I will ask someone that I know... I wish I could understand it right away.
Originally Posted by Jimmy Peguet
Le document que vous avez demandé n'est pas accessible.
I've just opened the link some minutes ago. The site has sometimes some troubles, try again. The main page is http://gallica.bnf.fr/ and then "Recherche" ("Search").
Originally Posted by Shinnya
i am not too familiar with le gray's work, but there is a little bit about him
when you google his name:
regarding shooting paper negatives.
i have been shooting with paper for a while now, much cheeper than using film!
if you are shooting in film holders, you have to trim about 1/16 or 1/32 of the edge off, film holders are not true to their name, because the plate size was 4x5 &C, and when they put those funny sheaths in there for film, it reduced the size - and when the companies standardized the sizes for film they settled on the smaller sizes, rather than the plate sizes ...
anyhow, you might hear that paper has a relative asa that is very high or like slow film speeds, i have never encountered papers that were faster than asa 12 .. at one point i tested 15 different papers and most of them were between 3 and 12 ... i usually shoot either single weight poly max fb, or single weight ilford fb. i have also done a bunch of stuff with older kodak fiber base (yellow box) that was double weight. in all 3 cases, i settled at about asa 6 and underexpose a 1/2 stop. a "thin" paper negative is easier to print than a "dense" one ... when you process your paper, use dilute developer. i usually use aged ansco 130 ( brown like coca cola when i have it around ) and when the image comes up i put it in a water bath to slow things down a bit, then i stick it back in the developer - back and forth a few times until i get what i want. i don't have contrast filters big enough to cover my front elements, but if you are using vc paper, you might experiment a little bit using them - jersey vic does that and gets really sweet images! if you have graded paper try using grade 1, or 2 instead of the "normal" grade ... it might take a little experimenting to see what works for you - in the end you might get images you like doing something completely different -
once you get your negative, there are a few ways you can get a postive print - you can scan+invert - this will give you a nice image, but you will get sharpness not offered when you contact print ... you can also wet contact your paper to another sheet. you will get a nice bond emulsion to emulsion it'll be sharp, but at the same time printing through paper will also give you a softness that is hard to describe. i have used vc paper and contrast filters when making prints, but i have also used fogged paper ( for my negative!) to lessen the contrast. you will get a fair amount of contrast, if you photograph in sunlight and not shady- or dimly lit -stuff.
photography is all one big experiment -- good luck and have fun!
If you use paper, remember that it is thicker than film and therefore in 4x5 holders it is slightly off the plane of focus. If you use a polaroid back, paper is exactly on the plane of focus.
times like this, i wish i had a 5x7 and 8x10 polaroid back!
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Le Gray was the best... there was an exhibition in Paris a few years ago (Bibliotheque Nationale, site Richelieu, may-June 2002) that included some of his best prints. If you can find the book published (the above exhibition's catalogue, Editions Gallimard) you'll see what I'm talking about.
I coudn't find the French URL either. I know that when he worked with paper negs, he used the waxing method in order to increase the paper's light transmissivity (does this word exist ??????? :-) and get better contrast and detail. This method was at first developed by Blanquart-Evrard together with Le Gray and was widely used by the photographers of the famous "mission photographique", the mission of documenting France's historical monuments.
There may be other details of the technique that I miss, though.
Many of his pictures exhibited in the abovementioned expo were made on glass negs. Some of the original glass negatives were on display, too.
Well, while I won't argue that this is technically correct, the Arista.EDU Ultra VC RC paper I use for most of my printing is only .009" (0.23 mm) thick, or about .002" thicker than common sheet films. The difference is well within the tolerance in the ANSI spec for film plane position in any size film holder from 2x3 up to 8x10. Given I have mostly old wooden holders in 4x5, I'd be overjoyed to learn they had less than .002" difference between the closest and furthest.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
I wouldn't worry in the least about the change in focal plane for using paper, as long as you use RC -- and RC is what I'd use anyway, because a) it's cheaper than FB, b) it's much easier to process, with much less washing needed, and c) it's more translucent and has less texture than FB, so will make better contact prints. Not to mention that d) RC paper can be put into an enlarger and makes perfectly fine enlarged prints.
Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.
I make paper negatives in the manner of LeGray, and others, for demo purposes in my classes.
If you wish to make paper negatives in the manner of Gustave LeGray you will need to coat your own paper.
In his time the high quality papers were very thin, like a good quality stationery paper today. They were sized with gelatin.
It will be necessary to coat with a light sensitive solution dried and then exposed. After processing the back side of the paper will need to be coated with a high quality wax such as beeswax or carnauba. If you happen to have a stick of Dorland's Print Wax left, as I do, it is ideal.
As for the light sensitive solution, you might begin with a mixture such as that used for kallitype, 15% Silver nitrate and ferric oxalate. Some people currently are using commercially produced liquid emulsions which will be faster, but not as authentic.
I hope this helps. I do have a book on the subject but it is out on loan at the moment and so I am unable to give you its title or author since these things tend to slip my mind.
Hope this helps.
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]Films NOT Dead - Just getting fixed![/FONT]
Donald, I agree with you, however, I notice a defninite difference in sharpness when I use a 4x5 holder vs a polaroid holder. I use my own coatings though and they are on 100# art paper, so that might make a difference. The exposures I've made on production paper were on MG IV RC, and were much sharper, but then the paper was thinner and had a baryta layer which improves sharpness. So, just consider my post a precautionary note that may or may not be important depending on paper thickness.
Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
And, the difficulties of coating on paper thinner than 100#, if FB are very great compared with thicker FB or any weight RC paper.
I thought so !
In my 'archives' I just found a lecture prepared by Dr. E.P. Wightman, F.R.P.S
for the Camera Club Photographic Service, Eastman Kodak Co., 1941.
I will scan it later tonight and post it.
He seemed to like to use Eastman Translite Enlarging Paper, then print on AZO G.
"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"