I to am just starting my paper negative journey,and will be anxious to hear about and see your resulting prints.Good luck.. Don
Ha! I don't know who you are at Ipernity.... But now, don't tell me and I'll see who shows up with vacation pinhole paper negatives soon! I'll bet there are other people here at APUG that have different user names at Ipernity too...
Originally Posted by pdeeh
I expect if you look at your contacts you'd soon work it out
On a tea-break from developing the first few ...
I shot half a dozen test sheets yesterday, using the same metering & exposure calculations as I did on holiday (but in a different camera (as I'd run out of 10x8 and had to use what scraps I had cut to 5x4)) and started off with those in Ilford MG 1+20ish.
They were really underexposed, which is peculiar; and so not much help in deciding how to proceed.
I've ploughed on and tried half a dozen or so of the "live" sheets and they are a slightly mixed bag so far - a couple just about right, a few rather overexposed and rather black, one or two a bit under. It'll be interesting to see what a scan can pull out, and more interesting still to see how they contact (which is the main aim)
Unfortunately a couple of the best have some sort of emulsion damage, presumably from my impatient sweaty fingers when loading or unloading the holders crouched on the floor of the cottage bathroom in total darkness. My companion on holiday said she was quite impressed by the range and volume of the swearing that emerged from behind the door while I was doing so ...
I think that's roughly x3 the "standard" Dektol dilution, but I'm wondering what the advantage of a higher dilution is if you develop to completion?
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
Paper negs that are too dark to scan well should print better. Negs I intend to print instead of just scan get a stop more of exposure than negs that will only be scanned.
Happiness is a load of bulk chemicals, a handful of recipes, a brick of film and a box of paper. - desertrat
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
That's hopeful news, thanks.
Unfortunately, I do have "issues" with the negatives, which is widespread mottling (which looks like uneven development) and spotting (which I have no idea about) all over the paper. See the scans for examples.
Do note, this is not a "dusty scan" problem; I have other paper negs (on different and very much older paper) which don't show this problem, so it has only occurred on this batch. I've also made enlargements using this same batch of paper (but using a different developer) without this problem.
These were made on brand new Kentmere VC RC, developed in Ilford MG paper developer at ~1+30, given a brief very dilute (about 1%) acetic acid stop and then fixed for 1 minute in freshly made Champion Rapid Fixer at 1+9; they were washed under running water for 2 minutes.
I'll try developing another batch using a different, fresh, developer (my bottle of MG has been sitting around opened but unused for a few months) and see what they look like.
In the meantime, any comments?
10x8-PaperNeg-1200-0004-1 by _loupe, on Flickr
10x8-PaperNeg-1200-0004-2 by _loupe, on Flickr
10x8-PaperNeg-1200-0004-3 by _loupe, on Flickr
10x8-PaperNeg-1200-0004-4 by _loupe, on Flickr
I haven't tried contacting these yet, so it remains to be seen how badly this affects the positives
My initial thought is either the film holders and/or camera are very dirty (being as you've enlarged on the same paper with no spots), or the new fixer needs to be filtered.
As for the mottling, I usually use Ilford liquid concentrate developer diluted at around 1+15. Perhaps 1+30 is just too weak, or you need a greater volume at that dilution.
I think uneven development or streaking and mottling can be a problem with very dilute developer. A good presoak, making sure the water covers the paper quickly and without droplets or splashes can help. Then the same thing going smoothly and quickly into the developer, with continuous agitation... the agitation does not need to be vigorous, but it should keep fresh developer moving over the whole negative. Even being careful, sometimes it still happens... I don't know the cause, whether it's "bromide drag" or "surge marks" but sometimes there will be a streak of uneven development and it often starts at a boundary of dense / not dense.
I'm sure I developed this carefully, but look at this steak and mottling in the sky:
Pinhole Sand Dollar by Ned, at ipernity
I think those specks might show up more when you scan a paper negative that is a bit dark to begin with, so that there is not a lot of contrast and it's all bunched up in the darks ( the histogram is bunched up to the left ). Then, either the scanner software or whatever software you are using makes the specks stand out more when you add contrast and try to get dark enough blacks on the inverted version. They might also be related or increased by texture on the paper: I like to use pearl surface paper and it might be more prone to speckles in scans.
Don't get discouraged, you're getting it!
Last edited by NedL; 04-22-2014 at 10:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Thanks Joe, Ned.
The holders are clean, the fixer was made up with filtered water, I use constant gentle agitation, and the paper is pearl
I do wonder about the dilution and the developer. As I say I'll try a few more in fresh different developer at full strength, and see what pops out next time.