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
Printable View
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
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.
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.
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 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by JessicaDittmer
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterB
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...
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 :
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.