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.
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 TH-cam 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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?
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 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.
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 👍
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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?
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: th-cam.com/video/ImUlMuQ9sig/w-d-xo.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 ?
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.
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 TH-cam 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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!
What the heck i just did this in my video. Why you stealing my thunder? 😂 come on dude
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?
The composition on the lone tree is incredible. I really appreciate how you always find something novel to make a video on.
I shot my first paper negative on a Kodak 1A. Came out rather given the guesswork involved.
Great video Kyle
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 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.
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 👍
I like how these pictures came out.
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.
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.
Could DR5 development work with paper? If possible you could get a direct positive print.
The paper details in the white cliffs/sky makes the image very interesting...Thank you for posting this
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.
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.
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
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.
Also they say with paper negs - meter for the “highlights” and develop for shadows. Eg opposite to negatives.
Portraits!
Either something funky going on with your WB or you've selected a particularly vibrant shade of lip gloss. @ 1:26
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. 👍
a ND filter might come in handy for the skies
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
very interesting.. i want to make with this paper
thank you
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 👍
🐐🐐🐐
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?
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)
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?
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.
Pre flashing the paper under an enlarger will reduce the contrast.
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:)
So basically, you went to the bathroom to take a sheet. 😜😁
As someone previously mentioned, pre-flashing the paper helps enhance latitude. Also, Martin Henson has a good demo with paper negatives with nice results: th-cam.com/video/ImUlMuQ9sig/w-d-xo.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.