mh2000
Well-known
I'm wanting to experiment with some large format paper negatives and I read that taming the contrast is a bit problematic. People online showing examples that I like seem to be developing their paper negatives in dilute Rodinal. I don't seem to be able to find my old bottle of the stuff, but have been using Tmax Dev for my film (mostly because it is fine grained, liquid and has a very long shelf life -- though not as long as Rodinal!). I can't find anyone commenting on using Tmax.
So my question is, has anyone used Tmax film Dev for paper negatives? What dilution? How were the results?
Thanks!
So my question is, has anyone used Tmax film Dev for paper negatives? What dilution? How were the results?
Thanks!
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I seem to recall that paper developers are much stronger than film developers so it would probably work but would involve very long development times, unless the paper totally exhausted the active agents in the film developer and didn't complete development.
When I produced paper negatives to contact print from B&W transparencies, I used standard paper developer but at 1/4 to 1/2 strength solutions. that seemed to produce useable results.
Nothing will answer the question better than a few experiments with a stepped scale and test development, of course.
G
When I produced paper negatives to contact print from B&W transparencies, I used standard paper developer but at 1/4 to 1/2 strength solutions. that seemed to produce useable results.
Nothing will answer the question better than a few experiments with a stepped scale and test development, of course.
G
mh2000
Well-known
Thanks! Getting a starting point from someone with experience isn't a bad way to go, especially when the ISO rating is linked to development, but if nothing else, I'll try to modify the Rodinal recommendations to reflect the activity of TMax and go from there! I think since it's expensive, most people avoid TMax, so I don't really expect much chance of anyone else using this combo.
This current absurd path was my desire to design and 3D print a 4x5 camera and use an old Kodak Rapid Rectilinear for a lens, but after buying a very nice working Kodak No. 3 Model C camera, I got the bug to shoot it in its natural "postcard" format. And since 122 film is pretty unobtainium, I was thinking I could roll some paper negatives behind some black paper and maybe get 4 or 5 shots per roll in it. I also decided I'd feel bad cannibalizing the camera for it's lens, so I've ordered 195mm simple meniscus lens to design a Wollanston landscape lens system around.
I don't know why I find such projects so addictive when they rarely result in great photography... but I guess all projects result in some learning... and maybe there is tangential benefits in that!
This current absurd path was my desire to design and 3D print a 4x5 camera and use an old Kodak Rapid Rectilinear for a lens, but after buying a very nice working Kodak No. 3 Model C camera, I got the bug to shoot it in its natural "postcard" format. And since 122 film is pretty unobtainium, I was thinking I could roll some paper negatives behind some black paper and maybe get 4 or 5 shots per roll in it. I also decided I'd feel bad cannibalizing the camera for it's lens, so I've ordered 195mm simple meniscus lens to design a Wollanston landscape lens system around.
I don't know why I find such projects so addictive when they rarely result in great photography... but I guess all projects result in some learning... and maybe there is tangential benefits in that!
