Do you peel it or use it as is?
Brigitte Harper
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Paper negatives
Author: MIME:photos@campos-davis.co.uk at LDNINTERNET
Date: 17/12/1999 11:33
We use Kentmere Variable Contrast resin coated paper which is fantastic for paper negs. Kodak paper has their name printed on the back so this appears on the final picture, but Kentmere doe snot have the name on it. Ilford is also good, but the Kentmere can make a very low contrast print and retain a very deep black aswell.
Hope that is of use.
Campos & Davis Photos
6 Cranbourne Road
London N10 2BT - UK
Tel: + 44 181 883 8638
Fax: +44 208883 8638
email: photos@campos-davis.co.uk
www.campos-davis.co.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca> Sent: 17 December 1999 00:17
Subject: Re: Paper negatives
> Gene,
>
> I'm in last minute crunch to get to printer so no time for detail, but
> PF#4 has article on paper negs, and it seems which kind to use is .... a > personal choice. For obvious reasons (lies flat, not fiber) most prefer > RC, but others prefer fiber base. How's that for definitive answer?
>
> However, I'm curious when you say "large sheets". Do you have such a large > camera, or is it pinhole?
>
> Judy
>
> ................................................................. > | Judy Seigel, Editor >
> | World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY" > | info@post-factory.org >
> | <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
> ................................................................. >
>
> On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 erobkin@uwc.edu wrote: >
> > I am starting a series of experiments using large sheets of printing paper
> > to make in-camera negatives. My first crude attempt succeeded very well but
> > before I get deeply into this I'd like to know what papers other people may
> > have tried and how they worked.
> >
> > Yes I know, check the archives, but as I remember most of that concentrated
> > on separating the top layer of RC paper from the rest without much detail on
> > just what paper was involved. I'd like to avoid the separation step. My
> > experiment used intact paper and worked just fine assuming ASA of 1 with 12
> > seconds exposure at f8 in the camera. Great detail, very encouraging. Gave
> > a good print and the pale Kodak logo on the back did not print through. At
> > the moment I am guessing that RC paper is the way to go. > >
> > On another note, I am trying to locate some process lenses with FL's in the
> > 800 mm range and above for another experiment. So far the two I located had
> > price tags way out of my reach. I've restricted myself to a sub poverty > > budget for this one. Does anyone have any information to share on sources
> > to check out for these. For what it's worth I've several lenses in the 200
> > mm FL range and lower. Maybe someone will entertain a trade. Off line > > communications on the lenses would probably be best.
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Eugene Robkin
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:49