Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,871   Posts: 1,583,344   Online: 1147
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Yea John, I think what took me awhile to get my head around the entire process is I didn't realize you could do a contact directly through the paper.


    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    hey bruce

    no need to worry about anything ...

    a lot of people who have 30, even 40years experience doing darkroom and camerawork have no idea how to make paper negatives
    they have no idea that if you don't have a negative but you have a print, you can make a paper negative from the print,
    they have no idea you can retouch the paper negative with pencils, or it is possible to have fun just doing something that is as old
    as the dawn of photography.

    i love making paper negatives not because i think i am doing something new, but because it is FUN ...
    and a lot of photography seems to be ignoring the fun aspect of using a camera, with people more interested
    in gear-talk &c ...


    john ...

    you ARE grumpy

    john

  2. #22
    JessicaDittmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    iowa- usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    154
    Images
    40
    Thanks! I'm looking toward fiber for the final prints then - I'd like some warmth in the end result but enjoy the look so far. The RC I've heard is easier to use for the neg. part- not sure if that is true or not but I did try both and thought RC handled better in the film holders. Then I can contact print onto the fiber. 8x10 is so much fun...makes me want to shoot all these ideas in my head - my boys had fun being a part of it so far too.
    j e s s i c a | d i t t m e r

  3. #23
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,804
    Images
    370
    Sounds like you're doing it right. I also use RC papers for nega as they stay flat (easier to make decent contact prints)

    But I always use different fiberbased papers for the final print. And I also use liquid emulsion.

    attached a few examples:
    1: neg scan as is would look on RC paper (toned)
    2: same image, but now as bromoil print (after using liquid emulsion)
    3: neg manipulated on the back using lib gloss (paper can't see red....)
    4: print on the fantastic paper Kentmere Art Classic.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails inge96-2.jpg   ingebrom.jpg   trine.jpg   pamela2.jpg  
    Last edited by gandolfi; 04-22-2012 at 08:49 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24
    PeterB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by JessicaDittmer View Post
    in the contact frame emulsion side to emulsion side with another rc paper and exposed it thru the "neg" paper onto the new one
    How does the sharpness of the positive compare to the original negative ? Could you check it out with a loupe for us if it there is no obvious difference ?

    I realise the emulsions are quite thin (perhaps 10-15um), but there would also probably be some supercoating/anti-scratch layer on top of that too. I guess due to diffraction the positive can never be as sharp, but I wonder what practical results you are getting.

  5. #25
    desertrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    202
    Images
    10
    I realize your question was directed at the OP, but I have checked some paper negative / paper positive contacts made this way. The level of detail in the prints is almost as good as the negatives, but there is a slight 'texture' effect on the prints coming from the RC paper negative. I can see the texture clearly only under magnification, and it's not very strong. A fiber based paper negative would, I think, give a lot more texture.

    Back to the original paper negative, the level of detail I see is almost as good as the level of detail in negatives made on ortho-litho film, which can record about as much detail as micro film. This is probably due to limitations in my lenses, which are all old and not of modern design. But I think a neg made on RC paper can hold much finer detail than can be seen on a contact print at a normal viewing distance.
    Happiness is a load of bulk chemicals, a handful of recipes, a brick of film and a box of paper. - desertrat

  6. #26
    JessicaDittmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    iowa- usa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    154
    Images
    40
    thanks! gandolfi, you inspired me to try from your posts on the large format forum. AWESOME work you do! I from just regular site think they are sharp- haven't checked with a loupe though. I'm going to do the paper negs on the rc and I have warm tone fiber ilford coming for the print then- I'd like to do some experimenting.
    j e s s i c a | d i t t m e r

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4
    Gandolfi:

    Loved your post, the nude and the Kentmere are very suited yo my warmtone inclinarions. Are you using controlled lighting? Kino Flo or Tungsten? Have you tried extended diluted toning like 1+300 for 20 min which is my standard in FOMA 131 with PW developer? Thank you for yout posting, and Jessica thank you for the thread and keep it up, and photographty is about experimenting regardless of what people say, and havin fun and enjoying it. I'm 60 and still enjoy it like when I was 18
    Best,
    Takomaru

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,883
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterB View Post
    How does the sharpness of the positive compare to the original negative ? Could you check it out with a loupe for us if it there is no obvious difference ?

    I realise the emulsions are quite thin (perhaps 10-15um), but there would also probably be some supercoating/anti-scratch layer on top of that too. I guess due to diffraction the positive can never be as sharp, but I wonder what practical results you are getting.

    hi peter

    to be honest sharpness and extreme detail and examining a photograph with a loupe
    seem to be only thing that photographers are interested in. well most photographers ...
    i don't care much for loupe examination or extreme details, but if you need them, they are there...

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Cheshire UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,909
    Making paper negs is great fun....We did it at Focus on imaging back in March, I did hundreds, am working on a set of landscapes as well.

    Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

  10. #30
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,706
    Images
    122
    I am going to try paper negatives soon - as soon as I finish the camera which will take the 5x7 holders I was recently given.

    Trying a piece of 5x7 paper in the film holder, it appers that I just need to trim about 1/8" off of the short side.

    I was going to do this with pinhole but I will very soon have a Symmar 210mm lens which should cover 5x7.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin