Harman Direct Positive Paper Speed Test

[@vinnybeedle1728]

this is a wonderful demonstration. i just got around today to testing my graflex out. ive never used it and wanted to test on some of my harman paper (which happens to be the only sheet "film" i currenty have) to check for any leaks or failures in this 50 year old camera. i wanted to see some real word results to get the true iso of this paper first, and this video did exactly that. thanks so much!

[@Machster10]

Could use a spot meter and report the EV values for the highlights and shadows in your scene. That would be useful to understand the specific exposure settings you chose

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Peter: This paper produces a one-of-a-kind, fiber-based silver gelatin print straight out of the camera and after processing with conventional B/W chemistry. The more conventional process with negative print paper is a two-step process, where you expose and develop the paper as a negative, then have to contact print the negative to get a positive print.

[@angelale9553]

Does this mean you don't need an enlarger to make photo prints with Harman positive paper?

[@johnbowyer6902]

Would love to see results in a home studio setting. Thanks for the information.

[@dennisleavell5849]

Thanks for your video, it really helped. What light meter are you using? I'm having trouble finding one that goes down to ISO 3

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Gossen Luna Pro F.

[@dennisleavell5849]

@@Joe_VanCleave Thanks :)

[@jrmorganpetro]

Joe, thanks for this video, I did a version of this test yesterday and got similar results. Have you done one on a cloudy day yet? PS: I didn’t start using my light meter until the end. I’m going to test a 7x17” Chamonix with this format and your test results. Only issue is I could only afford one film holder so two at a time. Subscribed!

[@bcelasun]

Can you make a "guess" about the proper ISO for this paper for use in shade? I am inclined to choose 10 after watching the video but my experience is very low and my budget is rather tight. Thank you for all the information you provide here, by the way.

[@madrnano7964]

this guy has nice personality

[@DCN2010]

Thanks Joe... I'm looking into using this paper in a pinhole camera I'm building.

[@jimgoodinmusic]

Joe thanks - that really helps as I've been experimenting with Direct Positive the last few months, on my second box now. I have rated 3 and 6 with varied results using Multigrade 1:9. I'm wondering what your develop time is and if you are adding more time for 1:10 than if doing 1:9? Thanks for all your fine tutorials and how-to's.

[@Joe_VanCleave]

I’ve lately been using Dektol too, besides Multigrade developer. I find a partially used bottle of liquid concentrate goes bad rather quickly, so now I mix one shot straight from Dektol powder, bypassing the stock solution phase. As for development time, there seems to be more variability in getting the correct exposure than getting the exact processing time. With correct exposure you should have good highlights and mid tones, whereas correct development gives you deep, rich shadows. Usually 2-3 minutes is fine.

[@jimgoodinmusic]

@@Joe_VanCleave thanks very much. I had that experience with Multigrade as well with the partially used bottle going bad. I was surprised that it did but I was pushing 3 months on it so it may have been my gamble. Thanks for clarifying exposure v dev times experience. I began using HDP in June and am on my second box now. Partly because I'm doing the processing unseen in a Stearman tank I have stayed the base. Of the first box I got about 2/3's images. I have steadily increased exposure times more agressive and seen better results. I do really like the HDP and call it jokingly, a slow Polaroid :) Joe thanks very much for you insight and well done documentary style how-to videos.

[@MaNi-cn7to]

intressting and thank you! can you do same with bigger paper/ bigger camera?

[@stakkanovfriman2838]

yes this paper is available in bigger sizes and even in huge rolls a meter wide. but you will need some way to get in in the camera. i can think of no holder like that and if it exists it costs a fortune

[@frodeedvindsen]

Hi, Joe! Have you tried a grad filter to balance the exposure between the sky and the foreground shadow detail? That way it might be possible to get more detail in the highlights and at the same time keep the shadows from getting to dark.

[@Joe_VanCleave]

No I have not I like the 19th century look to the sky. And not all of my images or landscape images.

[@frodeedvindsen]

Kinda have to agree with that :) I also like the 19th century look. In fact I really like the look of the old petzval lenses. I'm thinking about building a 8x10 wooden camera with a lens like that. I have the plans ready, but haven't got the time for it at the moment. Hope to get the project started sometime in the next year :) Really like your videos about film photography. Keep up the good work!

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Thanks for your comments. I should also mention that, because paper media is so UV/blue sensitive, it could take a dramatic split filter to see a significant darkening of the sky. Tests I did years ago, with a pinhole camera pointed at the sky, showed a 10 second exposure gave "normal" sky tones, whereas with this camera I'd otherwise have exposed the landscape for over a minute; at least three stops difference.

[@frodeedvindsen]

It would have been fun to experiment with a 3 or 4 stop ND grad filter just to see what results one could get :)

[@Joe_VanCleave]

I might do that.

[@peteanddrake4242]

I like your videos. lots of good technical info. What is the main purpose of shooting this type of positive paper?

[@floydburkett630]

I know this is an older video, but I'm new to this. When you do the ISO speed test is it done with pre-flashed paper?

[@Joe_VanCleave]

I like to find the working ISO of the paper before applying any preflashing. When testing for ISO I'm looking for well-exposed midtones. With landscape photography I ignore the sky exposure, since it usually has to be over-exposed to get good landscape tones (since paper is blue/UV sensitive, not red sensitive), hence a good landscape exposure should render the earth tones in the center of the midtown scale (again, ignoring the shadows and the sky). Once a preflash is applied, it should raise the shadow details so as not to be so dense.

[@floydburkett630]

@@Joe_VanCleave Thanks for response. I'm actually watching all your videos pertaining to this subject. Learning a lot with your help.

[@floydburkett630]

@@Joe_VanCleave One more question. Does preflash change the ISO

[@macmacoytot]

does the paper fit nicely in the film holder or some modification is needed?

[@Joe_VanCleave]

It's comes cut for 4x5 film size, no need to trim. The very first batches of the paper, that came out maybe a decade or more ago, were not sized for film holders, but since then they've come precut.

[@anthonymiller8979]

Maybe a silly question as I have not experimented with this paper yet, just took only one shot so far while out shooting film. My Harman Direct Positive Paper image came out quite light.......so, since it is direct positive, not a negative, is a light image over exposed or underexposed? I read somewhere that too much light on direct positive paper will make a lighter, not darker image.

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Too light usually indicates over-exposure. But you also should ensure you have adequate development first. A test for your developer is to process an unexposed sheet of Harman, it should come out richly black. If it does, then reduce the in-camera exposure until the shadows are adequate and the principal subject matter is good. Also, developer concentration affects both shadow detail and contrast. Some people report using dilute developer with longer development times, to get both adequate shadow density and controlled contrast. This takes a number of experiments to get dialed in.

[@anthonymiller8979]

@@Joe_VanCleave Thank you Joe for the quick response. I plan to experiment a bit and have been watching your videos relating to this. Just wanted to be sure I understood the basic principal, over/under exposure so I know what I am looking at while experimenting. Your channel is a great resource and again, thanks for taking the time with this explanation.

[@Raychristofer]

Great job on this

[@like2view]

Thank You for the video. I've been wanting to do this for some time now. You just saved me a lot of time and trouble. I am short on Darkroom space and new to the concept of pre-flashing. Not sure how I will manage the pre-flash(saw your video) I have this same paper and will use a 4x5 Speed Graphic with the vintage 137 4,5 lens. I wanted to just find out if I can do this. I have an ancient square tank for 4x5 negs from the 1930/40s. I was struck by your concern for reciprocity (never thought about that) and the fear for the accuracy of my shutter. I imagined exposures of f16/22 at three to four seconds.. now I see the sense of opening up a bit. Wish me luck!

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Good luck, show us some results.

[@mattdunn8502]

thanks for this, Joe!

[@petercooper9054]

Thanks for this. I was watching the guy that does top shit photography and he was saying you can't use a light meter for the printing paper he was using but getting a negative then scanning it. I am wanting to try this direct positive on an old brass and maghony camera using some old lenses. That way you have kept away from scanning and taking it to a digital side of things. I will order some now and see what we get. Thank you

[@EFD620G]

Thank You for the video. I've been wanting to do this for some time now. You just saved me allot of time and trouble. I'll be interested in your findings when shooting shadows. Thanks again

[@JourneysEnd1750]

I'm curious to hear if you pre-flashed your paper and does that have any effect on the ISO rating when you make an image?

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Yes, I do preflash, using a low-wattage (7.5 watt) frosted white bulb (similar to a small nightlight bulb), suspended over my darkroom table in a metal housing. There's an early video of mine about preflashing, I'll link it below. Preflashing doesn't as much increase the effective speed of the paper as it does raise the shadow detail a bit. The mid-tone and highlight exposure remains about the same, but the overall contrast is lower, much improved for scenic landscape images, which can become excessively contrasty, because of the preponderance of blue light.

[@Joe_VanCleave]

Here's the video on preflashing. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2SzeIJ8prOlq7c

[@JourneysEnd1750]

I had watched the pre-flash video was just wondering if you did that before you made the tests. I have a Kodak 3A that I'm planning on shooting direct positive paper in 4x5. Like your vids - thanks

[@Joe_VanCleave]

The ISO of the paper is rather complex, I'm wanting to make a video about that. In the summer months it seems faster than the winter months, for scenic photography, because of the difference in UV between winter and summer (and a conventional light meter doesn't reveal that difference directly). The preflashing mainly lifts the shadow detail up, with little affect on the highlights. So it improves tonal range.

[@Joe_VanCleave]

I'll have to go look in my archives to see if this was preflashed.

[@darrylroberts5235]

Awesome, thank you.

[@Igaluit]

I'm not sure what the advantage is of using this type of process.

[@zacharycoronado6749]

1 exposure for an image. No negative, no enlargements, no darkroom work. Just expose, develop, and you have a print

[@Igaluit]

I suppose, but not sure about the quality of the results.

[@joãoAlberto-k9x]

In Allah we trust.