shooting paper negatives

[golden]

<p>I ran out of 8x0 film last week (109.00 a box, thats the cheap stuff) decided i would play around with paper negatives, here are a few iimages made with paper negatives, shot with a burke and james 8x10 and a 14in commercial ektar which incidently has now a jammed shutter, dont really need a shutter though considering the iso of t his paper is 6</p><div></div>

[golden]

<p>number 1</p><div></div>

[golden]

<p>was going for the ole timey look in the first one, preflashed the paper and double exposed, here is a nother</p><div></div>

[golden]

<p>another</p><div></div>

[golden]

<p>one more</p><div></div>

[golden]

<p>these are scans of contact prints, the girl in the corn image was exposed at 8 sec, the oak tree was 1 minute, cabin window was 30 sec and the last one was 1 minute, your two best friends when shooting paper negs are a big lens cap and a stop watch. the paper i used was arista edu ultra grade 2. dev in dektol. my coworkers i showed the image of the girl too thought it was an old picture of my mother or grandmother when she was young, actualy they didnt recognize it was another co worker that they had never seen with her hair down and the old dress was an added touch. </p>

[jonathan_kleinfeldt1]

<p>Those look really nice John. I've been thinking of messing around with some paper negatives myself, albeit with a pinhole camera. Do you develop the paper negative to completion like you would a print, or do you develop by inspection?</p>

[golden]

<p>Too much shoulder is showing? you are absolutly right, i didnt think about that. oh well the people at work didnt know the difference. : )), jonathan i dev the neg by inspection, try the paper negative route they are alot of fun to experiment with, the biggest problem that i learned the hard way is that the latitude is only like 2 to 3 stops, so highlights will blow out rather quickly. best time to shoot is late in the evening right at dusk or early early. Ive never shot a pinhole camera but i have read the exposure times for those are rather long. good luck</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>When I did paper negatives, I used single weight printing paper rated at ISO 1. I developed it in Dektol, stopped it and rinsed it thoroughly. I then "contacted" printed it by wetting the double weight paper with the still wet single weight, face to face. I used a roller to get rid of bubbles and get a good seal. I then exposed the sandwich under the enlarger lamp. Number of seconds escapes my memory but the process reminds me of "peel apart" photography though certainly not "instant"!</p>

[golden]

<p>hi paul, i have been reading about the contact printing technique you are talking about but havnt tried it yet, i just put the paper together, lay glass on top and use my enlarger light through a 50mm nikkor lens that is stopped down a couple of stops. most of my exposures have been about 24 to 26 sec, i use a #3 filter sometimes for a contrast boost. I did a van dyke print last week using a paper negative, it actually turned out ok, exposure time was around 40 minutes compared to 4 to 6 minutes using a film negative. but paper negatives cost around .38 cents a shot compared to $2.10 a shot with film, this way i can afford to play : )). its like target practicing with a 22 pistol compared to a 44 magnum. </p>

[CosteaM]

<p>John,<br>

first of all that is a beautiful camera. love your experiments and I think that looking at the window picture it is hard to tell the difference btw film and paper exposure. great way of having fun on a budget. thanks for sharing</p>

[rustys pics]

<p>Awesome. The gal looks like she is wearing a 19th century nighty. Very Risque for 1890!<br>

Paper negatives can make some amazing photos. Fox-Talbot invented the negative-positve printing process using paper in the early 1840s....if you really want to get a kick, try some Ilfochrome paper. You'll get a big positive with odd color.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Superb.</p>

<p>Talbot had something for sure. For a pictorialist effect, this is definitely a great way to go.</p>

<p>And what a beautiful Burke and James. Has the thing been renovated or is it just "minty"?</p>

[golden]

<p>thanks for the comments, the camera has been restored, the fellow i bought it from did a great job on it, it had the old gray paint originally, he stipped it all off to show the nice maple underneath. amazing that they painted there cameras battleship gray. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I wondered. I had not seen one before with light wood. Usually oak(?) or gray, as you say. Very sweet.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Nice work. I'm amazed at how good the sharpness is. Another possibility, Freestyle sells a direct positive paper (can't remember the brand).<br>

Another possibility if you just need a quick image for posting is to scan the paper negative and reverse it to positive with your image editing software.</p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>John, great work!When, I started in the old processes. I wanted, (and, still do) photogragh subjects such as that 1860's log cabin. That, would make a great subject for a Van Dyke or Argyrotype.</p>

[jdrose]

<p>Even so, it would be nice to have a working shutter. Keep us posted on the repair process.</p>

<p>Beautiful pictures!</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>Nice work on that cabin John, and the first image of the girl in the corn looks like it might lead to something really interesting down the line, though this is kinda cool in that it has that vintage found film apeal from yesteryear. Nice camera too. And funny youran this post as I was contemplating big film, but might lay back on that as I don't even get out much with my 4x5's, and that camera as you've mentioned, looks like it is heavy. I worked with a friend shooting an 8x10 Toyo Field camera in the mountains once and it was certainly no small project to move everything from one composition to another. On the other hand, there is really something neat about looking at the 8x10 view screen with a good lens. The Comercial Kodaks are supposed to be very good; my friend had untouchable Zeis Germinar lenses probably worth more than both our vehicles combined. </p>

[golden]

<p>thanks again for the comments, SG the camera weighs in at about 15 pounds without the lens, i was toting around a 26 pound cambo legend so this thing feels really light also it folds up nicely where as the cambo does not. I have a project im working on now with the 8x10, hopefully it will work out good, as far as the lens goes im hoping to send it off within a week or two, it jammed up while shooting the girl in the corn image, i forgot to close the lens after focusing and i tried to fire the lens and it made this strange sound and that was it, now it wont close, its like a huge barrel lens. : (</p>

[sg_adams]

<p>Don't much care for those strange sounds ! I've had a couple transmissions do that. Gizzzhhh Klunk Snap Bishzzzz, and you can here the hundred dollar bills evaporating if you listen really close; ussually right after you park. <br>

Ok yeah I remember now your comments on the other camera. So this one is ultra light, yes? I looked again and reallty like the cabin detail showing the end on logs. That would be amazing shot on something like TMY and enlarged to life size. Contacts must be incredible. </p>