A box of Ilford FP4 Plus in 4x5 will set you back somewhere around £50 to £60 for 25 sheets. That works out to about £2.20 per sheet. The cheapest readily available large format film, Fomapan 100, comes in at about 90p per sheet. Send the negative away to a lab for development and a digital print and you are looking at £9 to £12 per finished image.
What if you could get a finished 4x5 print in your hand for 25p?
You can. The process is called black and white paper reversal, and it produces a positive image directly on photographic paper, no film, no negative, no scanning, no lab. You shoot, you develop, you have a finished print in your hand.
This is the introduction to the process. I will explain how it works, walk through my first two shoots with it, and tell you why I am genuinely excited about this technique. Subsequent articles in the paper reversal series get deeper into refining the technique. This one is the “what is it and why bother” piece.
What it is, what it is not
Quick clarification, because this gets confused with other things.
Paper reversal is not direct positive paper. Direct positive paper (Harman make some) produces a positive image without any reversal step. The chemistry is different and the paper is more expensive.
Paper reversal is not paper negatives. People do shoot negatives on photographic paper and contact-print them later. That works but you end up with a negative.
Paper reversal is taking a normal photographic paper, exposing it in your camera, and using a multi-stage chemical process to flip the resulting image so that you get a positive print straight out of the chemistry. No negative is ever produced. The paper you put in the camera is the paper you hang on your wall.
The kit I am using to do this is a test kit from Bellini Foto, sent to me by my friend Samuele at Stenopeika. They have been collaborating to develop a packaged version of the chemistry, which has now been announced on Bellini’s Instagram. It is presumably available to buy by the time you read this.
The economics
Here is why this matters.
Cheapest paper I could find: Kentmere RC at around £70 for 100 sheets of 8x10. One 8x10 sheet cuts down to four 4x5 sheets, so that gives you 400 sheets of 4x5 paper for £70, which is about 17p per sheet of paper.
Chemistry estimate: I am guessing the production kit will cost £30 to £40 and yield around 370 4x5 prints (based on the test kit they sent me). That works out to roughly 8 to 11p per sheet for chemistry.
Total cost per finished 4x5 print: about 25p, all in.
For comparison: an 8x10 zebra dry plate tintype is about £5 per plate. A scanned and printed lab job from your own negative is £9 to £12. A box of fresh sheet film and processing is at the high end of all of these.
Paper reversal is, by some margin, the cheapest finished-print process in large format. You can screw up a lot of frames before you start hurting financially. That alone is reason enough to try it.
![PLACEHOLDER: a stack of cut 4x5 paper sheets next to a 4x5 sheet holder, showing the cost difference between paper and conventional film]
How the chemistry works (in theory)
Worth understanding because the rest of the process makes sense once you get this.
Photographic paper has light-sensitive silver halide crystals on its surface. When you expose paper to light, those crystals react chemically. The more light hits a spot, the more crystals react there. This is exactly the same as film: you are creating a latent image.
Normal paper printing (in a darkroom from a negative): you project a negative onto paper, develop it, fix it. The areas where light hit the paper turn black, the unexposed areas stay white. You get a positive image because you started with a negative.
Paper reversal is doing the same chemistry from the other direction. You expose the paper directly to a scene (not via a negative), which means the paper records the scene as a negative. The reversal process flips that negative back into a positive on the same sheet of paper.
Here is the sequence:
- Expose paper in the camera. This creates a latent negative image (bright bits of the scene have reacted with the paper, dark bits have not)
- Develop normally. The exposed parts turn black, producing a visible negative image
- Bleach with potassium permanganate. This dissolves the metallic silver (the developed image) but leaves the unreacted silver halides untouched. You now have a blank sheet of paper, with the dark crystals dissolved away and the original unreacted crystals still there but invisible
- Wash and pass through a clarifier bath. This conditions the paper for the next stage
- Re-expose to room light. All the remaining unreacted silver halides now react. Crucially, these are in the places that were originally dark in the scene
- Develop again (the second development). The newly-exposed crystals turn black
- Fix. Lock in the image
The result: the bits of paper that were originally dark in the scene are now black, and the bits that were originally light in the scene are now white paper. You have a positive image.
It is genuinely clever chemistry. The key insight is that the bleach step removes only the developed silver, not the unreacted halides. That selective removal is what allows the reversal to work.
My first shoot, with Rob
I had Rob (regular victim of my tests) come and sit for some 4x5 portraits. Stenopeika Air Force 4x5, Demaire half-plate f4.5 lens (no shutter, so I covered the lens with a card for exposure timing). Eight sheets of paper cut down, loaded into film holders.
The exposures went OK. Half a second at f4.5 felt right for the conditions, rating the paper at the recommended ISO 3. Two sheets popped out of their holders on the way to or in the camera (a hazard of cut paper that does not quite fit snugly), so I lost those, but six sheets reached the developer.
The first development worked properly. Image came up quickly in the Bellini D100 developer, which they recommend at a strong dilution (1+4 instead of the standard 1+9) and warm (24-25°C instead of 20°C) for this process. The image was very contrasty even at the negative stage, which was a warning sign I did not pick up on.
The bleach worked. The image disappeared as expected. The paper looked blank when I pulled it from the bleach bath.
The second development was where things went wrong. With the developer at 1+4 and warm, it reacted enormously fast. The image came up in seconds and continued darkening rapidly. I tried to develop by inspection but it was hard to know when to stop. I pulled some sheets out too early (leaving them with milky greys instead of solid blacks). I left some in too long (overshooting into darkness). The control was difficult.
The contrast was also brutal. Rob’s face was blown to pure white in most frames, even when the rest of the print looked OK. Portraits with a face-against-dark-background composition were exactly the wrong subject for this first attempt. The dynamic range of the paper is much less generous than film, and high-contrast subjects make this immediately apparent.
But two or three of the eight sheets produced genuinely interesting images. Not technically perfect, but with a character I had not seen anywhere else. Soft greys where the chemistry worked, swirling patterns where the fast-reacting developer left uneven marks on the paper, a graphic quality that suited Rob’s heavily textured face. I was hooked.
![PLACEHOLDER: the best frame from the Rob shoot, showing the characterful paper reversal rendering on a portrait]
My second shoot, with Bec
Different model, slightly different approach. Bec is patient and good at holding still, which suits a slow process like this. I switched to the Schneider 210mm lens (which has a proper shutter, so exposure timing is precise). I loaded 16 sheets of paper this time, having learned to cut them more accurately.
The exposures were better. f9 at 1 second in the conditions I had. Rated the paper at ISO 3 as before. Half the sheets in flatter light, half in slightly stronger sun, deliberately.
I changed the development approach. Two developers in succession: the first development in the strong/warm D100 1+4 at 24°C, which gives you a fast and complete first development. The second development in a separate bath of normal-strength D100 (1+9 at 20°C), which is much more controllable.
This worked much better. The first development still went fast, but I let it go to completion because that is what the first development needs to do. The second development was now slow enough for me to actually watch the image emerge and pull the sheet at the right moment.
Results were significantly more controlled. Several sheets came out as genuinely lovely portraits with proper tonal range. Some still had contrast issues (the dynamic range is still narrow), but the keeper rate was much higher.
![PLACEHOLDER: a successful frame from the Bec shoot showing the cleaner tonal range achievable with the improved two-bath development]
What I learned across both shoots
A few things that I now consider settled enough to share, with the caveat that paper reversal is a process I am still learning.
The first development needs to go to completion. Pulling early in the first development gives you incomplete negatives that produce washed-out positives. Trust the chemistry.
The second development is the contrast control. Pulling early gives milky greys; leaving longer gives full blacks. This is where you make creative decisions about the final image.
Strong/warm developer is the recommendation but it makes inspection hard. A second bath of normal-strength developer at room temperature gives you back the controllability. I now use both.
Contrast is the genuine difficulty. Paper reversal compresses the available tonal range. High-contrast scenes (lit face on dark background, sky against ground) will lose detail at one end or the other. Look for flatter light or compositions with limited tonal range.
Pre-flashing might help. A brief exposure of the paper to flat white light before the main exposure should reduce contrast by lifting the deepest blacks slightly. I have not tried this yet but it is on my list.
Cut paper accurately or it pops out of the holder. I lost four sheets to this on the Bec shoot. The dimensions for 4x5 from 8x10 are not simply “cut in half twice.” The correct dimensions are 9.85cm x 12.45cm. Use a guillotine. You can thank me later.
Why this opens up genuine possibilities
Beyond the cost saving, there is something more interesting about this process for me.
It enables formats that film cannot reach. I have a whole-plate camera and a half-plate camera sitting unused in boxes because you cannot get film in those formats anymore. With paper reversal, you can cut down any RC paper to any size you want. Suddenly the whole-plate camera is back in play. Same for any obscure historical format. The chemistry works on whatever paper size fits in your holder.
The cheap cost means you can experiment. Tintype plates at £5 a go discourage experiments. 17p per sheet means you can shoot freely, fail freely, and learn quickly. This is the right cost level for a creative process.
Each print is unique. The chemistry introduces variables at multiple stages. Two prints of the same scene will not be identical. This is either a feature or a bug depending on your aesthetic preferences. For me it is a feature.
The process is hands-on. You make the final image in your darkroom, your hands in the chemistry. There is something satisfying about creating a finished print in real time, watching the image emerge, making creative decisions through the process.
Where to start
If you want to try this yourself:
- A Bellini paper reversal kit (the announcement from Stenopeika and Bellini, link via the Stenopeika site) when it comes available. Likely £30-40
- Kentmere or similar cheap RC paper in 8x10 to cut down
- A 4x5 large format camera with sheet film holders (or any large format camera)
- A guillotine for cutting paper accurately
- A darkroom with safelights
Cut your paper to 9.85cm x 12.45cm for 4x5 holders. Load it as you would film. Expose at ISO 3 to start with. Develop using the two-bath approach I described. Bleach, clarify, re-expose, second develop, fix.
You will get bad frames. The first batch is for learning. By batch three or four, you should be producing prints you genuinely like.
What is next
I have already got plans to take this out for landscapes and street work. Subsequent articles in this series will refine what I have learned here:
- Refining the technique where I work out the systematic settings (ISO 1.8 for UK winter light, develop to completion, yellow filters for contrast control)
- The big paper and developer test where I systematically compare paper stocks and developer combinations
- Using flash with paper reversal which solves the portrait problem
- The Cooke lens churchyard shoot where it all comes together
Big thanks to Samuele at Stenopeika for the kit, and to Bellini for the chemistry. Their joint announcement is on Bellini’s Instagram and Stenopeika’s Instagram.
And thanks to Rob and Bec for being patient with me while I learned what I was doing.
If you give this a try, I would love to hear how it goes. The community around this process is small but growing.