Digital internegatives and Enlargments

[Ken Lee]

I am not trying beat a dead horse or start a silly flame-exchange.

Given a bunch of B&W negatives from 35mm all the way up to 8x10. Given a desire to make silver prints.

Option 1: Get an enlarger and make traditional silver prints.

Option 2: Scan the film, perform digital "adjustments", and make Silver contact prints from digital internegatives.

Given the previous discussion here (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/498096.html" target="_blank), is there a noticeable difference between moderate enlargements and moderately enlarged scans ?

According to the discussion, people can only detect 256 levels of grey. I prefer the continuous tone look of analog images.

I intend to "just try it" myself to see, but I am always interested in the opinions and experiences of the esteemed members of this forum.

[Neal Shields]

The best book that I have seen which gets into how much detail can be seen in a print both in terms of tonal range and resolution is Ctien's "Post Exposure".

His opinions are supported by scientific studies.

I highly recomend it.

[Scott Davis]

I don't know how much of a difference the digital interneg makes with silver printing, but I do know that it makes a perceptible qualitative difference with many alt-process printing processes, like platinum. You can tell, without much training, the difference between an in-camera neg and a digital neg. You'll need to try it yourself to see if the difference is objectionable to you.

[Roger Hein]

Ken,

My recommendation would be to give the digital inkjet neg a try . All it requires is a flat bed scanner that will scan negs and a suitable inkjet printer - both of which most will already own - plus a good resource like Mark Nelson's PDN. Reason for suggesting this route is because, unless you actually see the comparison, one person's description (of say 'smooth') will never be the same as your own. Doing it yourself will immediately tell you if the process/workflow is up to your standards.

[Bruce Watson]

I can argue it both ways. If you use a traditional enlarger, you end up with more variability print-to-print simply because you are human. If you follow the contact-print-from-digital-internegative path, you end up with more control and less (but not zero) variability print-to-print.

As to the difference between a darkroom enlargement and a scanner enlargement, the laws of physics dictate that there is a difference. A 6x enlargement is a 6x enlargement either way. But a 6x enlargement using a traditional enlarger uses all the information in the negative. The 6x enlargement from the scanner uses just the information it picks up to make the 6x enlargement. This is offset by the difference in optical efficiency (drum scanners can arguably yield better optical quality simply because they hold the negative rigidly in the plane of focus, fluid mounting filling in imperfections in the negative, and the optics read the negative one spot at the time so there is less light scatter in the negative. Conventional enlargement has problems with holding the negative flat, rigidity (head to baseboard), alignment (corner to corner sharpness), vibration during exposure, and the light scatter due to lighting the entire negative all at once).

But does it matter to you??? That's the crucial question. And the only way to find out is to try it both ways. Sigh.

BTW, I doubt very seriously that any human can distinguish 256 shades of gray. Have a read of the book Vision and Art (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0810904063) for much more information.

[paulr]

Ken,

I do not believe that there's an inherently digital "look" any more than I believe there's an inherently analog look. If something looks digital to you in an objectional way, I think it's because something was done poorly. Both analog and digital processes have an incredible range of looks. And there's essentially no ceiling on the quality that's available from either working method.

Bruce is correct that with bigger enlargements the quality of your scanner will be a limiting factor. There are plenty of cheap scanners that can see everything your enlarging lens can see up to a 3X enlargement or so. Much above that, you need something more high end to equal or better the enlarger. *

There's a big difference in what it's like working with the tools. Nuts and bolts knowledge of one only goes so far in getting you started in the other.

I think the choice depends on what your goals are, and what tools you're most comfortable with. If you have chemical darkroom experience but not much digital experience, you'll probably have an easier (and cheaper) time doing it traditionally. If you're well versed with both, and there are adjustments you want to make that are difficult to make with traditional methods, then maybe going the digital route will be worth it.

I haven't made digital negs for contact printing. My sense from people who have done is that it's not an easy learning curve. You will be able to get sharper results doing it this way, but you will likely put in a ton of trial and error getting the tonal scale to match your expectations.

*There are ways to hold the negative flat and in the plane of focus even with low end scanners. You can almost always do better than the stock film holders.

[Larry Gebhardt]

There are many ways to make digital internegs. These are inkjet, continuous tone film recorder, and image setters. There are possibly others as well. In my experience the only ones that yeild a satisfactory image on silver are the image setters and the film recorders. Image setters can genarally make a bigger negative for contact printing than film recorders. Film recorders produce images that look like a traditional photograph even under a loupe. I can't see the difference at normal viewing distance, but I am not sure I can't percieve it in some way. I have seen very nice output from inkjet on platinum.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I have seen very nice output from inkjet on platinum."

As in Dick Arentz new prints.

[Henry Ambrose]

I think you should get an enlarger and try some inkjet negs too.

I've done imagesetter negs and I see no real good reason to pursue that. Not because they can't be good, but because finding someone running a high-end imagesetter that will be bothered by you (or finding anyone at all running one since so much printing has changed to direct-to-plate).

Inkjet negs sound like they could be good and I bet you already have everything you need but the film.

But I'd sure buy an enlarger. You can get a very, very nice 4x5 enlarger and some top quality lenses for $1000-1500. I find joy in working in the darkroom and the prints can be wonderful -- just like before computers. Of course you can't easily manipulate your negatives to the extent that Photoshop allows but if you shoot it right you can make great silver prints without a computer. And since you already have all the digital stuff you can always use that to interpret those negatives that just don't cooperate in the dark.

If you buy an enlarger commit yourself to making a darkroom that is comfortable and efficient to work in so you can enjoy being there. Don't hamstring yourself by having to wash prints in the toilet while standing on your head. Build a nice space and you won't resent working in it.

[sanking]

Kirk Gittings wrote:

"I have seen very nice output from inkjet on platinum."
As in Dick Arentz new prints.

Absolutely to the point. I have been looking at Dick Arentz's work for more than two decades and his current work in Pt./Pd. from digital inkjet negatives is outstanding. In terms of image quality, and IMHO of course, there is virtually no difference between 12X20 prints made from in-camera negatives and 14X20 prints made from original 5X7 in-camera negatives enlarged digitally. The only difference that one might perceive results from the shape of the curve of an in-camera negative compared to the curve of a digital negative. But this is purely a technicality since one can adjust the curve of the digital negative as they like to emulate the process curve of the Pt/Pd process. I also work in 5X7 and 12X20 and would make the same remark about my own work in comparing image quality between the two formats.

Also, what Larry said. For silver the best negative comes from a film recorder or one of the modern laser or LED printers. A digital negative from an inkjet falls just short in this regard. However, for Pt./Pd. and virtually all other forms of alternative printing the inkjet negative gives results that can not be distinguished from traditional continuos tone negatives.

Another point. Anyone who wants to compare output of digital negatives to in-camera negatives should please make an apple to apple comparison. It is patently absurd to compare output at 12X20 size from a 6 mb digital camera to that from a 12X20 in camer negative.

[Ken Lee]

The curves: there's the rub. I have read that even if we scan at 16-bit, we have to send 8-bit data to an inkjet printer.

As others have suggested, we have to judge for ourselves, whether that 8-bit curve is smooth enough, compared to the purely analaog curve of film - or whether it somehow appears more like a dotted line, with gaps. Perhaps the difference is less noticeable when printing on hand-coated watercolor papers, which are less smooth, and therefore more forgiving, than commercial Silver papers.

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I also read what Ken said. It doesn't matter what bit depth you send to the printer. All printers output in 8-bit.

[Bruce Watson]

All printers output in 8-bit.

Huh? All printers output in ink dots. The software that drives the printer, that decides which ink dots to use and where to put them, can be either 8 or 16 bit. The print head doesn't know or care about bit depth. RIPs, in particular those that bypass the printer's driver, may handle 16 bit input just fine. There is nothing inherent in the printer hardware that dictates that the RIP convert 16 bit data to 8 bit data before creating a dither pattern.

[Ken Lee]

Now we're talking.

[David Luttmann]

Bruce,

Drivers / RIP for inkjet printers are 8bit......not 16. You can feed it what you like, but the printers only handle 8 bit data.

[paulr]

I don't think that's true, Dave. there are a lot of 16 bit RIPS out there. I don't know if any actually send 16 bits worth of gray scale to the printers (I doubt it, because with current dot sizes it propbably would block up the shadows) but some send more than 8. The printer isn't thinking in terms of bits; it's laying down same-sized dots of different inks, typically in a stochastic (frequency modulation) range of patterns. It doesn't face the same limits as halftone printing.

Native Epson drivers are only 8 bit. Still, the 256 shades of gray that comes out of them looks continuous tone to me.

One thing that struck me as intersting ... the first platinum prints I'd ever seen made from digital negatives were made from the most primitive negatives possible: halftones from an imagesetter. At the 150 line screen they appeared to be made from, the number of grays was almost certainly limited to 256. But they looked like platinum prints in every way, unless you looked through a loupe and got the shock of seeing the little evenly spaced dots.

This leads me to suspect that we're responding less to the number of tones (whether it's discreet or not) than we are to the particular shape of the scale, and to the color, and the surface, and other more easily quantifiable things.

[David Luttmann]

Like I said Paul,

You can feed the printer whatever you like with whatever RIP you like.....in the end, according to Canon, Epson & HP, the printer itself is an 8 bit device. But as you said, you don't need more for continous tone.....so 16 bit would be a waste.