4x5 Large Format Photography using Paper... instead of Film

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Might I offer this advice, after years of working with paper negatives: 1) Pre-flash the paper with a faint, even exposure, just enough so that, if developed without an in-camera exposure you get a light gray tone; 2) Use paper developer at half normal concentration, but develop for at least 2 minutes, or more; alternatively you can use film developer but you get about the same result as dilute paper chemistry but it takes much longer; ensure your developer chemistry is at the proper temperature; 3) Ignore the sky highlights as you evaluate the image coming up in the development tray, instead concentrate on the mid tones and shadow detail; it’s okay to leave the paper in for more than 3 minutes to ensure you get better mid tones; 4) A yellow filter is suggested for MG paper, but increase your exposure to compensate; 5) Better than using a yellow filter is to use fix-grade 2 RC paper (available in the States from Freestyle Photo); I rate grade 2 RC paper at ISO 12, much faster than MG paper with a yellow filter, and lower contrast images whose contrast is independent of the color of light.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks for sharing this. Lot's to experiment with for the next time I go out and do.

[@labonnemedia]

I have a theory here.... tried this when I was in college like 20 years ago - very similar result. If I recall, we discussed in class and the instructor said that UV light could be causing the detail blowout in the skies and brighter areas. Apparently UV light can expose the paper as well as visible light where as sheet film handles it better and isn't as impacted by UV. Idea is kinda supported by your yellow green filter tree image. Wondering if slapping on a UV filter would keep some of that detail. Just speculation based on 20 y/o memories tho haha.

[@koltinsullivan]

Ya, I just took Alternative Processing at my community college . We used direct sun UV light with lumen printing and cyanotypes, and a UV box for Van Dykes and Platinum. You can make digital negatives using Bostick and Sullivan curves in Photoshop for prints with more detail . The curves are drastically different, so a digital negative helps a lot. You'll need a frame, and transparency paper.

[@thealaris]

Technically all glass in lens blocks uv light, but may be some vavelenths of it can cause that fogginess

[@justindavisphotography]

If your prints are developing fast, as with a darkroom enlargement I would take that to mean the image is significantly overexposed. So is the IOS really a 6 (for you at least)? I saw a gentleman on KZbin doing some very large fine art prints from paper negatives. I’ll see if I can find him again. In any case, high contrast images are not all that is possible with paper negatives. I’d dilute your developer a lot more as already suggested. Test filters. Remember the emulsion on the paper and film are different and react differently to filters and types of light / wavelengths of light.

[@kevinthephotographer9346]

Good to see you trying paper negatives, Kyle. I've shot paper negatives quite extensively and I have a few suggestions to help with contrast and paper curvature. a) The paper curve may well be be because the paper needs to be trimmed to fit a paper holder even when you are using paper which appears to be the right size, eg 4x5. The problem is that 4x5 film does not measure exactly 4x5 and the film holders are made to fit the actual dimensions - but 4x5 paper really is 4 by 5 inches. I've never purchased 4x5 paper because it's actually cheaper to buy a larger size such as 5x7 and cut it down, even though there is some wastage. I recently loaded some 8x10 paper into 8x10 holders and that had to be trimmed to fit. b) I may have missed you stating what ISO you shot the paper at. I shoot Ilford MG RC paper at EI 6, after preflashing, but it is best to carry out your own tests. c) Preflashing the paper before loading the holder with help to reduce contrast - again a test is needed to find out the right exposure d) Diluting the paper developer more than usual also helps to control contrast. I use Ilford Multigrade paper developer diluted 1:20 compared to the usual dilution of 1:20

[@TomNorthenscold]

Martin Henson has posted a video shooting paper negs. He did as you suggest and pre flashed the paper. He also used a heavily diluted film developer (Rodinal?) and developed by inspection.

[@RustyKnorr]

This! All these suggestions are excellent.

[@chrisloomis1489]

Question : I never used paper in an out door setting , it seems the paper with the emulation wants to curl due to the bare and then coated sides of the material. I wonder if there is enough warpage , to affect the quality of the image ? In my Rollei 55mm F4 I have a glass plate , that came with the E series in 1961 , that plate many cast aside , but it does indeed hold the file perfectly flat , the only problem you will have is if your camera has dust in it , or finger prints on this plate, that is why many have told me they remove the glass plate. I like the flat film plane though and keep the plate in. Getting 28 rolls developed and high resolution scanned , costing over 970.00 at BLUE MOON CAMERA and MACHINE , Portland Oregon.

[@wcwendychapman]

@@TomNorthenscold Martin is such a smart and experienced photographer. I am sure Kyle could correspond with him and get all of the information he needs to progress. Martin is very open and supportive.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Very helpful! Thank you. And yes, had someone else reach out to me about the paper size. I just assumed it was the same, but that makes sense. I metered at ISO 6 for these. I'll have to try again with pre-flashing and more dilution. Cheers!

[@The_Truck_Photo_Agency]

This is EXACTLY how I started a little over a year ago. I was given a 1920 Conley 5x7 field camera and after a little research, Ilford MGRC 5x7 was far cheaper to experiment with!

[@MrCodyswanson]

Ilford also has direct positive paper which isn't that expensive. I have a box in my fridge that was gifted to me, I'm looking forward to getting out to shoot it.

[@QuietCornersPhotography]

Loving the cemetery shots that were in deeper shadow, super atmospheric. They have a real character and seem like really fun to develop too. You've reminded me I need to try a home dark room and printing by hand.

[@WilliamDeShazer]

The over exposed tree and seascape are beautiful. I think this is awesome.

[@paolociccone]

This is the same that happened to early photographers because the paper is orthochromatic, it's super sensitive to blue light and insensitive to red. That's why the sky is over exposed. There are a few things that you can do to mitigate the issue: - preflash the paper to extend the dynamic range and make the paper faster - use a yellow filter to capture more nuanced tones. Make sure to compensate for the light loss, which is generally 1 stop. - use much more diluted developer. If your normal dilution is 1:9, then go to 1:14 and even use spent developer, you will be able to control the development with more granularity Good luck! 😀👍

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. All of those things have been added to the list to try next time!

[@ronanderson4118]

You are absolutely correct. Modern B&W negative film is Panchromatic, meaning it is sensitive to all light. This is why you must load the film in complete darkness. The paper you are using is indeed Orthochromatic and is not sensitive to Red light , which is why you can use a red safelight in the darkroom . It stands to reason that if it is not sensitive to Red light that it would be overly sensitive to Blue light. You might want to also experiment with using HDR in Lightroom to blend different exposures.

[@briangibbs4046]

I made a series of photographs years ago with a foamcore 8x10 with a shutterless lens. I used Kodak Type A paper (very thin) at ISO 3. Long exposures at f/45 (I was intrigued by the extended time element of the images). I think I used regular paper developer and contact printed on Ektalure paper. (Both these papers are long gone I think.) The result was a very 19th century look with brown tones that was very satisfying, even with skies that were often blown out. This read as “light” instead of “blank”. (I always kept the sky area to a minimum). I’ve always admired the work of Atgét and was pleased to be able to emulate it in a modest way.

[@rossmansell5877]

Did this with a quarter plate camera in the late 40s!.. Magic!! Just developed as a l print and then printed it by contact..results so so..never really pursued it....

[@deejayiwan7]

Your dedication to photography and whole journey is awesome 💯💯💯👏👏💯💯💯💯

[@nollieheel214aim]

Wow this is super cool Kyle! always great to see someone switching it up and just trying different technical techniques.

[@simonlawphotography]

Really enjoy these more experimental videos. You've inspired me to shoot film for the first time in about 30 years. Just finished a roll of FP4 shot with a loaned AE1 program. Some program mode, some using the light meter and some sunny 16 method. Can't wait to see the results. I think I know why you shoot film now.

[@bjornschilasky7605]

They look great. 🤩

[@kstrohmeier]

Great video! Getting motivated to try my hand at paper negatives. The comments are like a master class. BRAVO! Kyle hopefully you will continue down this road.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. I'll definitely be doing more of this. Was a lot of fun and I see the potential.

[@davewalker4991]

I second watching Martin Henson video on Ilford paper negatives. Pre-Flash the paper. The curve of the paper was always a problem with the small sheets of MGRC paper. It’s the way it’s made and wound with tension on a large roll before being finished to final size. Larger sheets don’t tend to be a problem as the paper weight helps keep it flat. Try flexing the opposite way before loading. Loving your work.

[@MichaelMasaki]

This is the first time I've seen this type of photography. I learned something new from Kyle today; thanks as always!

[@erikboon6549]

Did you watch the recent video's of Martin Henson? Those are really worthwhile when you start with paper negatives. I always develop my paper negatives to completion in Rodinal 1:50 so the development is consistent. You can also preflash the paper to get a little more sensitivity, and use the filters you would use for darkroom printing before your lens to tame the contrast. Personally I like Fomaspeed 311 paper better for paper negatives, outdoors you can use ISO 9 for this paper.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Didn't watch any videos beforehand. Just some reading on the internet. But thanks for the heads up about Martin's work. Lot's of recommendations about him on here. I hadn't come across his videos but I'll definitely go check them out!

[@garonkiesel1646]

Great video! I've been shooting paper negatives off and on for almost 20 years, and the only suggestion I would offer that I haven't seen mentioned in the comments section is to shoot using an Ilford 00 filter-the filter used in darkroom printing. This will greatly reduce the contrast, offering a more forgiving negative. These filters normally come in a set (00-5). I would recommend purchasing them new. Most used darkroom/printing filters are quite scratched.

[@_melancias]

Since the paper you are using is MultiGrade, it is possible that when shooting it you are effectively activating all of the grade layers that the paper has, I suggest getting a filter that only lets pass light corresponding to the grade you effectively want to, that way you can control the contrast. Or try using a fixed grade paper.

[@MrDeelightful]

The composition on the lone tree is incredible. I really appreciate how you always find something novel to make a video on.

[@johnsmith1474]

Simple centered comp is not incredible. What is incredible is the structure of that tree, it takes over the image with wooden tentacles.

[@flickwtchr]

I've made pinhole cameras with black foam core to use 8x10 sheets of photo paper for film. Crazy long exposure times of course, but it was a fun process and ended up with a handful of good exposures (considering the constraints of the process).

[@willraywilson1]

Make 2 exposures, one for sky, other for shadow/mids and do what they did in the 19th C. With the added benefit of Photoshop. I use this process to teach 4x5 to students b4 they get to the more expensive media. Bravo!

[@mattbray_studio]

that fourth image of the gravestones is beautiful. really works with the material and process. please continue experimenting with and learning this process

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you, Matt. I'll definitely be working with this some more.

[@theknivjocke]

I just thought of using multigrade filters in front of the lens. Using a 00 for instance, would only expose the low-contrast emulsion. However watch out for what colors are in the scene as I think those are going to be even further distorted.

[@DaveInElland]

If you fancy another (related) rabbit hole, Ilford sell a direct positive paper. It does what it says on the tin and like paper negatives you get a contrasty result. Good luck with your experiments!

[@acmdv]

This reminds me of William Henry Fox Talbot who was an English scientist, inventor, and photography pioneer who invented the salted paper and calotype processes, precursors to photographic processes of the later 19th and 20th centuries.

[@thebendu33]

I like how these pictures came out.

[@andyvan5692]

one tip, if you have contrast issues, you could add a filter for the shot!, aka an ND 1.3 or 2x to bring the contrast down, before its shot, and use a multi-grade filter 0,1 or 2 to reduce it even further; but like Ansel Adams did, its a case of testing, and KNOWING your materials, so you expose properly for the PRINT, not the negative, so adjusting asa from 'box' speed, and use this process for that paper, so you know its a keeper, as your tests prove the process works, for the materials YOU are using, the 120ist just did a video on B&W reversal process and he had the same trouble (second development), with contrast levels, Also if appropriate dilute the developer, from the standard 1+9 to lower concentrations, so you have TIME to remove it, before it goes too far, aka the dev. step takes 10-12 seconds, not 3 or 4 so allowing enough reaction time; another thought, have you used a 'stop bath' or just water, as a chemical stop controls the reaction better, ceases action when you want, not, like water does, takes the conc. down, and washes it away, the acid stop makes the dev. chemically inert, so no more action.

[@meme4one]

Congratulations on making it to the beeb website 😊😊😊

[@KyleMcDougall]

🙏

[@nicolasguillenc]

Looks fun!

[@gottanikoncamera]

You made this video at a propitious time for me. The owner of my local photo shop forced a very nice 5X7 camera on me in spite of my objections, lol. Just the other day I thought I’d shoot darkroom paper so thank you for the inspiration. A couple of things: I’d read somewhere that the papers’ contrast could be reduced somewhat by flashing the paper prior to loading into the holders. Just a quick exposure to light. And at one point, a direct positive paper was being made just for this type of use. Could still be around. If memory serves, its iso was 125…

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, Ilford does sell a direct positive. I'll probably try that next.

[@liveinaweorg]

I shot my first paper negative on a Kodak 1A. Came out rather given the guesswork involved. Great video Kyle

[@alvinbirdi6502]

These papers are usually curved - RC convex on the emulsion side and FB concave on the emulsion side. It's a useful way of telling which is the emulsion side in the dark. The film holder tabs should hold the paper flat and stop the dark slide hitting it.

[@jbanders]

Thinking back to my days in a darkroom in the 1980s, yes I think that the yellow/green filter is just reducing the contrast. Maybe as low as a paper grade of 1 or so. Back in the day about 130 units of yellow gave the lowest contrast, (grade 00) on a focomat, but as a tungsten source, it is lacking in blue compared to daylight. So I'd bung on the strongest yellow filter I could find :) Contrast is controlled by the mix of blue/green. without a filter the paper would be around grade 2-3

[@ArturSikoraphoto]

Excellent video, as always, Kyle. Great photographs, too. I love shooting on photographic paper as much as I do on Direct Positive Paper. I've used both for years and really like the results. The only difference is that I usually expose for both at ISO 3. More contrast, less detail, or overexposed skies are effects that you either like or dislike. I tend to appreciate the imperfection. Maybe it's because I'm a little tired of sterile photos. Also, the fact that the paper isn't flat doesn't make any difference. When loaded properly, it lies flat in the holder. A few times, I didn't load the paper properly, and it "derailed" when I removed the dark slide. Because of this, I couldn't load the dark slide back in, and the paper was ruined. This can also happen with negatives. Looking forward to another video.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'm guessing that 'de-railment' is what happened with mine a couple of times. I had three or four sheets that had issues with the dark slide.

[@ArturSikoraphoto]

That's what I thought, seeing the video. Paper is harder to load into the holder than the negative. It's thicker and more flimsy. Nonetheless, I really like the results you got with it.

[@David-rc8fb]

Really interesting, thank you for sharing. Keep well & Merry Christmas 👍🇬🇧

[@michaelpetersenfilm]

The tree with vignetting is may favorite. 14:48 Perhaps it just came out better than the first because the filter took more light than you compensated for so the sky details frame the tree in a dramatic way.

[@tomnirider5661]

Kyle, try a blue filter. Just a cheap gel filter would do. It will hold back that UV and maybe make your skies better. This is used with dry plates which are not panchromatic. And of you like this look, consider shooting some dry plates. Almost the same dev process you are using here.

[@stratocactus]

Humm not sure about the blue filter. Citing wikipedia : "Variable-contrast - or "VC" - papers account for the great majority of consumption of these papers in the 21st century. VC papers permit the selection of a wide range of contrast grades, in the case of the brand leader between 00 and 5. These papers are coated with a mixture of two or three emulsions, all of equal contrast and sensitivity to blue light. However, each emulsion is sensitised in different proportions to green light. Upon exposure to blue light, all emulsions act in an additive manner to produce a high contrast image. When exposed to green light alone, the emulsions produce a low contrast image because each is differently sensitised to green. By varying the ratio of blue to green light, the contrast of the print can be approximately continuously varied between these extremes, creating all contrast grades from 00 to 5.[11] Filters in the enlarger's light path are a common method of achieving this control. Magenta filters absorb green and transmit blue and red, while yellow filters absorb blue and transmit green and red." So, if you use a blue filter, you'll let a majority of blue light through the lens, favouring the blue sensitive emulsion of the paper, resulting in a higher contrast. I had really better results shooting paper negatives with a 00 contrast filter.

[@aidankoon]

I’ve done a decent amount of paper negatives, but usually under controlled lighting. To cut down on the contrast you’re getting there are a few things you can do. Try pre flashing the paper. The more you pre-flash the closer together the tones will be. Be careful though because with too much you’ll have a black sheet! Weaker developers can also help you control your process more easily. I like Ilford bromophen. It recommends a 3 minutes dev time compared to a minute or so for other developers, which can make it easier for you to pull your paper from the tray when you achieve the desired density and contrast. Diluting the developer even further can help as well. Using a film developer instead of paper can also reduce the contrast, but can take significantly longer to produce an image on paper.

[@johnsmith1474]

Good ideas.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. I'll try some of those things next time!

[@chrisrigby3694]

The paper you are using is Orthochromatic and similarly to Orthochromatic film, will produce extremely white skies. I love your tree and tower shots. They work well. Rather than scanning and digitalising your negative, I’d be interested to see what a contact print from them would be like. Go the full analogue.

[@arbaliciousmusic]

How would a contact print from a paper negative work when the paper is opaque?

[@neeravnaik]

Very interesting. Doing still life indoor photography under some diffused light from a window could look good in this

[@danielseurer1020]

Here is another thing to keep in mind. Like the early wet plate negatives of the 19th century, the paper negatives are very sensitive to blue light. That is why there is little/no detail in the sky. Just look at some historic prints (pre-dry plate), and the skies are all blown out. But there is more. The paper negatives are very insensitive to red light (that is why you can use a red safe light). Out it the field, taking a picture, anything red will be underexposed. So you need to keep that into account. For me, I am working on a project filming barns in my home state of Wisconsin USA. Most barns are painted red. That combined with the over sensitivity to blue light can really have an unwanted effect. So, I usually plan on using film for the red barns,and go back to paper negatives for most the other work.

[@stratocactus]

00 contrast filter might help to tame the skies and lift the red barns. Might be worse a try.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks. All of those things are on the list to try next time!

[@TheFullFrame35mm]

Fascinating stuff!

[@dmay1100]

Hey Kyle; I shot paper way back in the day, super cool to see you doing that today. We didn't have the easy way of getting a negative in the day I did have some old film with the same ISO (ASA) of 6 loved the stuff but it was old and not available any more. Most people in the day used paper in the pin hold cameras, making for some stupidly long exposures. Paper is really tough to get any detail in the sky just no dynamic range, but it ends up cool and fun. Filters are very important and in doesn't take much to loose definition in bright areas. I don't think paper has changed much in 40 years but I haven't shot paper or film in a while so I will have too, just because. I absolutely love that tree so much mood just in the tree, I could spend hours next to it! Thanks for the adventure this week, brings back memories to this old fart.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers! This was a fun one to experiment with, and it certainly has a unique look. Lot's to learn with this process still, but I'm looking forward to trying to refine it a bit.

[@messsucher]

The result actually looks super close to low iso non photography films. I absolutely loved the Washi A, which is a ISO 12 film thats "used as leader and protection during the reproduction process of motion picture films". It has ultra high contrast and you hardly see any grain. Very bright whites and deep blacks, I almost treat this BW negative film as a slide film because the exposure latitude is so narrow. Paper seems even more contrasty, but the characteristic and low iso is so similar, as well as the result it gives.

[@DLivingston]

[@bunyowbub]

A medium YELLOW filter will be your best friend when making negs on MG RC paper.

[@MasonPollock]

if you want to you could probably get fiber paper and iron the paper extra flat, most darkroom paper is meant to be put into an easel which flattens it, you could add adhesive to the holder because fiber is expensive. But I would also think it would be pretty neat if you were to do more darkroom printing. fiber paper also has more silver overall and will have a bit more detail overall. Also what you need to account for is the orthochromatic nature of darkroom paper, it will not take a lot of colors and will probably take an array of color filters to control the contrast on the paper over all, you'll need heavy warming overall but I would do more research.

[@RAW_photography]

Great experiment! I think this photo paper needs a double exposure and the use of gradient filters. In the darkroom when exposing the photo paper, you always work with covering areas of the picture. Maybe a similar technique will help out on the field. Best regards, Christian.

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

Also they say with paper negs - meter for the “highlights” and develop for shadows. Eg opposite to negatives.

[@sheelios]

ive noticed smaller papers to be a bit curved as well. 8x10 is flat but all the 5x7 paper i have for darkroom prints have a slight bend to it

[@nicklopro]

What the heck i just did this in my video. Why you stealing my thunder? 😂 come on dude

[@KyleMcDougall]

Great minds... 😀 Even more strange is that our videos have the exact same title

[@theonlinelime1992]

@@KyleMcDougall Creepy! I thought you exaggerated but it is straight up the same title 😂

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

Not that I have tried, but I believe you can put the paper negative in the enlarger and actually make enlargements. Obviously you can contact the paper Neg to make a positive- but that would be a 1 to 1 size of course. 👍

[@bartboom4577]

This is awesome! I did some quick research and found the Ilford datasheet for RC paper. According to the datasheet, the paper is sensitive only to light in the 425-550 nm range (blue and green), which explains why it isn’t affected by red safety lights. I’m speculating that using a deep green filter might reduce sensitivity to blue light while preserving sensitivity to green light. This approach could help balance the sky’s exposure more effectively.

[@johnsmith1474]

Cyan I think, as enlarger filters to increase contrast were magenta of varying density.

[@dan.allen.digital]

Awesome video Kyle. Paper negatives in my 4x5 was my next thing to try. Martin Hensen has some videos on paper negatives. Perhaps pre-flashing the paper would help if you have an enlarger?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Pre-flashing will be the next thing I try.

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

Also couple of things to try… pre flash the paper. Always thought multigrade was ISO 3 ish. Try Harman direct positive as well. The pre flashing will help with the contrast 👍

[@apstrad]

The paper details in the white cliffs/sky makes the image very interesting...Thank you for posting this

[@johnpotter4814]

Love the video, really interesting. I've done a little with paper negatives, testing my homemade 5x4 pinhole camera. I definitely recommend watching some Martin Henson videos. He goes into great detail about using paper negatives, definitely worth persevering with. Also agree with previous comments, the paper needs cutting down to fit in 5x4 holders. Measure your film negatives and you'll see what I mean. Diluted film developer also better as it acts much more slowly. Definitely check out Martin Henson though. Keep up the good work 😊

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. I'll have to test with film developer and see if there's a difference.

[@studiojege287]

Great video and tips here!

[@Lawman212]

Could you use darkroom filters while exposing to moderate the contrast?

[@ericratliff1675]

The vignetting is so strong with this camera/lens combination. For example where the tree has good gray scale, but the sky is blown out. I would try multiplying the whole image by a vignette correcting image. i.e. a radially symmetric correction curve. You would probably lose the definition in the tree though, it becoming a silhouette.

[@mikestanavech7858]

Maybe try leaving the dark slide partially inserted, say 1/4 inch or so and that’ll help keep the paper flat and not jam the slide.

[@may_68]

Nice shots of the State in Hastings

[@huneprut]

Hi Kyle. Great video, once again. If you like the experience of the paper you should give Harman direct positive paper a go. Also contrasty, but gives you a positive right away. Mirrored though, obviously.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I did almost pick up a box while making this video, but figured I'd start with this. I'll probably try that next.

[@andyvan5692]

nice experiment, but if you are having film flatness issues try a Linhof vacuum back, its a normal holder, but with a port on it, takes a vac. pump to suck the film flat; the other tactic is to go to a 'wet plate' style holder, use a spacer and clamp the piece in the adaptor, and load that into the holder, should keep it FLAT. these work on a bar/s in the spacer clamping the plate onto the frame, and these press the middle of the sheet, so keeping the whole surface flat. some glue/double sided tape on a glass plate to hold the paper on the glass, and mount the glass in a holder works to.

[@lilib7376]

hi Kyle! If you're still in the mood for experimenting, using caffenol as a developer with paper negatives brings down the contrast . Also, UK photographer Andrew Sanderson is a master when it comes to paper negatives. He has published a little book on the subject which is very comprehensive. Good luck!

[@romgostomski1677]

I have never shot directly onto paper, so I could be totally wrong about this, but you are using multigrade paper. Have you considered using Ilford filters for printing to reduce the contrast. A grade 1 filter, or even a 00 filter should work.

[@chrisloomis1489]

Kyle : a 90 mm and a 110mm and a 135mm require a center filter , my Supewr Simmer XL 110 has a dedicated filter as does my 75mm Rodenstock lens , without pulling down the center you will never in any program equalize the light. Large Format lenses as far as I am aware do not have " profiles " in Lightroom like a Nikon , or Sony 35mm or even a Leica lens might have. I use to do proofs on photo paper before mounting the negatives in the Stripping medium we called GOLDENROD a paper that blocked stray light when burning Silver Offset Press plates , for there Heidelberg press in our High School news paper, I did all of the stripping type check and alignment and enlargement and proofs in the dark room , then burned the photosensitive silver plates. What you're working with is the same paper we used to proof the 35mm Half Tone images. You are not going to get super sharp , the best image is the castle as its body eats up a lot of the light spilling into the lens and thus balances the image ( Center Filter ) . Watching you paw your way through this photo paper takes me back to my teens in 1976 77 , I am 64 years now.

[@donrichterjunior]

Try out using a yellow filter! Due to the orthochromatic nature of the paper it lowers the contrast and gives much better negatives! For me it works great You can also preflash the paper but it's really not necessary Good luck 🤞

[@KyleMcDougall]

Funny enough, I said I only had a Y/G filter, but just found a Yellow in my drawer the other day. I'll have to try it out!

[@dan.allen.digital]

Have you tried enlarging and printing one of your negative scans to a transparency slide and making cyanotype prints?

[@mickhowe5665]

Hi Kyle good video again, love it when you try different things like this. Just out of interest have you seen any of Martin Henson's videos he seems to do paper negs as well. keep up the good work.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I haven't. But lot's of suggestions about his work. I'll go check his videos out!

[@marcogiai-coletti354]

I use a deep yellow filter and rate my paper at ISO12 with pretty good results.

[@missouriskies]

Closest I've come to doing this is doing "Solargraphy" with 3 months to a year long exposures using pinhole pop can camera. No development of the paper. Just a one time scan of the paper onto computer. Thanks for posting this.

[@johnsmith1474]

New extreme of "still life."

[@PierreBurnaugh]

Interesting technique, never have actually seen much about this. If there was a practical way to pre flash the paper as in darkroom development, it would hold the sky in more. Filtration and time variation during exposure should render interesting results.

[@sneeuwwolf1176]

Very very weird that the darkslide got caught up on the paper. I'm shooting paper negatives with toyo 9x12 and fidelity 4x5. And never encountered a similar issue. But I cut the paper myself and load under a safelight. So that might be helping. Paper is always curved.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I think the problem is that these pre-cut 4x5 sheets are actually a bit too big for the film holder, causing them to bow a bit.

[@ianland4768]

Preflash the paper, use a grade 0 filter in front of the lens, and develop in dilute developer. All these things help in my experience

[@rigbyUnbound]

very interesting.. i want to make with this paper thank you

[@BesQueue]

Could DR5 development work with paper? If possible you could get a direct positive print.

[@ste76539]

Either something funky going on with your WB or you've selected a particularly vibrant shade of lip gloss. @ 1:26

[@casperghst42]

Most of the photos are quite interesting.

[@yozhiworks]

Wondering if a UV and/or yellow filter would help with the sky?

[@coastalartistlivingonislan8395]

The bow in paper is so you know which way is up. Emulsion.

[@pasty_film_journey]

I wonder if the paper has even lower ISO than you expected (ISO 1-2 maybe instead of 6)? If true, it would mean you over-exposed the paper, compensated by shorter development time, and leading to increased contrast. The dynamic range shouldn't be a problem since it's quite nice when printed on in the darkroom and you're just reversing the whites and darks. When I print in the dark room I usually expose for 0.5 to 1.5s at f/16, with 1min of development and get good results. In theory, you should do the same, just instead of an enlarger you use a camera?

[@neutrinissimo5118]

All paper is curved - RC curves out away from the emulsion (usually gives a bow like you saw), fiber in towards the emulsion (the edges curl up)

[@Phuzz828]

a ND filter might come in handy for the skies

[@treyusher32]

Just curious does the back of this camera rotate? It looks like it has a second tripod mount on the side thats why Im asking

[@KyleMcDougall]

You remove the back with a lever, then change it to portrait orientation. So yes, it does rotate, just a few steps involved.

[@treyusher32]

@KyleMcDougall Oh great thank you! Thats better than what I was originally thinking, at least you can leave the camera set up and rotate it.

[@tanchunghong1700]

If you put two pieces of photo paper together in the darkroom, one exposed negative and one blank canvas and shine a light through the exposed paper for a fixed duration, you get a positive image on the blank canvas

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yes, would like to try that next.

[@kdj.imagery4317]

I've been trying too do some research on this type of photography. Two questions, is the paper direct positive paper and two can one use an all in one "Monobath" type developer for processing? Like you I would have too develop in a small bathroom and I'm wanting to shoot with paper negs and scan on a flatbed scanner. Also, you should try shooting with an orange filter and see how that controls the contrast? Merry Christmas!

[@KyleMcDougall]

This was just standard darkroom paper, not direct positive. But Ilford does sell that as well, which I'll try next.

[@stevenmccaughan2752]

In college I had to build the pinhole camera which we used paper and it the paper had a set grade

[@MakersTeleMark]

Did you compensate exposure with the filter or just screw it on and snap at the same settings?

[@KyleMcDougall]

The Hoya X0 filter I used was listed by Hoya as having a filter factor of 1.2, (around 1/4 of a stop). So I didn't compensate. But I've been researching it since doing this video, because that doesn't seem right, and other's are saying it's closer to a stop/stop and a half. So that would make sense why the two images looked quite different.

[@MakersTeleMark]

@@KyleMcDougall That is exactly what I was thinking. Trying to reduce the variability seems like a fun pursuit.

[@MakersTeleMark]

@@KyleMcDougall I'd like to try this by cutting down some 6.5 x 9 cm for my fujica GL690 which can shoot sheet film.

[@AndyDay]

Portraits!

[@RacerMunky]

Pardon me if I’m talking out my butt, but did try converting any of them with NLP just for shits and giggles , maybe NLP will allow a less contrasty conversion ?

[@KyleMcDougall]

I didn't try. But I played with the curves quite a lot, and you can see how limited the information is. So I don't think it'd do much using other plugins or methods.

[@lorrainehealy1811]

pre-flashing, like other viewers have suggested. Should bring the contrast down

[@chrisloomis1489]

Where is your Center Filter ? with center filter , then the Yellow filter you would have had even results and not blasted out the centers. I always try to get the center filter for my LF lenses that require it.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I haven't used a center filter with the 105 before, or felt the need for it, as I haven't experienced vignetting when stopped down (how I typically shoot). 5.6 though is a different story.

[@jacopoabbruscato9271]

I think the blown out skies are due to the orthochromatic nature of paper. It's way more sensitive to blue and cold colours than any other. That's why skies will always be way brighter than expected and skin tones much darker

[@HuwWalters]

Pre flashing the paper under an enlarger will reduce the contrast.

[@metalfingersfilm]

🐐🐐🐐

[@scothunter3221]

OK, I’m a bit confused here. I have always been led to believe that 4 x 5 film was slightly smaller than 4 x 5 and that 4 x 5 enlarging paper was too big to fit into standard film holders. Is this no longer true? Or do you have some special film holders designed to hold the 4 x 4 paper?

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're correct. This is just a box of 4x5 paper from Ilford. Nothing special about it that I know of. It's probably why I was having issues with getting dark slides back in. Next time I'll have to trim it down.

[@danielseurer1020]

@@scothunter3221 You definitely have to trim it down a bit. Both the length and width.

[@motorvelo]

The problem is that paper is orthochromatic as opposed to panchromatic like film. Also the part of the spectrum the paper is sensitive to is biased towards the light from an enlarger.