it ends up cool and fun. Filters are very important and in doesn't take much to loose definition in bright areas. I don't think paper has changed much in 40 years but I haven't shot paper or film in a while so I will have too, just because. I absolutely love that tree so much mood just in the tree, I could spend hours next to it! Thanks for the adventure this week, brings back memories to this old fart.
I’ve done a decent amount of paper negatives, but usually under controlled lighting. To cut down on the contrast you’re getting there are a few things you can do. Try pre flashing the paper. The more you pre-flash the closer together the tones will be. Be careful though because with too much you’ll have a black sheet! Weaker developers can also help you control your process more easily. I like Ilford bromophen. It recommends a 3 minutes dev time compared to a minute or so for other developers, which can make it easier for you to pull your paper from the tray when you achieve the desired density and contrast. Diluting the developer even further can help as well. Using a film developer instead of paper can also reduce the contrast, but can take significantly longer to produce an image on paper.
The result actually looks super close to low iso non photography films. I absolutely loved the Washi A, which is a ISO 12 film thats "used as leader and protection during the reproduction process of motion picture films". It has ultra high contrast and you hardly see any grain. Very bright whites and deep blacks, I almost treat this BW negative film as a slide film because the exposure latitude is so narrow. Paper seems even more contrasty, but the characteristic and low iso is so similar, as well as the result it gives.
I second watching Martin Henson video on Ilford paper negatives. Pre-Flash the paper. The curve of the paper was always a problem with the small sheets of MGRC paper. It’s the way it’s made and wound with tension on a large roll before being finished to final size. Larger sheets don’t tend to be a problem as the paper weight helps keep it flat. Try flexing the opposite way before loading. Loving your work.
hi Kyle! If you're still in the mood for experimenting, using caffenol as a developer with paper negatives brings down the contrast . Also, UK photographer Andrew Sanderson is a master when it comes to paper negatives. He has published a little book on the subject which is very comprehensive. Good luck!
Hi Kyle. Great video, once again. If you like the experience of the paper you should give Harman direct positive paper a go. Also contrasty, but gives you a positive right away. Mirrored though, obviously.
Awesome video Kyle. Paper negatives in my 4x5 was my next thing to try. Martin Hensen has some videos on paper negatives. Perhaps pre-flashing the paper would help if you have an enlarger?
Kyle, try a blue filter. Just a cheap gel filter would do. It will hold back that UV and maybe make your skies better. This is used with dry plates which are not panchromatic. And of you like this look, consider shooting some dry plates. Almost the same dev process you are using here.
This is awesome! I did some quick research and found the Ilford datasheet for RC paper. According to the datasheet, the paper is sensitive only to light in the 425-550 nm range (blue and green), which explains why it isn’t affected by red safety lights. I’m speculating that using a deep green filter might reduce sensitivity to blue light while preserving sensitivity to green light. This approach could help balance the sky’s exposure more effectively.
one tip, if you have contrast issues, you could add a filter for the shot!, aka an ND 1.3 or 2x to bring the contrast down, before its shot, and use a multi-grade filter 0,1 or 2 to reduce it even further; but like Ansel Adams did, its a case of testing, and KNOWING your materials, so you expose properly for the PRINT, not the negative, so adjusting asa from 'box' speed, and use this process for that paper, so you know its a keeper, as your tests prove the process works, for the materials YOU are using, the 120ist just did a video on B&W reversal process and he had the same trouble (second development), with contrast levels, Also if appropriate dilute the developer, from the standard 1+9 to lower concentrations, so you have TIME to remove it, before it goes too far, aka the dev. step takes 10-12 seconds, not 3 or 4 so allowing enough reaction time; another thought, have you used a 'stop bath' or just water, as a chemical stop controls the reaction better, ceases action when you want, not, like water does, takes the conc. down, and washes it away, the acid stop makes the dev. chemically inert, so no more action.
Kyle : a 90 mm and a 110mm and a 135mm require a center filter , my Supewr Simmer XL 110 has a dedicated filter as does my 75mm Rodenstock lens , without pulling down the center you will never in any program equalize the light. Large Format lenses as far as I am aware do not have " profiles " in Lightroom like a Nikon , or Sony 35mm or even a Leica lens might have. I use to do proofs on photo paper before mounting the negatives in the Stripping medium we called GOLDENROD a paper that blocked stray light when burning Silver Offset Press plates , for there Heidelberg press in our High School news paper, I did all of the stripping type check and alignment and enlargement and proofs in the dark room , then burned the photosensitive silver plates. What you're working with is the same paper we used to proof the 35mm Half Tone images. You are not going to get super sharp , the best image is the castle as its body eats up a lot of the light spilling into the lens and thus balances the image ( Center Filter ) . Watching you paw your way through this photo paper takes me back to my teens in 1976 77 , I am 64 years now.
These papers are usually curved - RC convex on the emulsion side and FB concave on the emulsion side. It's a useful way of telling which is the emulsion side in the dark. The film holder tabs should hold the paper flat and stop the dark slide hitting it.
nice experiment, but if you are having film flatness issues try a Linhof vacuum back, its a normal holder, but with a port on it, takes a vac. pump to suck the film flat; the other tactic is to go to a 'wet plate' style holder, use a spacer and clamp the piece in the adaptor, and load that into the holder, should keep it FLAT. these work on a bar/s in the spacer clamping the plate onto the frame, and these press the middle of the sheet, so keeping the whole surface flat. some glue/double sided tape on a glass plate to hold the paper on the glass, and mount the glass in a holder works to.
Also couple of things to try… pre flash the paper. Always thought multigrade was ISO 3 ish. Try Harman direct positive as well. The pre flashing will help with the contrast 👍
The paper you are using is Orthochromatic and similarly to Orthochromatic film, will produce extremely white skies. I love your tree and tower shots. They work well. Rather than scanning and digitalising your negative, I’d be interested to see what a contact print from them would be like. Go the full analogue.
Love the video, really interesting. I've done a little with paper negatives, testing my homemade 5x4 pinhole camera. I definitely recommend watching some Martin Henson videos. He goes into great detail about using paper negatives, definitely worth persevering with. Also agree with previous comments, the paper needs cutting down to fit in 5x4 holders. Measure your film negatives and you'll see what I mean. Diluted film developer also better as it acts much more slowly. Definitely check out Martin Henson though. Keep up the good work 😊
Closest I've come to doing this is doing "Solargraphy" with 3 months to a year long exposures using pinhole pop can camera. No development of the paper. Just a one time scan of the paper onto computer. Thanks for posting this.
Not that I have tried, but I believe you can put the paper negative in the enlarger and actually make enlargements. Obviously you can contact the paper Neg to make a positive- but that would be a 1 to 1 size of course. 👍
I have never shot directly onto paper, so I could be totally wrong about this, but you are using multigrade paper. Have you considered using Ilford filters for printing to reduce the contrast. A grade 1 filter, or even a 00 filter should work.
Hi Kyle good video again, love it when you try different things like this. Just out of interest have you seen any of Martin Henson's videos he seems to do paper negs as well. keep up the good work.
I think the blown out skies are due to the orthochromatic nature of paper. It's way more sensitive to blue and cold colours than any other. That's why skies will always be way brighter than expected and skin tones much darker
I've been trying too do some research on this type of photography. Two questions, is the paper direct positive paper and two can one use an all in one "Monobath" type developer for processing? Like you I would have too develop in a small bathroom and I'm wanting to shoot with paper negs and scan on a flatbed scanner. Also, you should try shooting with an orange filter and see how that controls the contrast? Merry Christmas!
I wonder if the paper has even lower ISO than you expected (ISO 1-2 maybe instead of 6)? If true, it would mean you over-exposed the paper, compensated by shorter development time, and leading to increased contrast. The dynamic range shouldn't be a problem since it's quite nice when printed on in the darkroom and you're just reversing the whites and darks. When I print in the dark room I usually expose for 0.5 to 1.5s at f/16, with 1min of development and get good results. In theory, you should do the same, just instead of an enlarger you use a camera?
Pardon me if I’m talking out my butt, but did try converting any of them with NLP just for shits and giggles , maybe NLP will allow a less contrasty conversion ?
OK, I’m a bit confused here. I have always been led to believe that 4 x 5 film was slightly smaller than 4 x 5 and that 4 x 5 enlarging paper was too big to fit into standard film holders. Is this no longer true? Or do you have some special film holders designed to hold the 4 x 4 paper?
Where is your Center Filter ? with center filter , then the Yellow filter you would have had even results and not blasted out the centers. I always try to get the center filter for my LF lenses that require it.
Very much enjoying your presentations as a new subscriber. I've recently gone retro/basics to reset my photo mind, thus I have watched along with yours a channel of a Brit gentleman named Martin Henson, who knocks these local BW out perfectly casually with very rudimentary methods, old cameras (without a filter) and gets full tone range (he contact prints from the paper neg). Check his channel, he is completely unpretentious & has a nice body of landscape work as he says, "90% shot within 25 miles of my home in Wharfedale, East Yorkshire." His charming RUclips channel and website are both in his own name. I live in the New Hampshire, USA. I believe you can preflash the paper to cut down the contrast but should not have to. Certainly lots of paper neg guys get full tone range. Yellow filter seems wrong, as magenta was contrast for neg printing via an enlarger, so cyan would be my guess for less contrast. Of course a gradient for the sky is in order. Finally if you use a long exposure at tiny aperture, then inaccuracies in the shutter mean less. PS ISO isn't an acronym, just "eyeso."
The problem is that paper is orthochromatic as opposed to panchromatic like film. Also the part of the spectrum the paper is sensitive to is biased towards the light from an enlarger.
Try develop in film developer, i use to use hc110 or rodinal but assume any film developer works. Its less strong then paper developer. The over-contrasty negatives are believe it or not under-exposed and over developed. With film developer you get much slower developing times. A over exposed negative are flater. If you over expose way too mych they get mushy without any contrast, until paper gets completely dark. Its like film if you think about it, the longer you develop the more contrast you get, as shadows stays dark and developer just work on highlights. And opposite the more you expose the negative and shorter you develop the flater result you get. It’s little backwards from what is easy to think at first. Many think the over contrast negatives with blown out sky and black shadows over exposed, but they are under exposed and over developed. Don’t know why you get mixed results tho. Could be too strong developer to so the times are not even between the shots. You can also use weaker mix to get longer developing times. I usually rate RC paper as iso 3 where it’s no UV light. And rate it higher the more sun it is. In your scene I think I would rate it at iso 6. The detail shoot looks spot on:)
As someone previously mentioned, pre-flashing the paper helps enhance latitude. Also, Martin Henson has a good demo with paper negatives with nice results: ruclips.net/video/ImUlMuQ9sig/видео.htmlsi=32031oDCUz1cchf-
Don’t you need to water Down the chems and dev by inspection not just go along with data sheet times ? I would if I gave this a go is to treat it like I would bw film.. get a good exposure maybe slightly over exposing and then in dev cutting the time ?
I have a theory here.... tried this when I was in college like 20 years ago - very similar result. If I recall, we discussed in class and the instructor said that UV light could be causing the detail blowout in the skies and brighter areas. Apparently UV light can expose the paper as well as visible light where as sheet film handles it better and isn't as impacted by UV. Idea is kinda supported by your yellow green filter tree image. Wondering if slapping on a UV filter would keep some of that detail. Just speculation based on 20 y/o memories tho haha.
Ya, I just took Alternative Processing at my community college . We used direct sun UV light with lumen printing and cyanotypes, and a UV box for Van Dykes and Platinum. You can make digital negatives using Bostick and Sullivan curves in Photoshop for prints with more detail . The curves are drastically different, so a digital negative helps a lot. You'll need a frame, and transparency paper.
Technically all glass in lens blocks uv light, but may be some vavelenths of it can cause that fogginess
If your prints are developing fast, as with a darkroom enlargement I would take that to mean the image is significantly overexposed. So is the IOS really a 6 (for you at least)? I saw a gentleman on RUclips doing some very large fine art prints from paper negatives. I’ll see if I can find him again. In any case, high contrast images are not all that is possible with paper negatives. I’d dilute your developer a lot more as already suggested. Test filters. Remember the emulsion on the paper and film are different and react differently to filters and types of light / wavelengths of light.
Good to see you trying paper negatives, Kyle. I've shot paper negatives quite extensively and I have a few suggestions to help with contrast and paper curvature.
a) The paper curve may well be be because the paper needs to be trimmed to fit a paper holder even when you are using paper which appears to be the right size, eg 4x5. The problem is that 4x5 film does not measure exactly 4x5 and the film holders are made to fit the actual dimensions - but 4x5 paper really is 4 by 5 inches. I've never purchased 4x5 paper because it's actually cheaper to buy a larger size such as 5x7 and cut it down, even though there is some wastage. I recently loaded some 8x10 paper into 8x10 holders and that had to be trimmed to fit.
b) I may have missed you stating what ISO you shot the paper at. I shoot Ilford MG RC paper at EI 6, after preflashing, but it is best to carry out your own tests.
c) Preflashing the paper before loading the holder with help to reduce contrast - again a test is needed to find out the right exposure
d) Diluting the paper developer more than usual also helps to control contrast. I use Ilford Multigrade paper developer diluted 1:20 compared to the usual dilution of 1:20
Martin Henson has posted a video shooting paper negs. He did as you suggest and pre flashed the paper. He also used a heavily diluted film developer (Rodinal?) and developed by inspection.
This! All these suggestions are excellent.
Question : I never used paper in an out door setting , it seems the paper with the emulation wants to curl due to the bare and then coated sides of the material. I wonder if there is enough warpage , to affect the quality of the image ? In my Rollei 55mm F4 I have a glass plate , that came with the E series in 1961 , that plate many cast aside , but it does indeed hold the file perfectly flat , the only problem you will have is if your camera has dust in it , or finger prints on this plate, that is why many have told me they remove the glass plate. I like the flat film plane though and keep the plate in. Getting 28 rolls developed and high resolution scanned , costing over 970.00 at BLUE MOON CAMERA and MACHINE , Portland Oregon.
This is EXACTLY how I started a little over a year ago. I was given a 1920 Conley 5x7 field camera and after a little research, Ilford MGRC 5x7 was far cheaper to experiment with!
Ilford also has direct positive paper which isn't that expensive. I have a box in my fridge that was gifted to me, I'm looking forward to getting out to shoot it.
Did you watch the recent video's of Martin Henson? Those are really worthwhile when you start with paper negatives. I always develop my paper negatives to completion in Rodinal 1:50 so the development is consistent. You can also preflash the paper to get a little more sensitivity, and use the filters you would use for darkroom printing before your lens to tame the contrast. Personally I like Fomaspeed 311 paper better for paper negatives, outdoors you can use ISO 9 for this paper.
Loving the cemetery shots that were in deeper shadow, super atmospheric. They have a real character and seem like really fun to develop too. You've reminded me I need to try a home dark room and printing by hand.
The over exposed tree and seascape are beautiful. I think this is awesome.
This reminds me of William Henry Fox Talbot who was an English scientist, inventor, and photography pioneer who invented the salted paper and calotype processes, precursors to photographic processes of the later 19th and 20th centuries.
This is the first time I've seen this type of photography. I learned something new from Kyle today; thanks as always!
You made this video at a propitious time for me. The owner of my local photo shop forced a very nice 5X7 camera on me in spite of my objections, lol. Just the other day I thought I’d shoot darkroom paper so thank you for the inspiration.
A couple of things: I’d read somewhere that the papers’ contrast could be reduced somewhat by flashing the paper prior to loading into the holders. Just a quick exposure to light. And at one point, a direct positive paper was being made just for this type of use. Could still be around. If memory serves, its iso was 125…
Here is another thing to keep in mind. Like the early wet plate negatives of the 19th century, the paper negatives are very sensitive to blue light. That is why there is little/no detail in the sky. Just look at some historic prints (pre-dry plate), and the skies are all blown out. But there is more. The paper negatives are very insensitive to red light (that is why you can use a red safe light). Out it the field, taking a picture, anything red will be underexposed. So you need to keep that into account. For me, I am working on a project filming barns in my home state of Wisconsin USA. Most barns are painted red. That combined with the over sensitivity to blue light can really have an unwanted effect. So, I usually plan on using film for the red barns,and go back to paper negatives for most the other work.
Hey Kyle; I shot paper way back in the day, super cool to see you doing that today. We didn't have the easy way of getting a negative in the day I did have some old film with the same ISO (ASA) of 6 loved the stuff but it was old and not available any more. Most people in the day used paper in the pin hold cameras, making for some stupidly long exposures. Paper is really tough to get any detail in the sky just no dynamic range, but it ends up cool and fun. Filters are very important and in doesn't take much to loose definition in bright areas. I don't think paper has changed much in 40 years but I haven't shot paper or film in a while so I will have too, just because. I absolutely love that tree so much mood just in the tree, I could spend hours next to it! Thanks for the adventure this week, brings back memories to this old fart.
I’ve done a decent amount of paper negatives, but usually under controlled lighting. To cut down on the contrast you’re getting there are a few things you can do.
Try pre flashing the paper. The more you pre-flash the closer together the tones will be. Be careful though because with too much you’ll have a black sheet!
Weaker developers can also help you control your process more easily. I like Ilford bromophen. It recommends a 3 minutes dev time compared to a minute or so for other developers, which can make it easier for you to pull your paper from the tray when you achieve the desired density and contrast. Diluting the developer even further can help as well.
Using a film developer instead of paper can also reduce the contrast, but can take significantly longer to produce an image on paper.
Good ideas.
The result actually looks super close to low iso non photography films.
I absolutely loved the Washi A, which is a ISO 12 film thats "used as leader and protection during the reproduction process of motion picture films". It has ultra high contrast and you hardly see any grain. Very bright whites and deep blacks, I almost treat this BW negative film as a slide film because the exposure latitude is so narrow.
Paper seems even more contrasty, but the characteristic and low iso is so similar, as well as the result it gives.
What the heck i just did this in my video. Why you stealing my thunder? 😂 come on dude
I second watching Martin Henson video on Ilford paper negatives. Pre-Flash the paper. The curve of the paper was always a problem with the small sheets of MGRC paper. It’s the way it’s made and wound with tension on a large roll before being finished to final size. Larger sheets don’t tend to be a problem as the paper weight helps keep it flat. Try flexing the opposite way before loading. Loving your work.
The composition on the lone tree is incredible. I really appreciate how you always find something novel to make a video on.
Simple centered comp is not incredible. What is incredible is the structure of that tree, it takes over the image with wooden tentacles.
hi Kyle! If you're still in the mood for experimenting, using caffenol as a developer with paper negatives brings down the contrast . Also, UK photographer Andrew Sanderson is a master when it comes to paper negatives. He has published a little book on the subject which is very comprehensive. Good luck!
Hi Kyle.
Great video, once again.
If you like the experience of the paper you should give Harman direct positive paper a go. Also contrasty, but gives you a positive right away. Mirrored though, obviously.
Awesome video Kyle. Paper negatives in my 4x5 was my next thing to try. Martin Hensen has some videos on paper negatives. Perhaps pre-flashing the paper would help if you have an enlarger?
Kyle, try a blue filter. Just a cheap gel filter would do. It will hold back that UV and maybe make your skies better. This is used with dry plates which are not panchromatic. And of you like this look, consider shooting some dry plates.
Almost the same dev process you are using here.
This is awesome! I did some quick research and found the Ilford datasheet for RC paper. According to the datasheet, the paper is sensitive only to light in the 425-550 nm range (blue and green), which explains why it isn’t affected by red safety lights. I’m speculating that using a deep green filter might reduce sensitivity to blue light while preserving sensitivity to green light. This approach could help balance the sky’s exposure more effectively.
Cyan I think, as enlarger filters to increase contrast were magenta of varying density.
one tip, if you have contrast issues, you could add a filter for the shot!, aka an ND 1.3 or 2x to bring the contrast down, before its shot, and use a multi-grade filter 0,1 or 2 to reduce it even further; but like Ansel Adams did, its a case of testing, and KNOWING your materials, so you expose properly for the PRINT, not the negative, so adjusting asa from 'box' speed, and use this process for that paper, so you know its a keeper, as your tests prove the process works, for the materials YOU are using, the 120ist just did a video on B&W reversal process and he had the same trouble (second development), with contrast levels, Also if appropriate dilute the developer, from the standard 1+9 to lower concentrations, so you have TIME to remove it, before it goes too far, aka the dev. step takes 10-12 seconds, not 3 or 4 so allowing enough reaction time; another thought, have you used a 'stop bath' or just water, as a chemical stop controls the reaction better, ceases action when you want, not, like water does, takes the conc. down, and washes it away, the acid stop makes the dev. chemically inert, so no more action.
I like how these pictures came out.
Kyle : a 90 mm and a 110mm and a 135mm require a center filter , my Supewr Simmer XL 110 has a dedicated filter as does my 75mm Rodenstock lens , without pulling down the center you will never in any program equalize the light. Large Format lenses as far as I am aware do not have " profiles " in Lightroom like a Nikon , or Sony 35mm or even a Leica lens might have. I use to do proofs on photo paper before mounting the negatives in the Stripping medium we called GOLDENROD a paper that blocked stray light when burning Silver Offset Press plates , for there Heidelberg press in our High School news paper, I did all of the stripping type check and alignment and enlargement and proofs in the dark room , then burned the photosensitive silver plates. What you're working with is the same paper we used to proof the 35mm Half Tone images. You are not going to get super sharp , the best image is the castle as its body eats up a lot of the light spilling into the lens and thus balances the image ( Center Filter ) . Watching you paw your way through this photo paper takes me back to my teens in 1976 77 , I am 64 years now.
I shot my first paper negative on a Kodak 1A. Came out rather given the guesswork involved.
Great video Kyle
These papers are usually curved - RC convex on the emulsion side and FB concave on the emulsion side. It's a useful way of telling which is the emulsion side in the dark. The film holder tabs should hold the paper flat and stop the dark slide hitting it.
The paper details in the white cliffs/sky makes the image very interesting...Thank you for posting this
nice experiment, but if you are having film flatness issues try a Linhof vacuum back, its a normal holder, but with a port on it, takes a vac. pump to suck the film flat; the other tactic is to go to a 'wet plate' style holder, use a spacer and clamp the piece in the adaptor, and load that into the holder, should keep it FLAT. these work on a bar/s in the spacer clamping the plate onto the frame, and these press the middle of the sheet, so keeping the whole surface flat.
some glue/double sided tape on a glass plate to hold the paper on the glass, and mount the glass in a holder works to.
Also couple of things to try… pre flash the paper. Always thought multigrade was ISO 3 ish. Try Harman direct positive as well. The pre flashing will help with the contrast 👍
The paper you are using is Orthochromatic and similarly to Orthochromatic film, will produce extremely white skies. I love your tree and tower shots. They work well. Rather than scanning and digitalising your negative, I’d be interested to see what a contact print from them would be like. Go the full analogue.
Love the video, really interesting.
I've done a little with paper negatives, testing my homemade 5x4 pinhole camera.
I definitely recommend watching some Martin Henson videos.
He goes into great detail about using paper negatives, definitely worth persevering with.
Also agree with previous comments, the paper needs cutting down to fit in 5x4 holders.
Measure your film negatives and you'll see what I mean.
Diluted film developer also better as it acts much more slowly.
Definitely check out Martin Henson though.
Keep up the good work 😊
Could DR5 development work with paper? If possible you could get a direct positive print.
Preflash the paper, use a grade 0 filter in front of the lens, and develop in dilute developer. All these things help in my experience
Closest I've come to doing this is doing "Solargraphy" with 3 months to a year long exposures using pinhole pop can camera. No development of the paper. Just a one time scan of the paper onto computer. Thanks for posting this.
New extreme of "still life."
Not that I have tried, but I believe you can put the paper negative in the enlarger and actually make enlargements. Obviously you can contact the paper Neg to make a positive- but that would be a 1 to 1 size of course. 👍
I have never shot directly onto paper, so I could be totally wrong about this, but you are using multigrade paper. Have you considered using Ilford filters for printing to reduce the contrast. A grade 1 filter, or even a 00 filter should work.
Lift the developing tray a little bit away from you, and let go as you put the paper in. That way you can easily avoid uneven development 👍
ive noticed smaller papers to be a bit curved as well. 8x10 is flat but all the 5x7 paper i have for darkroom prints have a slight bend to it
Hi Kyle good video again, love it when you try different things like this. Just out of interest have you seen any of Martin Henson's videos he seems to do paper negs as well.
keep up the good work.
Also they say with paper negs - meter for the “highlights” and develop for shadows. Eg opposite to negatives.
I think the blown out skies are due to the orthochromatic nature of paper. It's way more sensitive to blue and cold colours than any other. That's why skies will always be way brighter than expected and skin tones much darker
I've been trying too do some research on this type of photography. Two questions, is the paper direct positive paper and two can one use an all in one "Monobath" type developer for processing? Like you I would have too develop in a small bathroom and I'm wanting to shoot with paper negs and scan on a flatbed scanner. Also, you should try shooting with an orange filter and see how that controls the contrast? Merry Christmas!
All paper is curved - RC curves out away from the emulsion (usually gives a bow like you saw), fiber in towards the emulsion (the edges curl up)
very interesting.. i want to make with this paper
thank you
Either something funky going on with your WB or you've selected a particularly vibrant shade of lip gloss. @ 1:26
Portraits!
a ND filter might come in handy for the skies
Have you tried enlarging and printing one of your negative scans to a transparency slide and making cyanotype prints?
I wonder if the paper has even lower ISO than you expected (ISO 1-2 maybe instead of 6)? If true, it would mean you over-exposed the paper, compensated by shorter development time, and leading to increased contrast. The dynamic range shouldn't be a problem since it's quite nice when printed on in the darkroom and you're just reversing the whites and darks.
When I print in the dark room I usually expose for 0.5 to 1.5s at f/16, with 1min of development and get good results. In theory, you should do the same, just instead of an enlarger you use a camera?
Pardon me if I’m talking out my butt, but did try converting any of them with NLP just for shits and giggles , maybe NLP will allow a less contrasty conversion ?
OK, I’m a bit confused here. I have always been led to believe that 4 x 5 film was slightly smaller than 4 x 5 and that 4 x 5 enlarging paper was too big to fit into standard film holders. Is this no longer true? Or do you have some special film holders designed to hold the 4 x 4 paper?
🐐🐐🐐
Where is your Center Filter ? with center filter , then the Yellow filter you would have had even results and not blasted out the centers. I always try to get the center filter for my LF lenses that require it.
Paper is indeed more uv-sensitive. That's why your metering will be off. The more sky the more UV light your meter didn't see.
Very much enjoying your presentations as a new subscriber.
I've recently gone retro/basics to reset my photo mind, thus I have watched along with yours a channel of a Brit gentleman named Martin Henson, who knocks these local BW out perfectly casually with very rudimentary methods, old cameras (without a filter) and gets full tone range (he contact prints from the paper neg). Check his channel, he is completely unpretentious & has a nice body of landscape work as he says, "90% shot within 25 miles of my home in Wharfedale, East Yorkshire." His charming RUclips channel and website are both in his own name. I live in the New Hampshire, USA.
I believe you can preflash the paper to cut down the contrast but should not have to. Certainly lots of paper neg guys get full tone range. Yellow filter seems wrong, as magenta was contrast for neg printing via an enlarger, so cyan would be my guess for less contrast. Of course a gradient for the sky is in order. Finally if you use a long exposure at tiny aperture, then inaccuracies in the shutter mean less. PS ISO isn't an acronym, just "eyeso."
The problem is that paper is orthochromatic as opposed to panchromatic like film. Also the part of the spectrum the paper is sensitive to is biased towards the light from an enlarger.
So basically, you went to the bathroom to take a sheet. 😜😁
Pre flashing the paper under an enlarger will reduce the contrast.
Try develop in film developer, i use to use hc110 or rodinal but assume any film developer works. Its less strong then paper developer.
The over-contrasty negatives are believe it or not under-exposed and over developed. With film developer you get much slower developing times. A over exposed negative are flater. If you over expose way too mych they get mushy without any contrast, until paper gets completely dark.
Its like film if you think about it, the longer you develop the more contrast you get, as shadows stays dark and developer just work on highlights. And opposite the more you expose the negative and shorter you develop the flater result you get.
It’s little backwards from what is easy to think at first. Many think the over contrast negatives with blown out sky and black shadows over exposed, but they are under exposed and over developed.
Don’t know why you get mixed results tho. Could be too strong developer to so the times are not even between the shots. You can also use weaker mix to get longer developing times.
I usually rate RC paper as iso 3 where it’s no UV light. And rate it higher the more sun it is. In your scene I think I would rate it at iso 6.
The detail shoot looks spot on:)
I have a silly question. Why can’t film be developed in a darkroom (red light) environment? Due to the film? but paper isn’t as sensitive?
As someone previously mentioned, pre-flashing the paper helps enhance latitude. Also, Martin Henson has a good demo with paper negatives with nice results: ruclips.net/video/ImUlMuQ9sig/видео.htmlsi=32031oDCUz1cchf-
The paper is probably cut from a roll.
Don’t you need to water Down the chems and dev by inspection not just go along with data sheet times ?
I would if I gave this a go is to treat it like I would bw film.. get a good exposure maybe slightly over exposing and then in dev cutting the time ?
There is no reason to use paper developer. If you want it to behave like film use film developer, tou will get less contrast.