Topic: WPPD post-mortem

[Urban Hafner]

So I tried out my new to me pinhole camera on WPPD. To make things worse it was the first time that I used paper negatives, and I used Caffenol where there aren't that many examples with paper negs out there (thanks Becky and Diane for the help). There are so many things that could have gone wrong that I thought I should ask.

1. The camera has a focal length of 100mm and is using 8x10 film (I used 18x24cm, but that doesn't really matter, I think). According to mrpinhole.com there's not nearly enough coverage. The image circle is 192mm and the diagonal of the film 300mm. So I basically can't get an image without vignetting, right?

2. Even though you can't see in in the images (as I've adjusted the levels) there is no real dark black in any of the images. This is new Ilford MGIV RC paper so it can't be the paper's fault. So what am I doing wrong? To short exposure time or maybe the development time is too short?

3. I have metered for ISO 3, but I think I should try longer exposure times, right? Maybe a stop or two more?

4. What are those streaks in image 1? Maybe uneven development or light leaks?

5. I guess shooting scenes with lower contrast would be a good idea, too. Paper is much less forgiving than film, isn't it?

Sorry for the rambling I'm really not sure what I'm doing wrong here

[Francois]

Well, at least you got something identifiable   

[Urban Hafner]

Well, at least you got something identifiable   

At least you built the camera yourself

[astrobeck]

Urban, please don't be discouraged by these results!
You are on the right track, but do need to adjust just a bit. and then I think you'll be happier.
But if these were mine, I would be happy.  They give you a baseline to work from.

So, yes the 8 x 10 will always vignette for that focal length.  If you made a box about 5 inches deep, then you would have full coverage or near enough to it that it would vignette less.
Is vignetting such a bad thing?

Most photo paper that IS NOT Direct Positive--- I think of it as ISO 4.
Harman Direct positive I shoot extra longer and think of it as ISO 3.  I also think of it as lazy paper since it takes it a while to collect the photons making the image. 
Keep in mind I'm a seat of the pants shooter and pretend I'm the emulsion so most numbers are meaningless to me. and I just expose the papers until I "feel" like they have had enough.

I shoot the Harman direct paper about a half time longer than any of the other papers I shoot.

In the beginning, just shoot one type of paper until you figure out it's personality in that box.

It may bring some frowns at first, but you WILL may a breakover and then you'll be wondering what all the trouble was.
The steaks you mention?  I don't see them.

All said and done,. keep at it.  Please try it again.  You will soon make a gorgeous image!  I'm confident this will happen!
Becky

[Urban Hafner]

Thanks Becky! I will definitely try again and I guess I'll just embrace the vignetting ...

[Windy]

Great snaps - Shots that I would be proud of 

[astrobeck]

Okay, I see the streaks you mentioned now.
It looks like uneven development to me.

And since it was the first one in the batch, I'd say the caffenol wasn't fully mixed.

When I mix my caffenol I really shake it vigorously before using it.  I mean shake it until it foams and bubbles!   

After I shake it, I let it rest for about 5 minutes before using.  This lets the bubbles settle out and it gives the last stubborn particles a chance to fully dissolve in the water.

Then I give it a gentle shake before I use it.
See if this helps next time.

Becky

[tani.P]

I think these look fantastic! Real character and contrast to them, nicely done! My WPPD got rained out, sadly. Hope to shoot this weekend, though.

[LT]

How are you developing these Urban? If its in a tray, the streaks are highly unlikely to be from uneven developing. In fact, it's unlikely to be dev marks at all. Paper just doesn't react like that, unless these are marks from rotary developing and using an overly diluted developer that is too weak

What is your rationale for using coffee-based developers with paper as opposed to a paper developer? Have you tried using a paper developer to see if the streaks persist?

The lack of black shouldn't be an issue if you are using the paper as a neg. In fact, it's an advantage as it means you will have tone in highlight areas when you print/ scan and reverse the neg.

[Urban Hafner]

Thanks everyone. I will keep trying with so many encouragements then 

Becky: #1 & #2 were developed together and #3 & #4 also. But I mixed a fresh batch of Caffenol for each. But you are right, I might have a problem as I found a bit of coffee here and there afterwards on the paper.

Leon: I use a Jobo 2830. 300ml of developer for 4 minutes. The Caffenol is just because I've seen it work for Becky and Diane (and a few other people) and it was the only thing I had around the house. But I guess a standard developer would mean less experimentation.

[LT]

Hi Urban

sorry to push this - but the cafenol might work for others, sure, but why are you using it? What advantage is it giving you that makes you want to persist with it?

[Urban Hafner]

No real reason Leon, other than that I already have all the ingredients. What would be a good paper developer to start with?

[Francois]

I'm pretty sure Caffenol requires a lot of volume to work OK. That means tray processing only.

As for a good dev, I like the PQ Universal a lot. I even use it when I want to process some C-41 film as B&W!

[Urban Hafner]

I will check it out Francois. I'm sure I'll need more photo supplies in the future so I can buy a bottle of paper developer, too. 

BTW, I just found this blog: http://kbesios.com/blog/tag/pinhole/ He uses the exact same camera as me and doesn't get that much vignetting. So all is not lost, after all 

[LT]

Any of the proprietary paper devs will do.

I'm not saying its unwise to use coffee developers, just that it is best to know why you are using it. Maybe best to get used to normal paper development first, then see what cafeenol offers you over and above those.

[Urban Hafner]

I definitely see your point Leon. A new camera, a new medium (paper negs), a new film size, and a new developer as probably a bit too much at one time.

[Diane Peterson]

Urban..I particularly like the second image of the lonesome tree..

[Urban Hafner]

Thanks Diane. I will try again and this time I will get closer. 100mm is just so incredibly wide in 8x10.

[Francois]

And if you want that classic London punk look, you just mix 35mm HP5 and PQ Universal

[Ezzie]

I definitely see your point Leon. A new camera, a new medium (paper negs), a new film size, and a new developer as probably a bit too much at one time.

Well I managed to muck it up too, though maybe not quite so bad. And I had checked all beforehand. Known film, known exposure, known developer, known camera. Sod's law will punish the unprepared, and if you happen to be prepared, it will punish you anyway.