Traditional B&W prints from digital input

[Ralph Barker]

Last year, Ilford Photo (Harman Technologies, the management group that bought the Ilford B&W product lines) announced two traditional silver-based enlarging papers (RC and fiber-base) that are optimized for printing digital files, and designed for exposure in tri-color laser systems like the Lambda printers. These papers, obviously, are aimed at the large printing shops that cater to the digital market (or both digital and traditional), as the Lambda machines cost about a half a $mil.

Yesterday, Bob Carnie, a member here and one of the owner/operators of Elevator, a digital and traditional printing lab in Toronto, dropped by my place on his way to the Silver Conference in the L.A. area. He brought with him a sampling of prints that he'll exhibit at the Silver Conference. These included a number of traditional enlargements from film, mostly on fiber-based Ilford Warm Tone paper, and a dozen or so prints on the new Ilford B&W fiber paper for digital exposure.

The prints on the new Ilford digital paper were very impressive - as good as those on regular Ilford paper. And, because it's real silver paper processed in the usual archival manner, these prints would likely satisfy any gallery or museum requirements for conventional fiber-base prints.

Naturally, the size/resolution of the digital file (either direct digital capture or film scan) affects the image quality and optimal print size, but (IMHO) the Ilford prints are lovely.

The Ilford data sheet for the fiber-base paper can be found at: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061220142744587.pdf

[Pete Watkins]

Ralph, the phrase dosn't work! "Traditional B & W prints" is one phrase and "digital input" is another. Traditional B & W prints from digital input don't, and never will, exist. It's either digital or traditional, there is no tradition of digital printing.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Michael Graves]

Ralph, the phrase dosn't work! "Traditional B & W prints" is one phrase and "digital input" is another. Traditional B & W prints from digital input don't, and never will, exist. It's either digital or traditional, there is no tradition of digital printing.
Best wishes,
Pete.

I would like to respectfully disagree with that. The print itself is made in traditional manner, therefore is a traditional print. The source image may not have been a traditional negative, but then how many images of the past were made by laying objects onto paper, contact printing non-silver images or other alternative methods. What is it about digital that raises so many hackles? As someone else stated in another thread...it's just another tool. But in my book, a fiber silver halide print, developed and fixed in the old fashioned manner (even if there is a $.5M toy in the middle) is still a traditional print.

[tim atherton]

Ralph, the phrase doesnt work! "Traditional B & W prints" is one phrase and "digital input" is another. Traditional B & W prints from digital input don't, and never will, exist. It's either digital or traditional, there is no tradition of digital printing.
Best wishes,
Pete.

aww - c'mon - stop trolling. If you're not interested in it, don't read it and don't bother posting, rather than trying to de-rail a discussion that might actually be of genuine interest to many

[David Karp]

Ralph, the phrase dosn't work! "Traditional B & W prints" is one phrase and "digital input" is another. Traditional B & W prints from digital input don't, and never will, exist. It's either digital or traditional, there is no tradition of digital printing.
Best wishes,
Pete.

I agree, completely off point. Its a traditional silver paper designed to be exposed by a different light source.

Ralph, did he discuss the print washing process? Will prints from machines be washed enough to remove the fixer. Perhaps the prints will have to be re-washed and dried to be considered archival.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I also saw some prints from the DeVere digital enlarger at PMA, which now has a larger LCD than the original one (currently 17 Mpix), color (Ilfochromes I think) and B&W up to about 16x20", and they looked pretty good, and an attraction of that system is that you're not tied to one kind of paper. They're also a lot cheaper than a Lambda, though still quite expensive.

I just looked up the lab that DeVere said has two of these machines--Precision Photos in New York (www.precisionphotos.com)--and it turns out they're a headshot lab, which means the main thing they are doing with these is producing 8x10" headshots with the performer's name in caption and possibly a one-page resume on the back in batches of 100 prints.

I also asked the Chromira folks if it was possible to do Ilfochrome on a Chromira, and they said the light source wasn't powerful enough, but I think they said it could do B&W on silver gelatin paper.

[tim atherton]

I think I remember Bob saying they do the standard old fashioned (archival?) "hand-wash" after it's out of the printer - same as they had been doing with the Agfa B&W papers they had previously used?

[Bruce Watson]

Yesterday, Bob Carnie, a member here and one of the owner/operators of Elevator, a digital and traditional printing lab in Toronto, dropped by my place on his way to the Silver Conference in the L.A. area. He brought with him a sampling of prints that he'll exhibit at the Silver Conference.

Did you talk to him about price? It's been a while since I looked, but I remember prints using this new paper being frightfully expensive. It's like 3x the price of an RA-4 print off the same Lightjet or similar system. Over 4x the cost of a same size inkjet print.

I'm sure it's good. I'm just not sure it's that good. I hope it is; I hope people adopt it and the volume drives the price down to something more reasonable. As it is, all I can do is sit on the sidelines and watch.

[Ralph Barker]

Did you talk to him about price? . . .

The short answer is no, I didn't.

The longer version is that I assume pricing information is available on the elevatordigital.ca site. My guess would be that the process probably isn't appropriate for casual individual prints, but may be a viable option for exhibitions or multiple large prints from digital sources (original digital capture or film scans) where traditional archival prints are required. Obviously, the economics involved is a matter of individual choice.

I simply wanted to mention that I had seen prints from the process, and was duly impressed with the exhibition-level quality.

[gregstidham]

I saw the prints at Elevator before they left for Pasadena. Bob had a really nice 1 day viewing and popular vote. Lots of good work.

However, IMO, some of the prints didn't look so great to me. Some still had the tell tale signs I see in the shadows of digital output prints. The very subtle areas in the darkest shadows that have kept me away from digital output of my B&W work.

It is very possible that it is not the output itself however, but the file scan and prep of the digital file that yielded what I saw. In addition, these prints I refer to may not be prints made at Elevator.

Maybe Bob could comment on the ratio of traditional vs digital print output at the Elevator showing.

Of course, I am very picky and most folks would never see what I look for in a print.

I lost my darkroom this year when I sold my house, so I would love an alternative to traditional B&W printing. Rental darkrooms seem to be a dying breed.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Greg is correct. A silver printing process will only produce a great print of an image that is well made and prepared. In fact, ANY printing process will do that. It's interesting to me, since this process is the opposite of what I do (and many others these days). I start with film and print digitally, except for the ocassional Chromira print, which is what's essentially being discussed in this thread.

[tim atherton]

However, IMO, some of the prints didn't look so great to me. Some still had the tell tale signs I see in the shadows of digital output prints. The very subtle areas in the darkest shadows that have kept me away from digital output of my B&W work.

It is very possible that it is not the output itself however, but the file scan and prep of the digital file that yielded what I saw. In addition, these prints I refer to may not be prints made at Elevator.

Maybe Bob could comment on the ratio of traditional vs digital print output at the Elevator showing.


yep - there are so many variables. For example (and all other things being equal - i.e. excellent scans etc), working from scanned LF negs, I often find I can get much more shadow detail - if that's what I want - when that is output digitally (usually inkjet) than from an enlarger print. Of course it's also possible to get carried away with that and push it too far and end up showing the crud in the shadows - stuff you probably wouldn't get that deep to see in a darkroom print.

And if the original input is digital rather than analogue - then it's a whole different set of criteria.

I had test prints done with the old Agfa (I think) paper set-up on the Lambda Bob had, and they were pretty damned good. And that was with a paper that wasn't designed for the laser process at all.

[Brian Ellis]

Greg is correct. A silver printing process will only produce a great print of an image that is well made and prepared. In fact, ANY printing process will do that.

Actually no printing process will produce a great print unless the person making it is a great printer.

This incessant emphasis on the equipment used to make prints can occasionally become very annoying (to me at least). People talk about what they see in "digital prints" as though there's a generic thing called "digital print" that exhibits certain fixed, immutable characteristics attributable solely to the equipment used to produce it. If people blamed film and darkrooms on every crappy "traditional" print that exists we'd all still be doing Daguerreotypes.

[Richard M. Coda]

I had a few prints made by Bob at Elevator. Some were from negatives (LF & 35mm) that I was trying to salvage because they could not be printed in a darkroom. My photoshop skills are far superior to my darkroom skills (graphic designer by day). Others were from a digital camera. And others were from LF negs that I either wanted to go larger than I can in the darkroom or just wanted to have minute control over certain areas of the image.

Yes, they are expensive. Are they traditional (wet processed by hand in a darkroom after exposure)? I would say yes and if I put them side by side with a darkroom print I defy anyone to tell them apart. See my website and look at Whaler's Cove, Iris, and WTC 1981. I have had those images done this way.

What would the nay sayers say about this scenario? LF neg to start. Drum scan. TOTAL and minute control in photoshop. Output back to a new master silver negative, with all the spotting, burning/dodging, contrast control built in. Enlarged or contact printed in a traditional darkroom. Digital or traditional? There is one well known photographer out there who uses this technique when necessary. He is displayed at one of those "traditional" galleries in Carmel. It's just another tool. If a silver print is what you are after and what you value... does it matter how it was made?

[Eric James]

It's just another tool. If a silver print is what you are after and what you value... does it matter how it was made?

For me, no.

As a participant of the 2006 LF photo exchange, I came to appreciate the traditionalist's appoach. Some of those "analog" BW images are superb and rank among my favorite. Three cheers for the wet process, and may your pulmonologist fail to make her boat payments.

Whether you strive to make silver prints, or your passion is simply BW, the print on the wall is what matters to me. I applaud the companies that are keeping step with the times, and offering progressive alternatives to photographic artists.

Maybe one day soon folks will concur: "these analog to digital BW prints are a vast improvement over the old wet process." I can make that claim today about my color work. Nonetheless, there will always be something special about going to your local shop for supplies, spending an evening in the darkroom, and framing you best traditional print on the wall.

[thomas]

...........

What would the nay sayers say about this scenario? LF neg to start. Drum scan. TOTAL and minute control in photoshop. Output back to a new master silver negative, with all the spotting, burning/dodging, contrast control built in. Enlarged or contact printed in a traditional darkroom. Digital or traditional? There is one well known photographer out there who uses this technique when necessary. He is displayed at one of those "traditional" galleries in Carmel. It's just another tool. If a silver print is what you are after and what you value... does it matter how it was made?

Hello - I'm just getting back into photography after quite a few years absence. I don't have much interest in digital (maybe a little, though) - but your statement in bold interested me. I didn't know that one could make silver negatives from a digital file. How is this done? Can you give a link to more info? (I'm hoping this is something possible in a home darkroom,)

I'll do a google search, but maybe you know a direct line to the information.....

Thanks,

Thomas

[RPNugent]

I believe he is referring to Huntington Witherill. I also think he is a bit off in that it is not a silver negative. Hunter has full contact print size negs produced, but they aren't silver and aren't enlarged. I have seen prints in his house using the enlarged digital negs and the same image printed from the 4x5 silver original neg and I at least can't tell them apart. When I asked him how to tell, he said something along the lines of the perfect ones are the digital ones, if you see minor dodging and burning errors they are from film. Obviously any truly noticable errors ended up in the trash so it was impossible to see a difference.

[thomas]

I believe he is referring to Huntington Witherill. I also think he is a bit off in that it is not a silver negative. Hunter has full contact print size negs produced, but they aren't silver and aren't enlarged. I have seen prints in his house using the enlarged digital negs and the same image printed from the 4x5 silver original neg and I at least can't tell them apart. When I asked him how to tell, he said something along the lines of the perfect ones are the digital ones, if you see minor dodging and burning errors they are from film. Obviously any truly noticable errors ended up in the trash so it was impossible to see a difference.

My quickie Google search turned up making an ink-jet negative on mylar from a digital file, and then printing on silver paper the old-fashioned way, contact or enlargement, but this is not the same obviously. A silver (high-resolution) neg, if that is possible, would answer the (major, to me) problem of really archiving a digital file - by making a "permanent" tangible record. Digital media change faster than hair styles, it seems, and require a continuous upgrading of equipment to keep up with the changes and keep the files accessible in the process.

Besides, a 4x5 b&w negative is beautiful in its own right, anyway!

Thomas

[Gordon Moat]

Try reading up a little on Dan Burkholder. Prior to mostly making contact negatives on inkjet, he used service bureax to produce a high resolution (2400 or 2540 dpi) negative for contact printing. The difference between this and a printing negative is only in preparation, in that there is no line screen, and output is dithered. It really is a negative, and it really is film, but not exactly like taking a photo of something. When you contact print to silver paper from one of these, there is enough diffusion (proper term?) through the negative to smooth the edges of dots on the contact negative, which gives a continuous tone look on the final silver print.

I have seen this method compared to inkjet produced contact negatives, and subjectively it seems better. There are a few downsides, such as cost, and the non-standard approach means the service bureau could get your output wrong (I am not describing all steps, to keep this posting short). A substitute method might be outputing on a laser printer to transparency, or getting a desktop platesetter (sometimes good used prices). Inkjet is lower effective resolution due to higher dot gain, though with some alternative process prints it might be tough to see any difference without a loupe.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

[Mike Boden]

There's a company in Los Angeles call BowHaus that can make negatives and transparencies from digital files. The process is called LVT and has been around for quite a while. Check it out: http://www.bowhaus.com/services/lvtmain.php4

[bob carnie]

Hi Ralph
Laura Barney and I just got back yesterday, 21 days on the road and glad to be home.
First off I would like to say that New Mexico is one of the most wonderful spots in the World and I would like to spend more time in your neck of the woods.Next time we are bringing a RV and you can show us some nice spots to photograph.

Since there have been some positive and negative responses to this new paper , I will try to answer some of the questions and as well put in my .2cents re this technology.

Just like any printing process , garbage in , garbage out. Probably the most critical aspect of printing . if the neg, file is contaning abberations then you will see it in the final print.
I do not think the cameras*digital* have matured enough as yet and we will gradually see a long build up of quality as time goes on. I believe this is a very slick marketing program that all the manufacturers are salivating about.* original file size is very important with this process ,not manufactured file size, and our whole photo world is pushing towards the Big Print and that is where I see most of the lunchbag letdown.
Also with this paper you are using a glossy material that will not hide defects in the print.
My experience now is about 1500 prints or files on the Lambda and the variety of different quality input files is staggering.

Regarding the process. I do hand print every image off the lambda with the exact sequence that I would use for an enlarger print. Very Large trays, lots and lots of chemicals and in total darkness with protective glasses and a jump suit to ward off the splashing chemicals.
The paper is actually Gallerie G4 with an extra red sensitivey and is able to read RGB laser exposure , think of it as panalure on steroids. The paper is thicker than almost all other fibre papers I currently use.
Toning is the same as any print, you just need to test and see how you like the variety of tones available.

Pricing. I do not apologize for the price of our prints , digital or analogue. In fact a hand enlarger print is more expensive in our shop than the Lambda Print. I base our price on the time it takes to make a print and the skill I have aquired over 30years of printing, not the base cost of the paper and chemicals.

By this time next year I imagine new developments on the input side as well as Elevators own experiences will improve and I am quite excited to be on a learning curve.

*What really suprises me is why a Lambda is not on site at any of the Photo Schools . I do think this would be the best decision an institution could make. It definately would save the wet darkrooms, as we all know they are being torn down at a scary rate.*

Percentage of digital to fibre. question.
Obviously the commercial world is moving totally digital, but I have to say Elevators traditional hand prints are holding their own to lambda prints, I believe this will always be the case for my Lab, as I love the enlargers I have and have no intention of getting rid of them and to stop using them.

Ilford is launching the paper this month in the UK with a huge show of David Baileys work and I hope the show works well for them.










Last year, Ilford Photo (Harman Technologies, the management group that bought the Ilford B&W product lines) announced two traditional silver-based enlarging papers (RC and fiber-base) that are optimized for printing digital files, and designed for exposure in tri-color laser systems like the Lambda printers. These papers, obviously, are aimed at the large printing shops that cater to the digital market (or both digital and traditional), as the Lambda machines cost about a half a $mil.

Yesterday, Bob Carnie, a member here and one of the owner/operators of Elevator, a digital and traditional printing lab in Toronto, dropped by my place on his way to the Silver Conference in the L.A. area. He brought with him a sampling of prints that he'll exhibit at the Silver Conference. These included a number of traditional enlargements from film, mostly on fiber-based Ilford Warm Tone paper, and a dozen or so prints on the new Ilford B&W fiber paper for digital exposure.

The prints on the new Ilford digital paper were very impressive - as good as those on regular Ilford paper. And, because it's real silver paper processed in the usual archival manner, these prints would likely satisfy any gallery or museum requirements for conventional fiber-base prints.

Naturally, the size/resolution of the digital file (either direct digital capture or film scan) affects the image quality and optimal print size, but (IMHO) the Ilford prints are lovely.

The Ilford data sheet for the fiber-base paper can be found at: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061220142744587.pdf

[Ralph Barker]

Glad you made it home safely, Bob. It was a pleasure to have you and Laura drop by. I'm assuming that Barney, your dog, is a fan of the "Dog Whisperer" TV show, as he was "calm-submissive" the whole time, unlike my neighborhood roadrunner. ;)

Naturally, you folks are welcome here any time.

[Richard M. Coda]

Hi Thomas:

Sorry, hadn't been checking. Yes, BowHaus is one of the places. http://www.bowhaus.com/services/lvtmain.php4 - I am no fan of inkjet negatives.

Keep this in mind. You will need a serious computer for LF work. You will need some pretty good Photoshop skills. If you don't have them, I really do recommend Dan Burkholder's book "Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing". I disregard the inkjet stuff... but the PS tips alone are worth the price of the book. http://www.danburkholder.com

Rich