[alt-photo] Re: Paper Negatives

[Paul Viapiano]

Diana,

I learned to make traditionally enlarged negs on APHS film and had great 
results, although as you mention, it can be very tedious. I loved the 
results though and still believe it to be the best for sharpness and clarity 
on hot press watercolor paper. I'm looking forward to going back to working 
with them in larger sizes to master the process (or maybe I'm just a 
darkroom masochist). I feel I can learn a lot by working this way, but I 
won't abandon digital negs.

The recent Irving Penn Small Trades show at the Getty Museum showed his 
amazing platinum prints, of course using traditionally enlarged negs. They 
were breathtaking in their clarity and tone. Penn, as many of you know, not 
only used enlarged negatives but sometimes several different ones for 
different areas of tonality in the same print. What a show!

Paul


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diana Bloomfield" <dhbloomfield at bellsouth.net>
To: <geoff at geoffgallery.net>; "The alternative photographic processes 
mailing list" <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 8:15 PM
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: Paper Negatives


> Thanks, Geof.  Interesting.  I get that not everyone is "wedded to 
> computers" for negatives.  I also use LF in-camera negatives, but when  I 
> want something much larger (than the LF cameras/film I'm willing to  lug 
> around), making digital negatives has been nothing short of an  absolute 
> dream.  I personally can't imagine going back into a  traditional darkroom 
> to make negatives.  I was never a fan of the  darkroom anyway, but I 
> remember making enlarged negatives (the old- fashioned way) as way too 
> much work, way too frustrating, not all that  inexpensive, taking up too 
> much time, and the worst-- just too damn  dark in that darkroom.   In the 
> end, it may be less expensive to do it  that way (not having to purchase a 
> printer, etc), but I always feel  that (my) time is worth money, too.
>
> I have used paper negatives, in camera, which were commercial RC photo 
> papers, and when used to make a positive-- those final images were 
> definitely much softer than what I would have gotten had I just used  film 
> (of any type). Of course, those positives were also contacted  onto 
> commercial photo paper, not on any transparency/film material.   So I 
> don't think that soft look is limited solely to "non-photo paper 
> material."  Then again, maybe sharpness is relative.