We are often asked about the Direct Positive paper and how to get the best from it, what pre-flashing does and, how prints on this paper look. We hope that Rachel answers all of these questions for you in this video. Please let us know below if there’s anything else that you’d like to know.
Hello Rachel.. I received a shipment of harman paper positive direct online purchase and I was really happy with that after a long wait. I was eager to do my first attempt at shooting with my pinhole camera. After small failures, my first photo succeeded, but I was amazed and surprised and I could not believe what happened after the development with caffeinol. A negative image 🤯😬appeared instead of a positive one, and it became clear that the first paper was negative paper, as for the rest of the paper so far I have not tried it.. It seems that there is a manufacturing error or something, although the paper is a new pink color, which explains that I am waiting for an answer.. Thank you🤔
@@abohosamabohosam4178 This doesn't sound right. The wrong paper couldn't have gone in the box. Our Direct Positive is pink before being exposed. Could you get in touch via the contact for on ilfordphoto.com and explain your procedure please and we can try to help
@@Ilfordphoto I sent you a message through your ilford photo page on Instagram, and you mentioned the problem in detail with the addition of the first photo that I took, which appeared negatively, and scanned it positively..and a picture of the paper package that I received, its data and number..waiting for your response..thank you.
@@abohosamabohosam4178 We can receive 300 messages a day through IG so it's unlikely you will receive a response here. Please use the contact forma on our website and somebody will come back to you www.ilfordphoto.com/contact-us
Been having a look on the internet about this process and paper combination, and found all the answers in this excellent video tutorial. Clearly and thoroughly explained by Rachel. Simple and to the point. Well done Ilford, rachel and the rest of the team.
I use it for pinhole photography and the results are exactly as I expected. I rate the paper at ISO 5 as per exposure calculations. Any other comments and hints are welcome. Thanks for the sharing experiences.
I used this to print color slide film (in B&W) at home! I couldn’t figure out how to reduce the contrast sufficiently though…even with pre-flashing. A low contrast version would be nice 🙂.
We would normally suggest pre flashing or pre exposure as on the technical data sheet but if you've already tried this then I'm not sure what else to suggest www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1739/product/720/
Did a darkroom print on DPP with a 6x9 slide of Provia 100. Turned out great. I have also shot it in camera with interesting results. I like the high contrast, but I should try the preflash.
@@Ilfordphoto this is the initial reason I bought the direct positive, but I recently purchased a Crown Graphic 4x5 camera so I plan to practice with the paper.
I have thought on multiple occasions that this (used with the Obscura) would be the way for me to get into 4x5 without having to also have a way to scan/print 4x5 negatives. It is still on my to-do list!
I rewatched it upwards of 3 times before the logic of exposing to just above blackade sense, due to how much I habe used regular paper. It's not my first DPP rodeo, either.
Give it a try and let us know what you think. Although, if you've darkroom printed traditionally in the past you may be best just getting a small pack of the MULTIGRADE paper and printing with that to start with
Just got hold of a Butcher & Son The MIDG NO.0 drop plate falling camera from around 1904? came with 12 plates. Originally used with glass negatives but would be interesting to try this paper out in it :-)
Wow. I don't think i've ever seen one of those. Are they the ones with the big spring at the back? If you shoot with the HARMAN Direct Positive then please let us know how you get on!
Hi - I’m new to using DPP and pre-flashing, and this video has helped me understand a bit more. I noticed that you did the test strip based on an exposure duration of 2-3 seconds at f16 through your enlarger, and I was wondering - after preflashing the DPP, would I shoot the scene as normal (ie expose based on the desired shutter speed and aperture and assuming the ISO at 5), or do I need to underexppse the scene to make up for the pre-flash (and if so, how much should I underexpose?)
The one part of the sample pre-flash and non pre-flash that I don't understand is why did you recover more highlights in the pre-flash? Did you also reduce image exposure time to recover detail in the brick wall? In my experience pre-flashing positive paper will recover otherwise lost shadows, where as pre-flashing negative paper will bring out otherwise lost highlights. I was confused about this when I first watched this video yesterday, but since then I have gone back through my pre-flash tests with Ilford positive paper and confirmed this rule.
I believe (and someone correct me if I'm not understanding) by doing the preflight you are eliminating the toe in of the paper; that is the region in which the paper is exposed to light but remains completely white (or in the positive case black) after development. Thus, less light is required for an image to form in the highlights.
It is really a helpful video for use of Direct positive paper. I enjoyed and got idea to some extent. However I would like to know " What chemical did you use to dip the positive paper in the tray before you got the final print out ?
Now my stupid question of the day. I have just loaded my holders with harman 4x5, but unlike film they don't have a way to tell the correct size. Although I was using a red lamp, it was not straightforward to understand as a) it was the first time loading paper instead of film and b) it's been some 35 year since last time i printed and handled film paper instead of negatives :-) So my best guess to tell which was the right side was to guess that the emulsion was on the reflecting side of the paper, while opaque was the back. I didn't shoot, yet so I am still in time to invert the loading if I goofed :-D Thanks for any suggestion and hint
You're absolutely right, the reflective side is the emulsion side. A couple of other ways to tell are if you lay the paper on a flat surface it will always curl slightly towards the emulsion side. You can also touch it lo your lips and the emulsion side will stick:)
great alternative to slide film, but can you do a video on developing slide film, as it is quite simmilar, in that you get a positive out of the film, and you still can get slide or transparency film today ( Kodac E100, Fuji Velvia 50 & velvia 100) ; and this type of film is quite an old technology (so not as well known about, esp. how to process it in the darkroom).
I'll add it to the list Andy. In the meantime have you seen this post that we did on reversal processing black and white film? www.ilfordphoto.com/reversal-processing/
@@Ilfordphoto yes an interesting article, but most people associate "reversal" to mean processing a colour negative in b&w for a monotone print, aka d76 used instead of C41 or for complex work, such as selenium toning or older printing methods like degerotype, or things like the ofset printing plate making on acetate materials and the like; where silver ions are replaced by different ions to cause different affects.
Love the idea of this but everytime i develop my pinhole photos they are blank. My ILFORD negative paper turns out just fine using the same process though. Might just stick to that
Hello! thanks for posting this video. I wanted to ask you because I don't find any information about what is the film made of. Do you know if this would be suitable for vegan people trying to keep doing analog photography?
All of our film and paper products contain animal gelatin. We have tried to substitute gelatine with other things but as yet none perform to the same standard www.ilfordphoto.com/faqs/advice-vegans-faqs/
realy good video, but what asa do you rate the paper?, as for simmilar papers, like x-ray film they have a low asa of 3 or so, if what I have seen on other videos are correct. also with reciprocity for this paper, as what Rachel aluded to in the fibre based video, there is extra issues with the chemistry, ie the drying of the print and it's affect on the contrast.
Hi, I gave it a go and the first time I was so excited to see the results that I bought a second box because I really love the process. Unfortunately the second and third time I was not lucky at all. I pre flashed the paper as before but when I developed the paper resulted completely white after 2 minutes of developing. Because I thought I loaded up the paper the other way around in the camera, I tried to expose the paper (while in the develop tray) with my smart watch and continued developing. The imaged started appearing! But was a bad result obviously. Since then I had not any luck. Always the same developer used (E72, fresh batch), checked the temperature and always the same technique, but nothing pop out.Always white paper. I already used a whole box. Any idea? Any suggestion? Cheers, Andrea
Nice info, but I am a bit confused how you are calculating the pre-flash time, as - you said 2 to 3 secs increments - just before turning black - you said your enlarger calculates 3 secs, but counting the stripes (5 or 6) this mean you are testing with 0.5 secs increments and not 2 or 3 secs???? And is this preflashing method the oppossite of pre flash expired paper as we just want to get the time the paper turns "grayish" Cheers, Stay healthy, stay safe and keep it analog
I was confused at first being so used to negative printing is tricky to think the other way. But this is how I understand the concept, devloping a positive paper with no exposure at all will become completely black, and the longer you expose the paper it will become increasingly more white. (just the oposite of negative paper.) So at 2:38 in the video when she shows the test strip I belive the bottom of the paper has 0 sec exposure (completely black), then the next strip above that has 3 sec exposure (almost completely black) and the one above that has 6 sec (deep gray) and so on and on until at the top the paper is very light with maybe around 20 sec exposure.
Have a look here at the technical data sheet and see if that makes it clearer. You are looking for the point that you will start to see detail in the shadows. www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/1739/product/720/
@@kristjank Your explanation sounds legit and it explains how Rachel/Ilford came up with the 3 secs. I need to try out some positive paper myself. I normally make a paper negative and then a paper positive just with contact print.
@@barryvanweldam9882 positive paper completely does my head in when trying to "think" about adding or subtracting light. It's akin to growing up in the Northern Hemisphere and then moving to Australia and trying work out which direction is North based on where the sun is :)
@@mjones410 ........thanks to you I realized I have never been to/on/in the Southern Hemisphere .............now I am googling what the closest place is I have been to the Southern Hemisphere. How is shooting down under ?? Is it slide film heaven??? Stay healthy, stay safe and keep it analog
Good morning everyone. I'm sorry to see an error that leads the user "astray". I am not a theorist of photographic chemistry and physics, and I rely on the practical experimentation of my Plurimedia Educational Lab. Towards the end of the video (at about 3'15") two photo-grams (Rayographs) are compared: the captions are reversed. On the left we see the photogram made with Harman direct positive paper, while on the right common negative printing paper was used. It would be appropriate to correct. Sincerely. Gabriele Coassin - Treviso - Italy
THANK YOU. I paused it. and couldn't work out what was going on. I'm looking for ways to make photograms using printed acetate and objects, but want positiv not negative images. This error just massively confused me.
We agree. We had been asked for this one a few time so wanted to make sure it was included this time. Have you used much HARMAN Direct Positive yourself?
After taking a picture through a hole camera through harman positive paper and developed it with a homemade caffeinol developer.. a picture appeared, but the surprise was that it appeared negatively and not positively, I did not expect that 😳🙄 Is there anyone who has gone through this experience.. what is the reason 🤔
It is certainly not for good quality photography and should be discouraged as an introduction to darkroom work. It's a gimmic for bored amateurs with time and money to burn.
