Tags

, , , , , ,

Pursuant to my previous post on the Harman Direct Positive Paper (DPP), I would like to present the first scans from my use of the paper.  In general, I will say that the quality is good, but not excellent.  To be honest, the novelty of this product is wearing off pretty quickly.  It is just frustrating that there is practically no control over the results.  If it isn’t the preflash problems, it is developer exhaustion leading to low contrast,* which by the way, occurs much faster than normal FB paper.**  Otherwise it could be a fingerprint from loading the paper. And the list goes on.  Checking for exposure during printing is also difficult due to the ortho safelight, which for some reason is really tough for me to get accustomed to.

*  It is possible to correct for low contrast in post-processing as I did, but isn’t the whole point of the paper to create a unique, usable print that can be immediately framed?

**  For example, the multigrade developer I use is rated for 12 8×10″ FB prints, but I could only get 4 or 5 4×5″ prints out before contrast takes a hit.  I mix the developer at 3 pm, and by 10 pm it is already bad.  Am I waiting too long?  Well I know for a fact that I can reuse developers overnight when working with negative papers.  Maybe my process is simply not good enough.  

Ultra low contrast due to exhausted developer. Bumped up in PP

Ultra low contrast due to exhausted developer. Bumped up in PP

Higher-than-normal contrast due to insufficient preflash, fresh developer. F/8, 4 minute exposure

Advertisements