You have to try this! Black and white paper reversal with Bellini Foto and Stenopeika Cameras.

[@hericperez]

One of the things I like most of your channel is that you are learning and experimenting just as I or anyone new to this would. So we are learning together here.

[@the120ist]

Thank you! That's all I can offer, is learning together. The best bit is the comments, and all the new things I learn from you guys watching! Take a look at all the info that people have added to the conversation here in the comments, so much for us all to learn!

[@Joe_VanCleave]

I’ve been doing a similar reversal process using strong hydrogen peroxide and citric acid. I’ve found grade 2 RC paper works well to tame the excess contrast, as it’s not contrast sensitive to the color of light like VC paper is.

[@the120ist]

I've had a few suggestions for taming the contrast, which is great, and quite a few people saying they've tried, or are doing, a similar thing, which is amazing. So hydrogen peroxide and citric acid works too? I'm trying to think now, I may have read about someone else doing that, but finding that it was quite slow in clearing the image? Does that sound right?

[@Joe_VanCleave]

@@the120ist Yes. Use citric acid in place of stop bath, for about 3 minutes. Then into the 12% peroxide, it takes another 3-4 minutes to clear the image. Then a sodium sulfite clearing bath, rinse, and second developer. The paper can be exposed to white light once in the peroxide.

[@user-yc4eo4ig5o]

Also the vc paper is sensitive to blue and green lights, so you can control contrast using multigrade filters depending on the lights as a normal print. Test it might give you control over contrast +further refining with the processing. Good luck🤙

[@grahams5871]

most photo paper is variable contrast. What happens when you shoot your photo with a 00 grade multigrade filter in front of your lens. Or when you fog the paper during developer, you fog it under an enlarger withb a 00 filter in it

[@the120ist]

I've actually now been given some fixed contrast paper to experiment with. Not 00, it's number 2, but still should offer better contrast control than the MG paper I was using. Now, fogging, or pre-flashing, I do need to try. I have avoided it so far because my assumption is that it will achieve lower contrast by essentially giving me incomplete blacks... but I shouldn't rest on those assumptions! Some testing coming in a video soon.

[@gregwardecke]

Perhaps one of the most creative film photography videos I’ve seen in a while. Very anxious to see what you do with landscapes. Thanks for making the video!

[@the120ist]

Thanks greg! Super fun to work with this process. Another testing vid coming up with it, before I start shooting paper with purpose! Won't be long now. Just need my darkroom to thaw out!

[@vintagecameradigest]

Nice! I played around with paper negatives many years ago and was blown away by the lack of grain in the final prints. This looks to be just as much fun. I also like that it’s a one-off process. Makes every image quite special. I thoroughly enjoyed this one! Well, I usually do enjoy your videos, so no surprise there.

[@the120ist]

Each one being a one off is definitely enjoyable, as you say it makes them feel pretty special. A few more outings with this and I hope to have a little more control over the whole process! It was all a bit hit and miss this time around!

[@ShootOnFilm]

I didn't know about these Bellini products. Thanks for sharing!!!!!

[@the120ist]

They announced it a few days ago, but the announcement post on their instagram seems to have disappeared. Not sure what’s going on!

[@bellini_foto]

@@the120ist Thanks for making this video! Apologies for the Instagram post disappearing--all is well though, and we're accepting orders from our distributors for the paper reversal kits.

[@MrBusby]

Really interesting and exciting. Guess I’ll have a new “hobby” in 2024. Thanks for sharing.

[@the120ist]

Definitely a good one to get into! A little bit tricky and lots of variables, but so much opportunity for creativity and creating one of a kind prints. So it’s definitely enticing. And it won’t bankrupt you! Which in our world, is fantastic! Not too many processes around that actually work out cheaper than shooting film!

[@TristanColgate]

I might be mis-remembering, but I think there's also an issue around UV sensitivity of paper. Borut Peterlin has a video on shooting paper negatives, and he talks about the exposure in there (He wasn't doing reversal, but I guess initial exposure issues are still going to be similar).

[@the120ist]

I'll go check out Borut's video on paper negatives, I haven't seen that. But it would make perfect sense that UV is a factor. Paper is orthochromatic, same as a lot of the early processes, so sensitive to blues. It would make sense therefore that its sensitivity would also creep beyond the visible end of the spectrum into the UV. I was hoping that when I was shooting with Bec, her blue eyes would give us some nice effects, but I didn't really get an image technically good enough to really see any of that. I will next time!

[@mikebrowna1461]

Thanks for demo'ing this .... great presentation!

[@the120ist]

Thanks! Glad you found it interesting!

[@001smudge]

A great video and amazingly cheaper process than traditional film, albeit more complicated. I have been shooting LF paper negatives for a few months and I too had problem with paper occasionally getting jammed by the dark slide. I found putting a piece of double sided tape under the paper (in the middle) stopped it from bowing and so far seems to have solved the problem!! keep 'em coming :)

[@the120ist]

I did exactly that on my second outing with the BW rev process (vid coming soon), tiny bit of ds tape. I did half the sheets with tape, half without, as a test, and typically none of the sheets popped out this time, with or without tape!

[@LuciaHewitt]

I loved this, thank you so much for sharing! Epic model too!

[@the120ist]

Thank you! Two epic models!

[@tommimyllymaki]

Interesting stuff, thanks for showing this... I might try this out some day.

[@mitymous1]

That's a really intriguing process, and some cool results.

[@the120ist]

Thanks, I really enjoyed it, more of that coming up on the channel!

[@mrsmscuriositycabinet6925]

This looks like such a fun process. I know the milky blacks of high contrasts can be viewed as flaws but I think they give the photos an almost ethereal feel. I hardly need any encouragement to trawl eBay for an early quarter plate camera but the possibilities of this process are definitely giving me a nudge…

[@the120ist]

It definitely is a fun process. And it feels pretty raw, like the results are in your hands to create how you want to create them. I agree with you, the milky blacks are not displeasing, but what I need to figure out is how to control it all, so that I can get milky blacks when i want milky blacks, you know? I've been out with these sheets again since, and run a load of tests (vid coming v soon now), so hopefully I'm getting closer. Part of the appeal as well, is that you're in control of the size of your sheets, so yep, start looking for a quarter plate! Or better still, a whole plate??

[@tedphillips2951]

I definitely would like to see more about this process. It looks like it could have potential for interesting photos & to me the contrast looks good.

[@the120ist]

There will definitely be more coming up! This video has sparked lots of conversations about method and how to get the best out of it. I'm excited to get out and shoot some more, so lots coming up on this topic!

[@chadpomerleau8731]

Possibly irrelevant, but maybe a useful tie-in from shooting RC Variable contrast paper as negatives. You could consider in-camera filtration (yellow) to help limit the action of the higher contrast (more blue sensitive) layer and shift toward the lower contrast (more yellow sensitive) emulsion.

[@the120ist]

Great idea, and that's exactly what I did next! It works really well, using a 00 darkroom filter really reduces the contrast, as you would expect. But.. and it's a big but... it's at the cost of 4 stops of exposure. So it kinda works for landscapes, but it's going to be a big problem for portraits. Exposure times were insane. I'm about to do a video on a load of experiments with lots of paper stocks and lots of different developers, to see if I can better control the contrast that way. Watch out for that video coming soon!

[@chadpomerleau8731]

@@the120ist. Excellent, I look forward to it! I wonder if you've come across "Beer's two solution variable-contrast developer" for paper. I've had some success with it but have yet to do a proper bit of testing with rc vs fibre comparing low/normal/high contrast mixes, so take it with a grain of salt.

[@the120ist]

@@chadpomerleau8731 Hey hey hey! No spoilers!! That's actually one of the developers I've made a batch of. I actually didn't bother making the metol half, just the hydroquinone half, and if I somehow find I'm getting too little contrast with the hq on its own then I can mix the metol solution. I've also pulled a couple of recipes from Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, so I'll be trying those as well. It's going to be a big ol' testing session!

[@the120ist]

@@chadpomerleau8731 or do I mean the other way around? Did I do the metol? Can't remember, but my plan is to use the low contrast solution on its own to start with.

[@chadpomerleau8731]

@@the120ist I love it (and, apologies)! I've been on the other end of the spectrum mostly, trying to tame Arista Ortho-litho.

[@giacintoboccia9386]

17:15 One thing contributing to white faces is that the paper is not sensitive to red light, so it is a bit like orthochromatic film.

[@the120ist]

But wouldn't that make faces darker?

[@Jim-BobWalton]

Could you use multigrade footers over the lens to reduce contrast? Also, friend of mine uses a cheese cutter hat as a shutter for long exposures. As it’s quite big, it’s easy to take off and replace. He literally throws it over the lens. Works like a charm

[@the120ist]

Yes the mg darkroom filters do work, take a look at my second video on the reversal process. They do a good job of controlling the contrast, but at the expense of about 4 stops of exposure. Which is kind of ok for landscapes, but won't be practical for portraits, which is where I want to take this. I'm about to embark on a long series of experiments with stacks of papers and different developers, to see if I can find the perfect combination to control the contrast without using filters. Watch this space!

[@robbiemer8178]

Well, this IS exciting! It would definitely be a fun and challenging process for me as long ago I settled on developing my prints by time and not by inspection. I needed that consistency to get the results I wanted. This reversal process seems like I will have to relearn some things. Fun! I have made a few photos with an old Kodak folder by cutting paper negatives to tape into the film gate--the camera used some long out of production roll film size (119 maybe? Can't recall right now) and this process seems like a better way to do that. Not sure it would be a "simplification" but it would mean using half the paper and feels like a good alternative.

[@the120ist]

Interestingly, I've had some conversation since posting this video, about not developing by inspection, but in fact working harder to get the exposure correct, and then developing to completion in each dev stage. So, many different things to try out! I feel like it's a little more organic, s a process, there's great opportunity for tweaking what you're doing to suit your own needs. Feels like in there somewhere there's the opportunity to make it your own. Paper negatives in MF, or half or quarter plate cameras could be really interesting. I've got so many old cameras that I only really keep as curios, just because I like looking at them! But this does bring them all back into play. So much experimenting to do!

[@chriscard6544]

the results are impressive here

[@the120ist]

Thank you! I started well with this, then definitely got worse before I for better. All that messing about with filters and the quality took a hit for while! That's the price of experimenting though right?

[@chriscard6544]

@@the120ist yes, that's a cheap alternative to wet/dry plates

[@MrDebone75]

I'm curious since doing the reverse on a negative causes a backward image could you expose the paper from the back side to give a proper orientation of the image. This would of course require a longer exposure. I think a single weight paper would work well for that.

[@the120ist]

For sure, I think you could. But as you say, longer exposure. My goal is to use this setup for portraits, so longer exposures aren't ideal! But would work, I'm sure.

[@jameswaters5888]

I'm in the U.S. Concerned about environment while creating my photography. I'm not familiar with Belini. Which chemicals can be reused, and when; also which chems need to be thrown out, and when? Also how do you test the chems to know when it is time to discard? How toxic are these chems, and how do you use them in relation to pouring down the drain or not? I love the video. A new option.

[@the120ist]

All good questions, and I'm afraid I don't know the full answer to some of them. Bellini are an Italian chemicals company, you can find their website here: www.bellinifoto.it There is an option to see it in English. Not sure how much env info they have on there. I can tell you that the developer is just a standard paper developer, so you could choose which one you use based on its required disposal method. Fixer is just standard fixer, and as you're developing to completion it's sort of an optional step. In theory there shouldn't be any chems left in the paper which need fixing. I have been using fixer, just out of safety and habit, but technically it shouldn't be a necessary step. The two chemicals unique to this process (actually not unique to this process, but different from standard paper developing) are the clarifier and the bleach. The clarifier is a simple sodium sulphite (sulfite) solution. Quick google suggests that this is not considered harmful to the environment, and in fact breaks down into sodium sulphate which is used as a nutrient by plants and bacteria. The bleach is a potassium permanganate based bleach. I haven't mixed my own, but other recipes suggest that it might be mixed with sulphuric acid. Both of these are considered toxic to aquatic life. I've been pouring this into a storage tank for now, but I'll need to figure out how to safely dispose of it soon. Do let me know if you find any more info! The sort of good news is that the potassium permanganate bleach is a modern addition to the process. Historically the bleaching was done with a potassium dichromate bleach, but that is seriously nasty stuff. Apparently you get better results with the dichromate bleach, but that's not a good enough reason for me to go there!

[@davestubularvideos9046]

Really interesting to watch you going through this test and the reversal saves making a contact print, emulsion side to emulsion side. But shouldn’t your resultant image be just as you see it on your ground glass ie back to front? This would normally be corrected with the contact print just using regular chemistry. In your photos there’s one of Bec with her hair brushed over right to left as in the video and others with it left to right. I suspect that some of the exposures have been through the paper into the emulsion from the back because the paper was loaded back to front. They’ll look softer but the ‘right way round’. Yes it is possible. I was surprised to see your first model the ‘right way round’ with the longer end of his scarf on his right. I was watching for this from the start having got it wrong in the past with regular print paper and chemistry. Am I making you wonder? Thanks for the video. I appreciate the trouble you go to!

[@the120ist]

You are indeed making me wonder!! You're absolutely right, of course, that the resultant image should be a mirror of what you shot, as it is in wet plate, or any photography where you shoot onto an 'opaque' backing. It also makes sense that it's possible to expose through the paper, that's the whole theory behind paper negatives, right? I know that Bec (female model) was flicking her hair left and right, so not sure that will be the best indicator. However, the scarf on Rob, to my knowledge, didn't move throughout that shoot. So that would be a good one to watch.

[@matt_phistopheles]

Really interesting process. I will definitely try it once I get my dark room up and running again. Shouldn't it be possible to use multigrade-paper and filters in front of the lens to control the contrast?

[@the120ist]

Someone else suggested that, and a few commenters have said that that is definitely a means of controlling contrast. Not sure if they have to be darkroom filters, or could be photographic filters. I would guess that a roughly equivalent colour would do the same job. I did also have the thought that I could be using more standard filters to even out the images - graduated NDs to bring down the sky a little etc. So that has to be next stop for me on this journey!

[@allinsiteUK]

What about multi grade paper with a suitable cc filter to mimic the enlarger light source wavelength for grade 0 contrast? Also, did you compensate your exposure for bellows extension on your close up portraits? If not then they will have had the equivalent of ISO 8 sensitivity exposure maybe, so maybe that helped. Was the ISO rating of 3 based on 5600 deg kelvin or 3400 deg light source? I do feel that leaving the room light on when second developing was maybe not the most prudent decision. Will have to break out my 10x8 view camera and the old Ilford paper I have and see what I get.. Will leave the reversal routine out of the mix for now and just scan the paper negs though. 😊

[@the120ist]

So dark room filters definitely make a huge difference, although at the cost of about 4.5 stops, so exposure times get a little crazy. I was making the usual bellows extension compensations, but if I'm honest, on this run, I was mixing up the exposure times quite a bit. Take a look at the follow up video where I made much more of an effort to control various elements, so I could actually come to some conclusions. The room light on during the second development is generally said to be ok. What I'm learning as I move forward with this process is that there are literally so many variables that grabbing as many "hard stops" as you can is essential. So both first and second development, and second exposure, are all taken to completion. Provided the original exposure is exactly right, taking the first dev to completion, the over-re-exposing, then dev 2 to completion, will give results that are only based on original exposure. The ISO 3 rating was what was recommended, and I used it as a starting point only. I eventually, after three or four more testing sessions, settled on an ISO rating of about 1.8. But that is likely to be unique to this paper stock, and to that time of year (taking into account the UV sensitivity of the paper). It's been a good month or so since that last testing, summer is coming, and when I head out for the next shoot with this process, I'm worried it will have all changed!! It seems I may be condemning myself to a lifetime of testing, with occasional shoots dropped in there! Thank goodness it's cheap.

[@davidbanwell7728]

Wow impressive work

[@the120ist]

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed the video.

[@felixdesacco5112]

Inspiring Video, thank you! Did you use a Remote trigger with your Schneider? If so, what Kind of thing was it?

[@the120ist]

I did, it was a Revenue Labs remote release - www.reveni-labs.com/shop/p/remote-control-mechanical-shutter-release They're sold out at the moment, but Matt hopes to make a batch pretty soon I think, so keep checking back.

[@thenutter2003]

cool video i have only used the harman positive paper before seems to work your right about the cost of 4x5 film ilford film over £2 a sheet you do have to think more about the shots you take.

[@the120ist]

Yeah definitely more expensive. I confess though, I've never tried it. I really should one day!

[@stigofthedump4058]

Great video, thanks so much for putting it together, the new Bellini kit has definitely been my radar since it was announced. Loved the theory explanation, it's not often these things are done so well, and knowing about the speed of the 2nd developer too is really useful. Something I'll have to give a try for sure, I'm wondering if any of the other slightly more expensive papers might offer more gradient in tone, I think the cost per sheet would still be very affordable with say Ilford MGRC Deluxe. I guess there's only one way to find out 👍

[@the120ist]

I'm actually using Ilford MGRC paper in the vid, that's what i had available. I used the Kentmere numbers as the cheapest readily available, but was using MGRC. I've just finished a second outing using this technique, and on the advice of some others on here opted to develop to completion on the second dev stage, instead of by inspection, and it is definitely better than trying to pull the sheets. Plus means you don't need the second 1+9 bath on top of the 1+4, you just let it run its course. Anything to reduce the variables! Definitely finding that the paper has very little latitude though... I think I'm getting about 2 stops between full black and full white, which is hardly ideal! Am about to start some testing with filters as well, whole vid coming in the next couple of days.

[@stigofthedump4058]

Thanks so much for the update, really useful, I shall look forward to the new vid 👍👍

[@PhotographyOnline]

What about putting a #0 or 1 filter over the lens at the capture stage? Assuming you’re using VC paper, surely this would help reduce the contrast?

[@the120ist]

Oooh, there's a thought. That would make sense right? They're designed to alter the contrast in multi-grade paper. I shall try that on my next outing! Thanks for the idea!

[@PhotographyOnline]

@@the120ist yeah the thing to do would be to order a set of filters from Ilford and take the same scene using a #1, #0, and maybe even a #00 if the scene is contrasty. Then develop each one identically to see the difference, The only issue I see is that such filters aren’t designed to go in front of the lens, so may impact on image quality slightly, but I doubt you’ll notice this as you are only recording a 1:1 size image. Well worth a try, as this would be a much simpler solution to control contrast but still achieve a true black and true white.

[@jalakanen]

I have shitload old 5x7 agfa paper. Maybe i need to test this and grab some portraits

[@the120ist]

Sounds like a match made in heaven! Grab that camera and get some paper loaded!

[@sardonicus6708]

A great video! I've been doing this for years, since I saw it done by Joe Van Cleave. I use normal paper developer 1+9 and potassium permanganate 1g +250ml of water mixed with 13.5g of sodium bisulphide+ 250ml water for the bleach. I'm going to give the bellini kit a go as I'm curious about the clarifier. As someone else pointed out, UV is the part that most people overlook. I have a bank of UV's that I use for still lifes, and occasionally portraits.

[@the120ist]

Ah amazing! I hadn't heard about it until I was very kindly sent the Bellini kit, but I've really been enjoying the process and trying to perfect my approach to it. From a fair bit of reading online, although yet to be fully confirmed, I believe the clarifier is to ensure that all the PP bleach is cleared from the paper, and it doesn't leave any purple stains. Really interesting about using UV lights for still life. I have some UV lights that I use for clearing fungus and haze from lenses. No good for portraits of course, if you have any care for your subjects! But a good thought for other subjects. I've searched in vain for any kind of UV meter that could give a better understanding of the amount of UV light on a specific day... or from a light source. I don't suppose you know of any such thing??

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

This is great and people have been doing it with colour paper for quite awhile. The only problem is that you only have one original, without a negative you cannot make multiple prints which for limited editions would be a problem. 🤔

[@the120ist]

For sure, if I ever needed to make limited edition prints of my work, then yes, this would be difficult! But, luckily for me, no one is interested in copies of my photographs!!! On a serious note though, yes of course, that is a limitation of this process. But I have no doubt that somebody somewhere has a solution!

[@davewalker6760]

​@@the120istin theory you can make a reversal contact print 😊

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

@@the120istI guess if you have the right exposure and dev setup, you just take multiple pictures of the same subject. Although tricky with changing weather and peoples expressions, etc. with Afghan cameras they used to take a photo of the negative to invert the image using the same box. Another potential solution - but long winded. Interesting process. Joe Van Cleave and Ethan Moses did quite a bit of work with reversal colour. The same process pretty much except having to use 'filters' on the camera to get the correct casts. Mat Marrash has also done a lot with the colour reversal paper technique. All worth a watch ;)

[@kpkndusa]

I think the close up's are darker because of bellows greater extension that require either longer exposure or opening the stop. In my experience exposing the bleached paper too long to light will darken the image.

[@the120ist]

I'm sure you're right. I don't recall now whether I accounted for bellows extension when taking the images. But could well be. Lots more videos coming very soon on the paper reversal process.

[@mr_t_green7860]

This is great! can you use any paper or this process? have you experimented with others?

[@the120ist]

Yep you can use any paper... I have not yet experimented with other stocks, although I am gradually building a collection of alternatives and will be posting a vid on that soon! At the time I did this video the only paper I had was the Ilford MGRC, so that's what I used. And my big excitement with the process is how cheap it can be, so it didn't make sense to go straight out and spend 300 bucks on a load of different stocks! But more coming, for sure!

[@RobertCharlesMann]

You might try multigrade paper with a yellow filter for less contrast.

[@andyvan5692]

if the time is too short, try diluting the developer, as if its like Ilford's Ilfosol 3, ID11 and others, you have two dilutions, 1+9 and 1+14 (aka for 1L mix 100mL chemical with 900mL water); with this dilute solution its less strong, so takes more time to react, and similar to Reciprocity failure in film exp. if you use chemistry, etc. such that it takes 3-5 seconds or less, it affects the image, to my amateur understanding, so diluting gives enough time to think, and also if you used a long table, and arranged the steps in order, less time wasted moving around, and it gets done more efficiently. {perhaps use normal 1+9 dilution with the first DEV, and the more dilute one in the second step- you are developing the whole sheet in step 1, in the latter development, you only have ~ half the image to do, so at full power thats the reason it goes so fast, perhaps also using a less contrasty dev. in the latter step to make the process easier, and help with the contrast issue}.

[@kstrohmeier]

This is really interesting and fun.

[@the120ist]

I'm genuinely excited about it! I think it could have some exciting applications. I'm already planning my next shoots, to try to fine-tune the process!

[@davefaulkner6302]

Certainly not as much fun, but Harmon has a direct positive paper that uses ordinary paper developer (e.g., Dektol), with no bleach, to get a positive print. It's a high contrast look that is very sensitive to exposure levels, and so is difficult to shoot. The Bellini process probably has better mid-tones and the flash procedure has some perks, so both processes have their pros and cons. The Harmon process can be done in the same tank I use to develop 4x5 negatives, so is more convenient but is more expensive. By the Bellini process description, similar to C41, I would guess that the second development should be to completion, assuming the bleach has done its job. Control comes from the camera exposure and first development timing. Pull the paper from the first developer when it looks right, bleach, clarify, and then develop to completion. Developing to completion on the second developer should give you deep blacks and good highlights.

[@the120ist]

After this video I spent a long time doing more research, and speaking to a few people who do this process regularly. One of the great things about having this channel is that when I make a pigs ear of processes in my videos, knowledgable people often pipe up to help me get better at it! I'm very lucky! So the 'improved' process actually takes both the first and second developments to completion. I have tried many times to control either of the development stages with poor results. Control over exposure is therefore all in-camera. Control over contrast is a different thing! I'm currently experimenting with different papers and developers to see what I can achieve with that. The use of a yellow filter with VC paper does the job, but at the cost of -4 stops of exposure. And with a starting point of ISO 1.8 (ish), the yellow filter is really not going to be much use for portraits, which is where I would like to take this! Lots more experimentation with this process both already on the channel, and coming up soon!

[@tsilmanav]

Its going to sound stupid, but I wonder what this would look like if you did the same process with film? This is the first video of yours I've seen, but it is great. Also that first photo that you think was under exposed and over developed still had a great look. Fantastic video.

[@the120ist]

Hey, thank you! Interesting question... would it work with film. So, from my incomplete knowledge of all this, my guess would be that it would work. It's the same base-level photosensitive chemicals at work, and the same conversion process - silver halides to metallic silver. It would be difficult, because you wouldn't be able to work under safe lights, you'd have to do each step either in a tank or in total darkness, unless you had an orthochromatic film of course. Then you'd also have to remove the film from the tank to re-expose it. I think you'd also have to ask yourself why you're doing it! I suspect you would get better and more consistent results from BW transparency film. You would also end up with positives on the film, which some might say are less useful than negatives perhaps? Having said all that... you've got me thinking. I feel like I need to try it... we need to know, right?

[@the120ist]

So it turns out you can do this with film! Here's a link thanks to @davethewalker80 on instagram (if you're not following him yet, go check him out, he's doing some fascinating work with paper reversal, very knowledgeable on all this! www.ilfordphoto.com/reversal-processing/

[@davidspidell4270]

Cost wise, how does this compare with doing a contact print using the same paper negitive? I just bought a Voigtlander Avus 6.5x9 plate camera. It needs some work, but i hope to use paper negitives or ortho sheet film. Being able to develop under a safe light would help a rooky like me to begin using sheet film.

[@the120ist]

I suspect there's not much in it. Cost will probably work out to be roughly the same. More chemicals needed for paper reversal, but more paper required for contact printing from paper negs. So it will probably come out about even I reckon. Both oprtions will be cheaper than orthodoxy film though, or x-ray film. Paper is just cheaper than film! Being able to load and develop under safelight is a huge thing! Makes the whole process much quicker for me!

[@svetlovska]

Rob is a star

[@the120ist]

He's great isn't he?! I just have to resist using him as the model on all my shoots! It's tempting!

[@andrewwilkin1923]

Bit confused here. After re-exposing the image to light shouldn't you re-develop and fix under a safe light?

[@the120ist]

No, because you are exposing all the remaining silver halide crystals on the paper. You can't fog it, because the only un-developed crystals remaining on the paper are the ones which weren't developed in the first dev bath. So you're not concerned with exposing the wrong crystals, only the intensity with which you expose the remaining ones. Does that make sense? So, when you re-expose, you're exposing all the remaining silver halide crystals. The whole sheet. But the only patches that remain are the ones which weren't dissolved by the bleach.

[@davewalker6760]

No need. You've removed the negative image already so everything left is the positive you want. You re expose to completion and develop, then there's nothing left to fix because you already removed it

[@the120ist]

@@davewalker6760 Why am I fixing then? Is that an unnecessary step? Actually I suppose it would be important to fix if I have stopped the development early, no?

[@davewalker6760]

@@the120ist I never fix mine! But I always develop to completion

[@andrewwilkin1923]

@@the120ist @davewalker6760 Thanks for clarifying. Often thought of using LF but the cost of the film always put me off. This may be a way to get over the initial learning curve.

[@TrueCA7777]

Has chemically fogging the paper after the bleach instead of re-exposing an advantage?

[@the120ist]

What do you mean by chemically fogging? There is another method for this process, used in BW analogue photo booths, where instead of re-exposing and developing after bleaching, you use some form of toner to bring out the remaining image. Not to sure on the benefits or otherwise of doing it that way though!

[@TrueCA7777]

@@the120ist i mean exposing the film using chemicals instead of light. Like step 3 in the E-6 process or step 4 in the Bellini B&W film reversal kit.

[@genetownsend2598]

I suggest you control the length of the flash exposure to control density. After develop, bleach, and clear, instead of turning on room lights, flash the paper under the enlarger for controlled periods of time, then fully develop to gain uniformity. You will need to experiment to determine flash exposure times. If using VC paper, flash with same contrast filter as well. Then, you will need to fix the prints, since there will remain some unexposed silver on the paper.

[@the120ist]

Definitely lots of good advice coming from these comments. I think the develop to completion idea is a good one, for sure. As I think I said in the video, just too many variables in what I was doing to hope to get any kind of consistency!

[@danilofabbroni3067]

VERY INTERESTING THANKS!

[@IainHC1]

What are your thoughts on positive BnW paper?

[@the120ist]

To be honest, I haven't actually tried it. I hear good things, but the one thing you lose is that it's quite expensive. This process is crazy cheap, compare to almost anything else. I should really give direct positive paper a go though. Maybe a vid soon on that...

[@IainHC1]

@@the120ist Ill look forward to watching it 🙂

[@petepictures]

Have you tried it with Foma paper, nice video.

[@the120ist]

You have literally just watched my first two ever attempts at this! And I only had Ilford MGRC, so haven't tried anything else. I want to give Foma paper a go, and I want to get some Kentmere. So many options!

[@petepictures]

I've been there many times, diving in tests and experiments........it will take all of your time. @@the120ist

[@chrisrigby3694]

One thing to consider is the photographic papers you are using has orthochromatic emulsions. I think this is the reason why you are getting these results from your skin tones.

[@the120ist]

For sure it's a consideration. I've been out recently with some darkroom filters, see if a 00 can bring that contrast down a bit. Haven't developed those sheets yet, but when i do the video will be along soon after!

[@mc-ec3bu]

please please try a yellow/green filter it will solve most or all your problems. i must be a yellow/green Just try it.

[@the120ist]

I have actually just been out and shot with a yellow filter... and it had some interesting effects. I have to go out and shoot more now because I didn't get a decent exposure at all, but that video is going very soon.

[@the120ist]

Early results from trying a yellow filter suggest it kills pretty much everything! I need to do more testing, but a 0 or maybe 1 stop yellow filter seems to be sapping about 2-3 stops from the paper senstivity. Video coming very soon on this!

[@SilntObsvr]

I do not know where you're getting photo paper for that kind of money. The cheapest graded paper I can find (Freestyle's .EDU Ultra Grade 2, which avoids the need to fool around with contrast filters while making your exposure) is $135 or so (plus shipping) for a box of 100, which after cutting down to 4x5 works out around 38 cents a sheet. Variable contrast is a few dollars more per box. Reversal chemistry also isn't free (it's actually probably cheaper to rephotograph your negative to get a positive, like the Afghan Box Camera street photographers do), so I'm going to assume you're into this for a good bit more than half a dollar, 50p, per finished print. Still lots cheaper than the last generation of B&W peel-apart Fuji instant films, especially after allowing for a couple decades of inflation, but nothing like 25 cents a print.

[@the120ist]

I've just checked again, and it does look like prices have gone up a bit. At today's prices at B&H, 100 8x10 sheets of Kentmere VC is $90, so 22.5 cents per 4x5 sheet. When I did the research for this video the price was around $78, giving you 18.75 cents per 4x5. Agreed the reversal chemistry isn't free, I accounted for this in my intro. I don't have the figures to hand now, but the Bellini BW Paper reversal kit I was using was described as being sufficient for a certain area of paper, x square meters. The kit itself was not on sale yet, so I didn't have a price to use, I assumed £50 for my sums, and came to, admittedly with a little rounding down for effect here and there, 25 cents per sheet. I think if I did the sums again, accounting for price increase in paper and current sale price of the chemistry, I'd put money on it still coming in under 40 cents per sheet, probably closer to 35. My comparison was not really against peel apart, but against what I've been doing so far, which is shooting sheet film and dark room printing from that. And it's definitely a LOT cheaper than that. Of course there are many other options. Re-shooting to give you a positive, contact printing through a paper negative etc. This wasn't meant to be a comprehensive explanation and price comparison of all photographic techniques, just a look at BW paper reversal, spurred on by the release of Bellini's chemistry kit.

[@SilntObsvr]

@@the120ist Okay, I checked Freestyle but not B&H, so didn't see Kentmere (Freestyle apparently doesn't cover it). I'd still (I think) prefer graded paper, though one might have to test whether grade 2, 3, or 4 would work best for reversal (grade 2 is confirmed by Joe van Cleave to work best for rephotography, hence I'd expect it to be preferred for contact printing of a paper negative as well). Either way, though, compared to starting with even Fomapan sheet film, paper negative (to whatever form of positive you wind up with) probably *is* the cheapest way to get to a print. The Afghan Box method gets that print in as little as about ten minutes from initial exposure, which is comparable to the full development of Instax or integral Polaroid materials, and multiple copies can be made from the same negative if desired (which was the main reason the more or less modern negative/positive process -- the Talbotype -- caught on even before wet plate collodion was invented).

[@iNerdier]

As you discovered, 5x4 sheet film is fractionally smaller than the advertised size. It’s more like 100 x 125mm (or 3-7/8 x 4-7/8 if you were born before 1980) though different manufacturers seem to vary it slightly. Supposedly glass plates were the exact dimensions but film that fit in the same space was slightly smaller to account for the sides to hold it in place. Confusingly 10x8 is actually 10x8…

[@RobertBrazile]

I was told the slightly smaller dimensions was to allow for the "sheet film adapters" sold to convert plate holders to film holders, as most people had the former. Why 8x10 would be different I sure couldn't say; would have assumed it was the same situation there.

[@the120ist]

So strange. And also strange that it changes between the manufacturers! I know I've got some plate holders which are totally different sizes to most of the plates available. But hey, that's what we love about this isn't it? The complication of it all!

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

After you expose to white light you should develop (2nd) with the lights OUT! This will stop you over exposing the print. If not while in the developer you are still exposing to white light - therefore you will have no control over the process and times… after you have fully developed for the 2nd time (about a minute) you can stop bath and turn on the lights - personally I would keep the lights off all the time EXCEPT on the 2nd exposure to white light to stop light contamination - remember you are dealing with a light sensitive material and controlling the process is key 👍

[@the120ist]

I hear you. However... with two exposures and developments, plus varying paper stocks, UV sensitivity etc., this process has so many variables that I'm currently on a mission to reduce those wherever possible. So, how my process is currently running, is that the first dev, the second exposure, and the second dev, are all being taken to completion. The first development, and the following bleaching, should develop and then remove ALL silver halide crystals that have seen even the tiniest bit of light. The the second exposure is essentially an exposure to completion - there should be almost nothing left of undeveloped silver halides, so I can expose to completion and then develop to completion. So room lights on shouldn't be a major issue. That's my theory anyway!! If the second exposure is timed, then we're adding another huge variable into the mix. I may be getting it all wrong. Time, and testing, will tell!

[@JonathanCampDesigner]

@@the120ist it’s a very interesting process, I think it’s a process that’s well worth persevering with as the cost of negative material is so expensive these days! The only downside is making multiple copies from the one photograph. In a way each photograph is unique, more unique in fact than using a negative, so it is a pure one off print. This makes it invaluable. I’ll be very interested to see how you progress with the process. There are loads of other people also working on the process so I would keep tuned to them as well. Good luck and keep us posted.👍