|
@ amuderick --> Wow! What great results! The problem I've always had is keeping a paper negative from touching something else in the bag where I place it to shield it from light. The emulsion is still sticky enough that it gets ruined.
Thanks for the info -- I'll definitely give this technique a try.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
20 X 50 FEET for 665? Did the U.S. government commission you along with Ansel Adams to do Grand Central Station panoramas or something ... you don't LOOK all that old?!
Good luck regardless, though I too don't want to bother with all that mess just for a "negative" - that's what home scanners are for!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@barharbor -- the idea is really that you can gift the print and keep a copy for yourself.
@chi_cowboy -- keep us posted on your results!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
One thing I have found is that I get much better tonal range out of a FP3000b goop if I overexpose the shot by one or two stops.
I have made 20"x30" prints from scanned goop and they look great. You should have no problem getting an 8x10 out of 1200dpi.
I have had very little problems with a 3000b negative solarizing even in bright sunlight.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Dude, trask, those shots are fantastic. Overexposure makes sense. The silver is diffusing into the receptor sheet. A correct receptor sheet exposure (i.e. properly exposed print) leaves too little silver left on the negative. 665 and 55 were the same way. The print needs to be overexposed by at least 1 stop for the negative to be 'right'.
I'm glad I'm not the first to discover this. My first attempt ended up in solarization and I dismissed this technique for few years because of it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i made a group for this awhile ago
www.flickr.com/groups/polaroid_goop/
solarization seems to be temp related as opposed to light exposure.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The negative is "better" than the print -- if only because it has better shadow detail.
The original P/N materials could not simultaneously produce a usable print and negative. Because the silver that winds up on the print sheet has much greater covering power than that remaining in the negative (which is the main thing that makes 3000-speed materials possible), an exposure that produces a "good" print will result in an underexposed ("thin") negative, and vice-versa.
It's been over 30 years since I used Type 55 to shoot some advertising photos. As I remember, the problem had been solved by that time. I think.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
queermountainman edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
wow great work! i'd love to get scans like this from the neg, i'll have to give this a go i think!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@moominsean - my failed attempt years ago was done around 45F. Does solarization get worse at lower temperatures?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hmm, the goops do look pretty good in trask's stream. Do you follow normal dev times as well? I've got some loaded up right now so I'll try it.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
depends on your definition of 'worse'...some might say the solarization gets better! i haven't done specific tests, but there does seem to be a connection between temp and solarizing. most of my solarized images come from colder weather. easy way to check it would be to take a shot and put the goop side in the fridge.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Apocaplops: yeah for the most part usually a little longer than recommended as FP 3000B is fast developing. I dont really time my developments just peel when the time seems right.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
does it work with fp-100b? I'm switching from the 100c to black and white film just to get negative versions of every photo I get
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Fuji films are self terminating. Which leads me to think that overdevelopment is kinda iffy?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
That might be true of color films; I'm not sure it's true of B&W.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Humberto,
100B does not have a reusable negative, just the 3000B.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Oh, too bad. Well, I'll try some 3000B :)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well cold weather would slow down the chemistry. If the self-terminating reaction is slowed, then peeling could allow ambient light to 'fog' the shadows creating solarization. In warmer weather, the reaction would terminate before this could happen. It makes sense.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I believe it was 60 today. Solarized a bit, but I love it. I'll be doing more of these for sure.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How did you guys get rid of the goop prior to scanning?
Don't tell me you have to wipe it off the scanner's glass afterwards.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oldglass;
just let it dry,,
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
sneeze, this is not really a reusable negative right? To me reusable means that I can put it under an enlarger, not playing around with a scanner. Though that is a nice tweak and it is a usable image. So the 100B neg doesn't contain any information?
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
letchhausen edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
no, you can't put it in an enlarger.
you're just using the negative side of the film to scan + invert.
the neg side of 100b has very small details that fade within a couple minutes. (in my experience).
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
///Brian Henry edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
It is a reusable negative. The image is negative and it can be reused. It is not transparent however and cannot be used in an enlarger.
With a hybrid digital-film workflow, it becomes usable. In a film-only era, it was throwaway.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, but sometimes the goop are not evenly coating the negative. Do you scrape it first and let it dry? or does the goop turned transparent when it's dry?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I just let the sucker dry.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
yeah i've never had any sort of problem with 'uneven' coating. it's not technically 'goop', but rather a paper negative that has developer on it (the goop). i'm not sure if someone called it a goop print before me or i just made it up...i can't remember, really. but that goop just dries clear on 667 and fp-3000b. on 107 it leaves a coating similar to dry salt. color coop dries streaky and the image mostly fades.
you probably could use it in an enlarger... i've done prints from paper negatives before. don't know if anyone bothered before scanners, but i wouldn't be surprised if someone was experimenting with it 30-40 years ago. type 47 has a very nice paper negative, and the image is fairly strong if you rinse the goop off.
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
moominsean edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
|
I have fiddled in more detail with Photoshop and here is my process:
Here is my process:
- Snap shot
- Pull, Time, Peel, Gift Print to Subject
- Keep negative out of strong sunlight to prevent Sabatier effect
- allow negative to dry fully (takes a minute with flapping in the breeze)
- scan negative at highest resolution possible, 16-bit greyscale
- run a dust & scratches to remove lint/debris, etc
- copy to new layer, reduce noise (I use NeatImage) with sharpen
- 50% high freq, 50% medium freq, 90% low freq
- sharpen 200% high, 100% medium, 100% low freq
- set noise reduced layer to 50% opacity
- adjust curves by bringing in the light and dark points to improve contrast. a little S-curve also helps match the print
- flatten image
- dust and scratches again to remove anything that now appears prominent from the contrast change.
- reduce noise one more time in a 2nd layer. reduce opacity of layer to taste.
Voila! An image you can print at 16x24 (I scan at 2400DPI) and get great quality from.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
does the negative last 'forever' or does it need to be scanned within a definite time frame?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
once dry it will last forever....or at least forever-ish.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
amuderick, excellent thank you!
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know i'm being completely thick here and this has been asked before but I'm still not entirely clear as to whether this could also be done with FP100B??
Maybe if one works really quickly? Or does the neg on the paper just keep fading?
I have as yet failed to find any 3000b in the UK!
Originally posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
jejoenjeM edited this topic 40 months ago.
|
|
@jejoenjeM: Have you seen www.fujilab.co.uk/catalog/film-instant-c-30_34.html
??
fujifilm's UK online shop... ;-)
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thanks you namke.... :) (sneaks away in shame...)
My question stands though, is it possible to get the neg off FP100b?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
How would you store these in the field without having them stick together?
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
- A trick I learned last year is to tear the little white tab off, use it to scrape the "goo" off the end of the print (where it's thickest on the border, not on the actual image), and toss it in a nearby trash can (or carry a plastic bag w/ you). The remaining negative should dry fairly quickly. You could also use a small receipt holder to put the dry (or close to it) negative in - I have one that's like a small accordion fold folder with several "pockets", it keeps the negatives (and polaroids, if you're keeping them) from getting creased/bent/scratched. You could also keep a few 4x6 note cards under the cold-clip holder in the plastic cover and use them to seperate the negatives. If you want to get fancy you could even cut up one of those non-stick mats that are used to line the bottom of baking dishes and use them as dividers. I wouldn't put a wet negative against one, but if its only slightly tacky it should help prevent it from sticking.
I live in the humid southeast, so I usually just end up carrying the negatives and laying them on the passenger floorboard of the car (out of direct sunlight) while I go take another shot or two.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
-Thanks for the tip.
Posted 40 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
2.bp.blogspot.com/_v74SPwCq05U/TJYMV8vWgaI/AAAAAAAAAE0/rg...
both positive and the negative
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
patterns2 edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
with fp-100c you can try this:
new55project.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post_6525.html to remove the black coating on the back of neg, it works pretty well, and as far as I remember you can also do the same with fp-100B, although I personally only tried it with fp-100c, after you wash the developer goop off in cold water you can use it kinda like a low contrast neg. I made two or three contact prints on BW paper couple of months ago, I just have to find them and scan.
Originally posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
123korek edited this topic 21 months ago.
|
|
|
What I like about the 3000b is that I didn't have to take the backing off. Good stuff. Everyone should use instant film.
Posted 21 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just what I've been looking for. The first few packs of film I got a few negatives that kept well, and others that didn't. I couldn't quite understand why. Now I know, and the reason given seems more than plausible. I'll have to try it out.
Preserving the negatives when shooting away from home needs om thinking.
Thanks
Posted 4 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
So - is there a benefit to scanning the negative rather than scaning the polaroid print itself? Or is it just so you can gift the print?
Thanks!
Russ
Posted 5 weeks ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If you look at the results of the initial poster, yes there can be some benefits. Especially with regards to shadow detial. The print is contrastier, and especially the shadows loose out in darker conditions.
My test results coincide.
Posted 4 weeks ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Neg scan: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/6824503477/in/set-72157629070491421]
Print scan: [http://www.flickr.com/photos/ezzie0304/6824505179/in/set-72157629070491421]
Originally posted 4 weeks ago.
(permalink)
Eirik0304 edited this topic 4 weeks ago.
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Polaroid /
Discuss
Ok, but sometimes the goop are not evenly coating the negative. Do you scrape it first and let it dry? or does the goop turned transparent when it's dry?
Feed – Subscribe to Polaroid discussion threads
