Topic: Harman Direct Positive Paper Woes - Any Idea What May Have Happened?

[Adam Doe]

The Pinhole meetup I led on WPPD was a lot of fun with one downer thrown in. The Harman Direct Positive Paper that I brought failed to produce an image From any of the pinhole cameras. We shot it at IOS 3 and then developed in Ilford Multigrade at 1:9. The paper remained white. Photos taken on standard photographic paper and developed in the same chemistry produced suitable images so it wasn't the cameras. Here are some facts:

• We metered for ISO 3 and shot for the resulting times
• The weather was completely overcast
• The darkroom that hosted us had an amber, not red, safelight
• The paper is not all that old, maybe two or three years
• The paper came out of previously unopend boxes and was loaded in a darkroom whose unsafe (flourescent lights had been turned off for a good 30 minutes previous to loading)
• The paper was loaded properly, sensitive side toward the pinholes
• A sheet that I grabbed and then walked outside from the darkroom with, standing underneath flourescent lights for about 15 seconds, did produce a slightly faint shadow print (in reverse) of my fingers.

I'd be curious to hear any theories as to what went wrong.

• Did we not expose long enough?
• Do you think the paper would have gone off, expired?
• Anything else?

I plan on shooting a couple of sheets in my Crown Graphic to test when I have time, but that may not be for a while.

Thanks.

[jharr]

If the paper was white, then it was completely over-exposed, though that's quite a feat with iso 3 DPP. The other alternative is that your developer was off though it sounds like you used it for other papers with success. That's a bummer though.

[LT]

I'd continue testing...  I have to say I've always really struggled with this paper.

What were  the exposure times? The paper suffers with a really odd reverse reciprocity failure effect.  So short exposure are adversely affected.

Also.  White paper doesn't necessarily mean over exposure with DPP .  It could be they were completely under exposed with nothing to develop.  Or the developer was dead?

[Adam Doe]

What were  the exposure times? The paper suffers with a really odd reverse reciprocity failure effect.  So short exposure are adversely affected

The exposure times were as metered. No adjustment for reciprocity. So underexposure could have been a factor.

Also.  White paper doesn't necessarily mean over exposure with DPP .  It could be they were completely under exposed with nothing to develop.  Or the developer was dead?

The developer was fine, brand new Iford Multigrade 1:9 and we subsequently developed standard paper negatives in the same tray of developer successfully.

[LT]

But what were the actual times? Anything shorter than a few seconds can suffer this problem. But if you were slower than that, then it probably wasn't that.

[astrobeck]

I've always had good luck with this paper and am quite fond of it.
I'm with Leon and would like to know the times of exposure....
white paper is odd...the paper is pink.
I have a small piece of it hanging in my bathroom that has been exposed to all kinds of light and temp, and it is still pink.

Yesterday I used a piece of a sheet of Harman DPP from an opened box that is probably 3 years old....


The exposure was 3.5 minutes and developed in caffenol and it turned out as expected.

The image is in the pinhole thread.

[Adam Doe]

But what were the actual times? Anything shorter than a few seconds can suffer this problem. But if you were slower than that, then it probably wasn't that.

I don't have the actual times written down, but depending on the individual shots they were anywhere from 2 to 10 minutes.

[LT]

Okay -  well with exposures that long, reciprocity wouldn't have been a problem.

[Adam Doe]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I think I'm just going to have to test it out again and see if I can get an image.

[astrobeck]

It's well worth testing again as the results can be very nice!

I really wish Harman would make it again....are you listening Steven Brierley!?
 

[jojonas~]

It's well worth testing again as the results can be very nice!

I really wish Harman would make it again....are you listening Steven Brierley!?
 

not that I'm a user myself but talking with them it seems like they're really trying to get it back. here's hoping!

[LT]

it was a coating problem wasn't it? I think it was made in the Swiss version of ILFORD's factory?? and bought in/ repackaged by Ilfordphoto in the UK. I imagine it would be a nightmare to start all over again with it on a new coating line.


Unless that was all strange dream I had one day.

[astrobeck]

Leon, that's the story, no dream...I just wish they would get the recipe and make it themselves somehow.

[Francois]

And I still wish they could make a decent direct positive film with some tiny rgb colored spots applied in a random pattern on the base... They could call it direct autochrome:)