[alt-photo] Re: Paper Negatives

[Paul Viapiano]

Chris...

I liked what I saw in Peter's work using the paper negs, so I started experimenting and liked the results enough to continue trying tricolor gum with them. Three pieces of paper are a lot less expensive than OHP, especially when trying out new ideas.

That being said, I find OHP sharper, easier to register and more defined than paper negs, but not to the degree you'd expect. I found that the paper being used for the print itself played a bigger role. Paper negs printed on Fab EW were very detailed, while negs printed on Rives BFK were dreamy/grainy/ethereal-like.

For me, they are just another tool in the kit.

Here are two tricolor images with paper negs on Rives:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4155163449/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4138755731/

Here's a tricolor image with paper negs on Fab EW:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4066872861/

And a single color on Rives:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/viapiano/4235624537/

These are all 2 minute sun exposures (So California cloudless).

For the record, gum is the only process I've printed with the paper negs.

Let me know what you think!

Paul




----- Original Message ----- 
From: <zphoto at montana.net>
To: "The alternative photographic processes mailing list" <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 10:19 AM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Paper Negatives


> Paul,
> Refresh my memory:  what do you feel is the advantage of
> these waxed paper negatives over Inkpress, Pictorico, or
> Arista OHP?  Taking time, mess, purchase of beeswax and
> Epson paper, for instance.  Is there a visual effect that
> you achieve with the thicker paper? And if it is only cost,
> have you figured out a per-negative cost to doing it this
> way?
> I have never tried it, finding Pictorico excellent, but for
> BW this would have some good possibilities.
> Chris