Does this mean you don't need an enlarger to make photo prints with Harman positive paper?

Good luck, show us some results.

It's comes cut for 4x5 film size, no need to trim. The very first batches of the paper, that came out maybe a decade or more ago, were not sized for film holders, but since then they've come precut.

I’ve lately been using Dektol too, besides Multigrade developer. I find a partially used bottle of liquid concentrate goes bad rather quickly, so now I mix one shot straight from Dektol powder, bypassing the stock solution phase. As for development time, there seems to be more variability in getting the correct exposure than getting the exact processing time. With correct exposure you should have good highlights and mid tones, whereas correct development gives you deep, rich shadows. Usually 2-3 minutes is fine.

@@Joe_VanCleave thanks very much. I had that experience with Multigrade as well with the partially used bottle going bad. I was surprised that it did but I was pushing 3 months on it so it may have been my gamble. Thanks for clarifying exposure v dev times experience. I began using HDP in June and am on my second box now. Partly because I'm doing the processing unseen in a Stearman tank I have stayed the base. Of the first box I got about 2/3's images. I have steadily increased exposure times more agressive and seen better results. I do really like the HDP and call it jokingly, a slow Polaroid :) Joe thanks very much for you insight and well done documentary style how-to videos.

Too light usually indicates over-exposure. But you also should ensure you have adequate development first. A test for your developer is to process an unexposed sheet of Harman, it should come out richly black. If it does, then reduce the in-camera exposure until the shadows are adequate and the principal subject matter is good. Also, developer concentration affects both shadow detail and contrast. Some people report using dilute developer with longer development times, to get both adequate shadow density and controlled contrast. This takes a number of experiments to get dialed in.

@@Joe_VanCleave Thank you Joe for the quick response. I plan to experiment a bit and have been watching your videos relating to this. Just wanted to be sure I understood the basic principal, over/under exposure so I know what I am looking at while experimenting. Your channel is a great resource and again, thanks for taking the time with this explanation.

No I have not I like the 19th century look to the sky. And not all of my images or landscape images.

Kinda have to agree with that :) I also like the 19th century look. In fact I really like the look of the old petzval lenses. I'm thinking about building a 8x10 wooden camera with a lens like that. I have the plans ready, but haven't got the time for it at the moment. Hope to get the project started sometime in the next year :) Really like your videos about film photography. Keep up the good work!

Thanks for your comments. I should also mention that, because paper media is so UV/blue sensitive, it could take a dramatic split filter to see a significant darkening of the sky. Tests I did years ago, with a pinhole camera pointed at the sky, showed a 10 second exposure gave "normal" sky tones, whereas with this camera I'd otherwise have exposed the landscape for over a minute; at least three stops difference.

It would have been fun to experiment with a 3 or 4 stop ND grad filter just to see what results one could get :)

I might do that.

yes this paper is available in bigger sizes and even in huge rolls a meter wide. but you will need some way to get in in the camera. i can think of no holder like that and if it exists it costs a fortune

Yes, I do preflash, using a low-wattage (7.5 watt) frosted white bulb (similar to a small nightlight bulb), suspended over my darkroom table in a metal housing. There's an early video of mine about preflashing, I'll link it below. Preflashing doesn't as much increase the effective speed of the paper as it does raise the shadow detail a bit. The mid-tone and highlight exposure remains about the same, but the overall contrast is lower, much improved for scenic landscape images, which can become excessively contrasty, because of the preponderance of blue light.

Here's the video on preflashing. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z5mAerJ31rTWpYk.html

I had watched the pre-flash video was just wondering if you did that before you made the tests. I have a Kodak 3A that I'm planning on shooting direct positive paper in 4x5. Like your vids - thanks

The ISO of the paper is rather complex, I'm wanting to make a video about that. In the summer months it seems faster than the winter months, for scenic photography, because of the difference in UV between winter and summer (and a conventional light meter doesn't reveal that difference directly). The preflashing mainly lifts the shadow detail up, with little affect on the highlights. So it improves tonal range.

I'll have to go look in my archives to see if this was preflashed.

I like to find the working ISO of the paper before applying any preflashing. When testing for ISO I'm looking for well-exposed midtones. With landscape photography I ignore the sky exposure, since it usually has to be over-exposed to get good landscape tones (since paper is blue/UV sensitive, not red sensitive), hence a good landscape exposure should render the earth tones in the center of the midtown scale (again, ignoring the shadows and the sky). Once a preflash is applied, it should raise the shadow details so as not to be so dense.

@@Joe_VanCleave Thanks for response. I'm actually watching all your videos pertaining to this subject. Learning a lot with your help.

@@Joe_VanCleave One more question. Does preflash change the ISO

1 exposure for an image. No negative, no enlargements, no darkroom work. Just expose, develop, and you have a print

I suppose, but not sure about the quality of the results.