Digital negative quality

[timbo10ca]

Hi- I posted this over at the hybrid site, but I thought I'd put it here too: I know this is a loaded and open ended question, but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size? I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances. The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.

Thanks,
Tim

[Don Hutton]

You should get plenty of responses to this on the hybrid forum. In short, for alt processes, which are printed on mat papers, I'm pretty sure that you can produce prints from digital negatives which are almost indistiguishable from in camera negatives. For silver gelatin, my own personal experience has been that this point has not yet been reached, but I do know that there has been a fair bit of work done on this recently using QTR and that if it is not quite there yet, it's getting closer. I spent some time about a year ago using Pictorico white film and thought at the time that it was worth pursuing as I was getting decent results, just not perfect.... I haven't found the time to go back and revisit it.

[windpointphoto]

Don is correct, plus with the quality of inkjet printers ie: Epson's 3800, and papers, there is no need to go through the work of making a digital neg for silver printing. This is if you have the printer, but how else would you make the digital neg? As for Platinum prints, I can see no difference with a silver neg or a digital.

[timbo10ca]

Thanks to you both. I don't actually have any of the digital equipment yet, but was thinking that rather than buying an 8x10, all the holders, lenses, cost of film... and lugging it, I would be better off perhaps going the digital route, and perhaps getting a 5x7 enlarger for those negs I want to print a bit bigger on silver paper. I'm essentially trying to choose a path and not just buy a bunch of equipment (as much as I'd love an 8x10 system). With the scanner and printer, I could then also do my own color work.

Tim

[Bruce Watson]

...but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size?

Short answer is "yes."

Long answer is that for what you are doing, making a digital negative that you use to contact print in the wet darkroom, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised. If, of course, you are willing to put the work into it to climb the learning curve. If instead you think that you'll just be able to "push a button" and out pops a perfect digital negative, then you'll probably be (very) unpleasantly surprised. It will take time and effort on your behalf to learn how to do this well. But if you do it well you'll end up with a digital negative that prints really easily with all your corrections already in place. Which makes it much easier to get the print to do exactly what you want.

If instead of making a digital negative you just make an inkjet print, you might be even more pleasantly surprised. Again, there are learning curves, especially with B&W. But the best looking B&W prints I've ever seen, and I've held a number of excellent master prints in my hands (silver, platinum, etc.) have been inkjet prints. If you are really into black however, or really into glossy papers, then contact printing is still the way to go IMHO.


I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances.

Close? We equaled or exceeded about eight or ten years ago IMHO.


The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.

There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO. However, there are some aesthetic reasons -- like you want the bigger ground glass or you like the decrease in DOF, etc.

[timbo10ca]

Thanks Bruce. You've put force behind my conviction. The digital route, especially of the digital negative is daunting and I have *much* to learn, but I think I see myself going in that direction rather than an increase in camera size. I will continue to enjoy the wet darkroom for 35mm and MF, and my 5x7 contacts, but for color and alt processes, digital seems to be the way to go.

Tim

[Don7x17]

Dick Arentz gave up ULF negatives four years ago in favor of Leica M8 and Jim Nelson's digital negative methods. At last year's Arentz Masters Workshop (Pt/Pd) all of us could tell the difference between a digital and an in-camera negative, but the effect was entirely due to the treatment of the blacks in the print, not accutance or sharpness. For those of you that have last year's Viewcamera (July-Aug 2007), you can see some of Dick's work. The 12x19 sized verzion of the cover image was taken with M8, and the final print is outstanding!

[jetcode]

Don does this mean that a M8 photograph of a LF image/print was on the cover of View Camera magazine or a M8 original (35mm film) image?

[Richard M. Coda]

IMHO, I have seen prints from digital "inkjet" negatives and I have not been impressed. And these are from respected members of the photo community. In fact, some were downright fuzzy.

I, personally, have made "real" silver negatives (via Chicago Albumen Works) and prints from them from both digital files and from scanned LF negs, and find them indistinguishable from in-camera negatives/prints. I use digital negatives to a) salvage a bad negative of a good image, or b) make a silver print from a DSLR image (in which case that was the only camera I had at the time and could not go back... the flag on my website is a silver print from a DSLR/silver neg.).

Just my 2 cents...

[Ron Marshall]

Short answer is "yes."

Long answer is that for what you are doing, making a digital negative that you use to contact print in the wet darkroom, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised. If, of course, you are willing to put the work into it to climb the learning curve. If instead you think that you'll just be able to "push a button" and out pops a perfect digital negative, then you'll probably be (very) unpleasantly surprised. It will take time and effort on your behalf to learn how to do this well. But if you do it well you'll end up with a digital negative that prints really easily with all your corrections already in place. Which makes it much easier to get the print to do exactly what you want.

If instead of making a digital negative you just make an inkjet print, you might be even more pleasantly surprised. Again, there are learning curves, especially with B&W. But the best looking B&W prints I've ever seen, and I've held a number of excellent master prints in my hands (silver, platinum, etc.) have been inkjet prints. If you are really into black however, or really into glossy papers, then contact printing is still the way to go IMHO.



Close? We equaled or exceeded about eight or ten years ago IMHO.



There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO. However, there are some aesthetic reasons -- like you want the bigger ground glass or you like the decrease in DOF, etc.

Bruce, have you used NK7s to make digital negs, and if so, do they work well for that?

[Clyde Rogers]

Digital negatives from the Epson 3800 are fantastic for palladium printing, easily the best alt prints I've made (but I agree it is a lot of work to get there).

So why do I still wish I had the temperament for a ULF camera?

Later,

Clyde

[Kerik Kouklis]

but the effect was entirely due to the treatment of the blacks in the print
Don - Just wondering what you mean by this.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I am intersted in learning more about digital negs, are there any good books and sources that you all recommend? I know about Dan Burkholder's book but am not sure of any others. Also, is Dan's book a good place to get started?

Thanks,
Eric

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce, have you used NK7s to make digital negs, and if so, do they work well for that?

No, I haven't. I have read up on the making of digital negatives, done a lot of research, but I've never made the leap. Instead I made a conscious decision to take the inkjet printing path. Part of that was a gamble that Cone would have a glossy set out by now (actually, by about two years ago) that would give us the improved Dmax the laws of physics bestow upon glossier papers. I'm learning not to gamble on that guy. :(

By now I've accumulated a number of images that don't work well with Cone's inks. They really need a darker black than I can get with a matte paper. So I'm actually leaning in the direction of digital negatives again so I can contact print on silver gelatin.

One of these days I'll have to get up or go home I guess. I'm just not looking forward to yet another set of learning curves. Sigh...

[Kerik Kouklis]

Burkholder's book is excellent, but is now pretty dated. I highly recommend Ron Reeder and Brad Hinkel's book (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Negatives-Photoshop-Alternative-Printing/dp/0240808541/sr=1-3/qid=1161812793/ref=sr_1_3/102-2060243-2326547?ie=UTF8&s=books). Ron also has some excellent information on his website (http://www.ronreeder.com/articles/) about using QuadTone RIP for making digital negs which is the method I'm now using.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks Kerik!

[Ron Marshall]

No, I haven't. I have read up on the making of digital negatives, done a lot of research, but I've never made the leap. Instead I made a conscious decision to take the inkjet printing path. Part of that was a gamble that Cone would have a glossy set out by now (actually, by about two years ago) that would give us the improved Dmax the laws of physics bestow upon glossier papers. I'm learning not to gamble on that guy. :(

By now I've accumulated a number of images that don't work well with Cone's inks. They really need a darker black than I can get with a matte paper. So I'm actually leaning in the direction of digital negatives again so I can contact print on silver gelatin.

One of these days I'll have to get up or go home I guess. I'm just not looking forward to yet another set of learning curves. Sigh...

I'm basically in the same position you are. I'm very happy with the NK7s for most of my images, but there are a few that would look better in silver gelatin. That will have to wait until I move, as I don't have the room here for a darkroom.

[Don7x17]

Don does this mean that a M8 photograph of a LF image/print was on the cover of View Camera magazine or a M8 original (35mm film) image?

The image shown was a Pd NA2 print made with an enlarged negative (epson printed) with the original source a .dng from the M8 Camera. Some of Dick's work is also done with medium format camera.

[Don7x17]

Burkholder's book is excellent, but is now pretty dated. I highly recommend Ron Reeder and Brad Hinkel's book (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Negatives-Photoshop-Alternative-Printing/dp/0240808541/sr=1-3/qid=1161812793/ref=sr_1_3/102-2060243-2326547?ie=UTF8&s=books). Ron also has some excellent information on his website (http://www.ronreeder.com/articles/) about using QuadTone RIP for making digital negs which is the method I'm now using.

I've used Burkholder's methods and have tried PDN. My preference is PDN. YMMV.
http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/

[audioexcels]

Here's an all analog photographer:

http://www.pervolquartz.com/

Here's another:

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/


Giving two examples only to show the quality possible with all analog, the first being one in the traditional b/w look, and the second in the alternative process (not to say the first does not alter the image through the process to get maximum fidelity).

I have never seen either in person, but if I had to take a wild guess, the latter (Lauren's images) cannot be replicated with hybrid nor post-processing...though the latter is obviously processing with chemicals to achieve the look.

The former is said to look better than an artist that produces some of the very best hybrid work in the world including: http://www.michaellevin.ca/

The eyes are the subject of review. Some will never be able to, nor would they care to do what Lauren does in the darkroom with her images. Some would not have an incredible analog printing setup and the skill-set to achieve the level of fidelity through analog.

Don Hutton's response is about as close to a solid universal as one can ask for at this time IMHO. And for the reason that things are so close, technologically speaking and also subjectively, the results have provided people with a far more convenient solution towards achieving remarkable results.


BTW...for Don 7X17, I'd love to see one of Kerik's 7X17's printed to precision against a Leica M8 image a 7X17. Web images are web images, but I've seen plenty of soft/dark/whatever you want to call them 7X17's, though Kerik's are extremely potent. I know Kerik does both hybrid and analog, but it would be an interesting one to get a few of Kerik's best 7X17 images printed to precision and compare them to anything out there taken by any camera system and printed in the 7X17 or similar size range.

[don12x20]

Here's an all analog photographer:

http://www.pervolquartz.com/

Here's another:

http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/


BTW...for Don 7X17, I'd love to see one of Kerik's 7X17's printed to precision against a Leica M8 image a 7X17. Web images are web images, but I've seen plenty of soft/dark/whatever you want to call them 7X17's, though Kerik's are extremely potent. I know Kerik does both hybrid and analog, but it would be an interesting one to get a few of Kerik's best 7X17 images printed to precision and compare them to anything out there taken by any camera system and printed in the 7X17 or similar size range.


I don't think don7x17 is an M8 driver else wouldn't he use donM8 as username?....and he certainly didn't say anything about the quality of digital vs in-camera negative, just that there was a discernable difference and that they could be told apart.

So having Kerik print up a bunch of in-camera images and try to compare it to other digitally generated images (not the same scene, etc) would be meaningless...

[John Voss]

My wife has had excellent results making plates for her photogravures with enlarged digital negatives from 6x6 film negatives using PDN. The trick has been to hunker down and climb the steep learning curve necessary to get the negatives to be the correct density and color for the process. She had some great support from Mark Nelson too! But ultimately, and even using a far from high end scanner and printer, the PS tweaked negatives have been excellent. As someone wrote earlier, do not expect quick easy results by pushing a button. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. Here's a link:

www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com/

[audioexcels]

I don't think don7x17 is an M8 driver else wouldn't he use donM8 as username?....and he certainly didn't say anything about the quality of digital vs in-camera negative, just that there was a discernable difference and that they could be told apart.

So having Kerik print up a bunch of in-camera images and try to compare it to other digitally generated images (not the same scene, etc) would be meaningless...

Good points.

Why does something have to be the same scene to make for a meaningful comparison? I may LOVE the M8 context and print, but feel it sucks by comparison to something Kerik's 7X17 print shows that the M8 does not...like those nice BLACKS!

Is there a don20X24 around for another comment?

[Don7x17]

....snip snip snip....
BTW...for Don 7X17, I'd love to see one of Kerik's 7X17's printed to precision against a Leica M8 image a 7X17. Web images are web images, but I've seen plenty of soft/dark/whatever you want to call them 7X17's, though Kerik's are extremely potent. I know Kerik does both hybrid and analog, but it would be an interesting one to get a few of Kerik's best 7X17 images printed to precision and compare them to anything out there taken by any camera system and printed in the 7X17 or similar size range.

What I posted didn't have anything to do with your response above. I didn't make any comments on whether digital or in-camera was better ...only that if one were trained one could discern the difference.

After handling Dick's work at the Master's workshop, all of us could tell which was which, and we could tell the difference amongst student portfolio work as well. (and surely there are a few outliers where this isn't possible, so lets not go arguing down this path. A couple of high-key images would qualify. )

Clearly you are confused about scientific method required to prove if you think that comparing Kerik's "best images printed to precision and compare them to anything taken by any camera system, etc etc" proves or disproves anything.

So, if we did use your method, why not put Kerik up against one of the best? I choose Dick (both teach, sell in galleries, and have a bredth in portfolio as well as I have seen the works of both in my hands, not just behind glass). Frankly it would be a tough choice for me between Kerik's in camera images (I like his headlands image looking out into fog - well seen and exquisitely executed!) and Dick Arentz's in camera (How about "Grand Canal"?) OR M8-digital negative images(How about the church ceiling shown on the cover of View Camera?**). Tough choice, eh? Such a comparision would devolve into mere subject-related impressions rather than a technical comparision of workflow results(Kerik tends towards darker images, while Dick has mastered the highlights in PD/NA2). Now toss in Tillman Crane or other master Platinum printers ? Touch choice, eh? And what exactly did this prove,other than a preference for an image?

To apply scientific method you would have to take workflows that derive from a common in-camera negative for both flows. One path is traditional print. The other involves drum scanning the same negative into Digital negative, etc. Now make blind tests with a large number of experienced Pt/Pd printers and ask them to guess which workflow, without telling them the difference. Now give them an education and repeat, after waiting a couple of days (and changing prints). Repeat with significant sample size of different prints from a number of different subjects/printers/negative makers with a number of people. That would be based upon scientific method. Starting with M8 is irrelevent to process (but then lets repeat the test with digital camera vs ULF negative to see if people can discern sharpness differences....we couldn't easily with Dick's M8 workflow. ).


**note that some of Dick's current images derive from a 6x9 film negative through a digital flow, rather than M8 sensor.

[Don7x17]

One further note on Dick's pointers on Epson printers for inkjet negatives - he was clearly bummed that he had found only the 1520 and 3800 had engines that didn't demonstrate repeating banding pattern in the skies (and last year the 4800 was new but he found banding when trying that one). Since all Bud had was a 2400 at the time, Dick suggested those doing digital negatives avoid expansive skies (or areas of light toned prints) at the Formulary. YMMV. <<And we did see this in 2005 at Jim Nelson/Arentz negative workshop when a student printed a Venice negative on the formulary 2400). Fortunately I accidently bought the 3800 earlier last year rather than a 4800 (which I wanted because you could mount a roll of large OHP but wasn't in stock at Pro Photo, so I "settled" for a 3800 which didn't allow this option...fortuitously).

[D. Bryant]

<<And we did see this in 2005 at Jim Nelson/Arentz negative workshop

Jim Nelson or Mark Nelson?

Don Bryant

[Don7x17]

Jim Nelson or Mark Nelson?

Don Bryant

Indeed - should be Mark I. Nelson. Jim Nelson is an longtime friend that specialized in railroad photography...Sorryfor confusion!

[chris_4622]

Indeed - should be Mark I. Nelson. Jim Nelson is an longtime friend that specialized in railroad photography...Sorryfor confusion!

Don,

I would like to email your friend with some questions regarding railroad photography, if you could arrange that.

thanks,
chris

[Kerik Kouklis]

Wow - this thread sure is spinning out of control. I'm not here to say which is better, in-camera or digital negative, because for me it's not a contest. We're lucky working in the times that we do because we have so many paths to creating fine work. I use whatever is appropriate for the image and/or the logistics involved. As much as I like shooting 14x17 film, there are lots of times when that just ain't gonna happen.

There's no doubt in my mind that the 3800 was a breakthrough for making digital negatives due to the absence of banding (aka venetian blinds) and I noted that on the very first negative I made with that machine in early 2007. My first test neg was a cypress tree against a gradated foggy sky backgroud - a true torture test for diginegs. I'm a little bummed that the Formulary still only has a 2200 and 2400 because I will be teaching digital negs, platinum and gumover platinum there in a couple weeks (class is packed, so don't ask). I'm glad you reminded me of that issue, Don. I think I'll send an email out suggesting that the students don't bring images with wide expanses of sky/water/fog, etc.

BTW Don7x17, since I'm not sure who you are from your screen name, where did you see my prints in person? Just curious...

Finally, I have no interest in a scientific comparison of in-camera vs. digital negs. It's irrelevent to me because I know I can get great results from both and there aren't enough hours in the day as it is. No doubt in my mind, it's a great time to be a photographic artist!

Now, if someone wants to claim they've got printer that can make ambrotypes, well, them's fightin' words!! :p :)

[D. Bryant]

One further note on Dick's pointers on Epson printers for inkjet negatives - he was clearly bummed that he had found only the 1520 and 3800 had engines that didn't demonstrate repeating banding pattern in the skies

Where in the world did he come up with a 1520? Man that printer is ancient now. Interesting to know that it works so well.

Don Bryant

[Jeremy Moore]

One further note on Dick's pointers on Epson printers for inkjet negatives - he was clearly bummed that he had found only the 1520 and 3800 had engines that didn't demonstrate repeating banding pattern in the skies (and last year the 4800 was new but he found banding when trying that one).

I definitely had banding on the 2200, but haven't seen any on the 7800 including a large number of images with wide expanses of sky.

[timbo10ca]

A youtube of Don enjoying his Ferrets...priceless...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=38796&highlight=contact+print

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33999&highlight=epson+contact+print

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=33997&highlight=epson+contact+print

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=38064&highlight=epson+contact+print

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=26243&highlight=contact+print


These links are interesting, but reiterate what I think I already knew- scanning then enlarging then printing on inkjet was not as good as traditional printing (in general), especially not as good as in camera negative contact print. My question was more toward using a digital negative to contact print... which could be argued that it's similar to the scan/inkjet route, but maybe not. I was especially interested in enlarged digital negs for alt pro, and it seems the clear answer is there. Jury's still out on the silver contacts, but getting close. There was a helpful post from Sandy King in the last link, however. I was just wondering if it would be more worth while to get an Epson V750 and 3800 for contact printing, and a 5x7 enlarger for wet work, or getting an 8x10 system (which would probably cost more). I also understand that an enlarged 5x7 in the wet darkroom loses quality, coming close to that of a digital neg contact print at around 3-4X enlargement, so it may become a wash if I keep prints less than 15X21

Tim

[Jim collum]

I definitely had banding on the 2200, but haven't seen any on the 7800 including a large number of images with wide expanses of sky.

ditto here.. the 2200 gave me all sorts of problems in smooth areas.. but the 7600 didn't exhibit the same problem.

I now have the hp z3100... and am getting ready to start playing around with it and digital negs.

[Ron Marshall]

ditto here.. the 2200 gave me all sorts of problems in smooth areas.. but the 7600 didn't exhibit the same problem.

I now have the hp z3100... and am getting ready to start playing around with it and digital negs.

Were you using the 2200 with the QTR when you experienced the banding?

[Jim collum]

Were you using the 2200 with the QTR when you experienced the banding?

no.. i was using PDN on both 2200 and 7600 platforms... each calibrated seperately

[Clyde Rogers]

I got microbanding in areas of smooth middle tone (most disturbingly in skies or children's faces) using the 2200 for digital negatives. Over a span of more than two years I tried the Epson driver, the gimpprint driver, QTR, ImagePrint and ColorBurst. In QTR, ImagePrint and ColorBurst I tried all sorts of different custom curves to defeat the bands (even wrote my own software to create Photoshop and QTR curves, and hacked IPv6 to tweek its built-in curves).

I actually found that the bands were visible at all middle tonalities under a microscope, and nothing I tried defeated them. I eventually realized that there must be too much variation in 2200 and similar printers---some folks might get one that printed well, but many of the printers (while fine for inkjet prints) were not up to digital negative standards.

I decided then that I would never again buy a photographic printer that didn't have a paper advance fine adjustment. I got the 3800 right when it came out, calibrated it, and my worst lingering digital negative problems went away literally overnight. I'm a firm believer in the professional line Epson printers for digital negatives, and consider the 3800 an outstanding printer for an alt process worker.

Until later,

Clyde

[Ron Marshall]

I decided then that I would never again buy a photographic printer that didn't have a paper advance fine adjustment. I got the 3800 right when it came out, calibrated it, and my worst lingering digital negative problems went away literally overnight. I'm a firm believer in the professional line Epson printers for digital negatives, and consider the 3800 an outstanding printer for an alt process worker.

Clyde

Clyde, I'm not familiar with the paper advance fine adjustment; which Epson printers have this capability?

[Clyde Rogers]

These links are interesting, but reiterate what I think I already knew- scanning then enlarging then printing on inkjet was not as good as traditional printing (in general), especially not as good as in camera negative contact print. My question was more toward using a digital negative to contact print... which could be argued that it's similar to the scan/inkjet route, but maybe not. I was especially interested in enlarged digital negs for alt pro, and it seems the clear answer is there. Jury's still out on the silver contacts, but getting close. There was a helpful post from Sandy King in the last link, however. I was just wondering if it would be more worth while to get an Epson V750 and 3800 for contact printing, and a 5x7 enlarger for wet work, or getting an 8x10 system (which would probably cost more). I also understand that an enlarged 5x7 in the wet darkroom loses quality, coming close to that of a digital neg contact print at around 3-4X enlargement, so it may become a wash if I keep prints less than 15X21

Tim

I think that the alt print from a digital negative is quite unlike an inkjet print. The individual ink dots vanish in the paper texture, and the tonality comes from paper and metal (at least for me) rather than plastic and pigment. I think they look far less clinical than an inkjet, whether shot with a film or digital camera.

Sometimes, however, that clinical look really works. I like some recent urban shots I've made with a Mamiya 7 on tmax, scanned and inkjet printed, and don't think they'd look as good in platinum or silver. Other times the enlarger is tough to beat (in fact, 7x10 prints from 5x7 negatives can look even better than contact prints, IMHO---fantastic tonality with even more detail than the contact print).

I expect that with your existing experience base, the quickest way to a fine 8x10 contact print is almost certainly an 8x10 camera. But scaling up the camera can change the way you shoot, and you may or may not like the way it changes. Of course, digital negatives may lead you to scale down, with the same potential problems...

I hoped I could end with some sage advice, but it turns out I don't have the answer. I expect you're just going to have to try one or the other, and see how it works out!

Have fun with whatever you decide to try,

Clyde

[Clyde Rogers]

Clyde, I'm not familiar with the paper advance fine adjustment; which Epson printers have this capability?

Ron, all the "Pro" printers do---3800, 4800, 7800, etc. The 3800 is the cheapest new printer to have this feature. I think most (if not all) the earlier models of these lines (4000, 4600, 7000, etc.) have the capability as well. I know the 2200 (and 1270 and 1160) do not have these features.

The setting is "paper feed adjustment". You can make very fine adjustments to how the paper moves after each pass of the print head, by plus or minus a fraction of a percent. This lets you "tweek out" microbanding by running tests with specific media. You can save these settings as a "custom paper" using the printer control panel (the little LCD with buttons on the printer itself) so they can be used with any driver (Epson, QTR, whatever).

These printers also let you vary things like how far above the paper the head runs, and how long to let the media dry between printhead passes. I've used many of these features for digital negatives.

--clyde

[timbo10ca]

Ron, all the "Pro" printers do---3800, 4800, 7800, etc. The 3800 is the cheapest new printer to have this feature. I think most (if not all) the earlier models of these lines (4000, 4600, 7000, etc.) have the capability as well. I know the 2200 (and 1270 and 1160) do not have these features.

The setting is "paper feed adjustment". You can make very fine adjustments to how the paper moves after each pass of the print head, by plus or minus a fraction of a percent. This lets you "tweek out" microbanding by running tests with specific media. You can save these settings as a "custom paper" using the printer control panel (the little LCD with buttons on the printer itself) so they can be used with any driver (Epson, QTR, whatever).

These printers also let you vary things like how far above the paper the head runs, and how long to let the media dry between printhead passes. I've used many of these features for digital negatives.

--clyde

I may be coming to you for more advice in the future! ;) :D

[sanking]

I have printed with both in-camera LF and ULF negatives and with digital negatives with both alternative and silver gelatin for quite a long time. I have also seen high quality work with both methods by photographers such as Michael Smith and Dick Arentz, and numerous others not as well known to the general public. Basically, earlier comments by Don Hutton, Don Bryant, Kerik Kouklis and others are on the mark.

And I also agree with most of what Bruce Watson has said. However, I can not agree with his comment below. Quality is sometimes difficult to define, but if the issue is sharpness and detail there are still valid reasons, in some circumstances, for working with a ULF camera as compared to a digital negative made from a smaller format.

For example, let us assume that the issue is making a silver gelatin print, and we could use an original 11X14" in-camera negative or a 4X5" negative. Let us assume that both negatives were made at the same time, and from the same spot, and both negatives are exposed and developed appropriately. A good contact print from the in-camera 11X14" negative will absolutely beat a 11X14" print from a digital negative produced from a 4X5 original in terms of sharpness and detail if the print is on silver gelatin paper. Many studies, Ctein for example, have demonstrated to my satisfaction that the human eye is capable of discriminating between the 30-50 lines/mm silver gelatin prints and the 10- lines/mm of inkjet printers. On pt/pd there would not be much difference between a print made with an in-camera negative and one made from a digital negative because resolution and sharpness with pt/pd is limited by both the output device (inkjet printer), and/or by the texture of the final substrate, to less than 10 lines/mm.

Of course, if one scans and digitizes a 4X5" negative then the door is open to a number of tonal corrections and manipulations not easily available with the in-camera negative.

But the main issue is as Kerik previously noted, i.e, in spite of the quality possible with ULF negatives there are many conditions where the use of such cameras is either impossible or highly impractical. In those circumstances the use of digital negatives from smaller negatives, including MF and LF is the only way to make the image happen. But let us not confuse practicality and expediency with absolute final image quality.

Sandy King






There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO. However, there are some aesthetic reasons -- like you want the bigger ground glass or you like the decrease in DOF, etc.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with Sandy's post above. There is a certain "tactile" quality to a contact print from a camera negative, at least with the glossier processes, that doesn't exist with an enlarged negative of any sort. There may be perfectly good reasons to sacrifice that quality to other things like the practicality of using a smaller camera, ability to make adjustments to the enlarged negative by whatever method, or the need for separation negatives with certain processes, but for myself, I like the sharp three-dimensional look of a contact print from an original neg, even if the negative is 2-1/4" square. That isn't to say that I don't enlarge, but in doing so, I recognize that I'm gaining something and losing something at the same time.

[sanking]

David,

Thanks for your comments, and you are right on IMHO.

Unfortunately most folks have never actually made valid comparisons of the issues they address with such apparent authority.

Or in the words of one of my recently departed relatives, "Often wrong but never in doubt."


Sandy






I agree with Sandy's post above. There is a certain "tactile" quality to a contact print from a camera negative, at least with the glossier processes, that doesn't exist with an enlarged negative of any sort. There may be perfectly good reasons to sacrifice that quality to other things like the practicality of using a smaller camera, ability to make adjustments to the enlarged negative by whatever method, or the need for separation negatives with certain processes, but for myself, I like the sharp three-dimensional look of a contact print from an original neg, even if the negative is 2-1/4" square. That isn't to say that I don't enlarge, but in doing so, I recognize that I'm gaining something and losing something at the same time.

[Bruce Watson]

Unfortunately most folks have never actually made valid comparisons of the issues they address with such apparent authority.

Or maybe they have made valid comparisons and just disagree with you.

Which just brings up the point that comes up over and over and over again in this and most other photography forums. That is, one must do one's own testing and research so that one can find out what works best... for the individual actually doing the work. Nobody here can read anyone else's mind -- so they can't tell anyone what will work best for them. All any of us can do is tell what works best, for us.

[sanking]

Bruce,

I am sorry if you thought my comment was directed at you. It was not.

However, you might note that I was very careful in limiting my discussion re: the 11X14 in-camera contact print compared to a print of the same size made from a digital negative to the issue of detail. It was not about what works best for a particular person, nor was it about the overall aesthetic. And when the issue is limited to detail, as I specifically stated, there can really be no discussion of the fact that a 11X14 in-camera negative will beat a digital print made from a 4X5 negative. You are free to disagree with whatever you like but that won't change the facts as they involve detail.

I am not trying to tell anyone how to work, or what might work best for them, and the fact of the matter is that most of my own work these days is from digital negatives, not contact prints from in-camera negatives. But I have actually made the specific comparison in question so my opinion is based on experience. How many others who have contributed to this thread can say as much?

Sandy King






Or maybe they have made valid comparisons and just disagree with you.

Which just brings up the point that comes up over and over and over again in this and most other photography forums. That is, one must do one's own testing and research so that one can find out what works best... for the individual actually doing the work. Nobody here can read anyone else's mind -- so they can't tell anyone what will work best for them. All any of us can do is tell what works best, for us.

[Bruce Watson]

And I also agree with most of what Bruce Watson has said. However, I can not agree with his comment below. Quality is sometimes difficult to define, but if the issue is sharpness and detail there are still valid reasons, in some circumstances, for working with a ULF camera as compared to a digital negative made from a smaller format.

Yet you are taking this out of context. Read the original post once again. The OP says "...but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives." And he qualifies this with "I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances." Emphasis mine.

Then, I was very careful to indicate when I said "There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO." that I was offering my opinion, which is what IMHO (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=imho) means.

I stand by my post and my opinion. Your disagreeing is fine by me. Makes the forum a more interesting place, IMHO.

[sanking]

Perhaps I did take something out of context. In any event, I will just simply disagree with you and state that in my experience there is indeed a quality advantage of ULF cameras over digital negatives if the prints are made with a process than can show the extra amount of detail, say carbon transfer, silver gelatin, or POP.

I have carefully compared prints made directly from a 11X14" in camera negative that was contacted printed with carbon transfer with a print made from a digital negative of a scan of the original 11X14" negative. I worked very hard to make the the digital negative print as good as possible, but there is absolutely no question but that the print made from the original in-camera negative is better. If I were to make this comparison using pt/pd there would be little if any difference in quality.

Sandy King







I stand by my post and my opinion. Your disagreeing is fine by me. Makes the forum a more interesting place, IMHO.

[Don7x17]

Bruce,

I am sorry if you thought my comment was directed at you. It was not.

However, you might note that I was very careful in limiting my discussion re: the 11X14 in-camera contact print compared to a print of the same size made from a digital negative to the issue of detail. It was not about what works best for a particular person, nor was it about the overall aesthetic. And when the issue is limited to detail, as I specifically stated, there can really be no discussion of the fact that a 11X14 in-camera negative will beat a digital print made from a 4X5 negative. You are free to disagree with whatever you like but that won't change the facts as they involve detail.

I am not trying to tell anyone how to work, or what might work best for them, and the fact of the matter is that most of my own work these days is from digital negatives, not contact prints from in-camera negatives. But I have actually made the specific comparison in question so my opinion is based on experience. How many others who have contributed to this thread can say as much?

Sandy King

Actually I have made the comparison of same subject Digital vs in-camera negative, and its been done by others. There is a difference at 7x17. Personally I prefer in-camera.

[sanking]

Don,

My point was that not many would have actually made the comparison because not many people actually have a ULF camera with which to make this kind of comparison. So I think that a lot of opinions you see are made by people who have never actually compared prints on silver made from in-camera ULF negatives with inkjet prints of the same size made from 4X5 negative scans.

Regardless, the point that Kerik made still holds. There are simply places where the ULF negative will not happen because of logistics. For that reason I have been a proponent of digital negatives for alternative printing for many years. In fact, I even pushed this agenda on APUG for a long time and the hybrid forum that was created there was in part due to my promotion of this type of work.

However, I strongly agree with what Bruce noted, i.e. disagreement on issue of this type is a good thing because in the end there are no absolutes and people's criteria and interest are different.

Sandy King




Actually I have made the comparison of same subject Digital vs in-camera negative, and its been done by others. There is a difference at 7x17. Personally I prefer in-camera.

[Don7x17]

Don,

My point was that not many would have actually made the comparison because not many people actually have a ULF camera with which to make this kind of comparison. So I think that a lot of opinions you see are made by people who have never actually compared prints on silver made from in-camera ULF negatives with inkjet prints of the same size made from 4X5 negative scans.

Regardless, the point that Kerik made still holds. There are simply places where the ULF negative will not happen because of logistics. For that reason I have been a proponent of digital negatives for alternative printing for many years. In fact, I even pushed this agenda on APUG for a long time and the hybrid forum that was created there was in part due to my promotion of this type of work.

However, I strongly agree with what Bruce noted, i.e. disagreement on issue of this type is a good thing because in the end there are no absolutes and people's criteria and interest are different.

Sandy King

This thread has wandered a bit.
Our opinions are actually identical on all the issues you cite above....

[mcfactor]

I think the answer to the original poster's question lies in the chosen process. When one creates a digital negative from scanned film for the purpose of gelatin-silver printing, one has already decided that they like gelatin-silver prints better than ink-jet prints (for whatever reason, e.g., tonality).

I take it as given that in gelatin-silver printing, the larger the negative, the better quality of the print (quality meaning tonality, sharpness, richness, etc.). In other words, an 8x10 contact print made from and in-camera 8x10 neg will look better than a 4x5 in-camera negative enlarged to 8x10 (the traditional way).

When a digital negative is made (say, a 4x5 neg scanned and enlarged to an 8x10 digital negative), the film is still being enlarged and thus there is a loss of quailty. Even if the digital negative made is the same size as the original negative it was scanned from, the scanning itself necessarily involves a decrease (even though it may be slight) in quality (at the very least, sharpness). Therefore, a digital negative cannot be of the same quality as an in-camera negative (it may be easier to print, and thus look "better", but the quality will be decreased to some degree).

[sanking]

You make some very good points.

And to emphasize the point about quality loss in scanning, one will need to scan with a very high quality scanner in order to capture as much detail in scanning as one can capture from an in-camera negative in projection printing, especially when the scanned negative is to be enlarged more than about 3X.

For 4X5 or 5X7 negatives that are not to be enlarged beyond 3X - 4X most people will be happy enough with one of the better Epson or Micretek flatbeds, but beyond that a high end flatbed or drum scanner is needed.


Sandy King







I think the answer to the original poster's question lies in the chosen process. When one creates a digital negative from scanned film for the purpose of gelatin-silver printing, one has already decided that they like gelatin-silver prints better than ink-jet prints (for whatever reason, e.g., tonality).

I take it as given that in gelatin-silver printing, the larger the negative, the better quality of the print (quality meaning tonality, sharpness, richness, etc.). In other words, an 8x10 contact print made from and in-camera 8x10 neg will look better than a 4x5 in-camera negative enlarged to 8x10 (the traditional way).

When a digital negative is made (say, a 4x5 neg scanned and enlarged to an 8x10 digital negative), the film is still being enlarged and thus there is a loss of quailty. Even if the digital negative made is the same size as the original negative it was scanned from, the scanning itself necessarily involves a decrease (even though it may be slight) in quality (at the very least, sharpness). Therefore, a digital negative cannot be of the same quality as an in-camera negative (it may be easier to print, and thus look "better", but the quality will be decreased to some degree).

[muskedear]

My interest in digital negatives is marginal. However, I can imagine exploring this process to rescue some in-camera negatives that are scratched, bent, developed unevenly, or are in some other way less than ideal and unprintable. Can someone speak to how in-camera negatives compare to carefully produced digital negatives that are not enlarged?

[sanking]

OK, the following comments apply only to a comparison of prints made from digital negatives or in-camera negatives that are not enlarged.

The rescue of a few unprintable ULF negatives is the reason I got interested in scanning and printing from digital negatives some six or seven years ago. ULF is much more difficult to get right than smaller formats like 4X5 and 5X7 and I experienced a pretty steep learning curve. The old Korona cameras that I used were not very stable, the holders sometimes leaked, and the lenses I had sometimes did not give adequate coverage. To say nothing of the problem of film development. The result is that I made a lot of negatives of interesting scenes that for one reason or another were not printable. So it passed my mind that I might be able to scan these negatives and correct them in Photoshop. At the time my skills with Photoshop were almost non-existent.

What I found was that it was possible to correct almost any problem with the tools in Photoshop and this allowed me to print some of the damaged negatives. The results in kallitype and palladium on art papers was very good, so I then begin to scan really good negatives that could be printed directly to compare the quality between a print made from the in-camera negative and one made from a digital negative, limiting controls to what was necessary to more or match tonal values on the two prints. Turned out that in kallitype and palladium there was very little difference in quality, if any, between the comparison prints. However, when I did the same comparison with AZO and with carbon transfer I found printer artifacts that were masked by the texture of the art papers used in kallitype and palladium printing.

The current Epson printers are much better than the ones I have used to make most of my digital negatives, an Epson 2000p and a 2200. The 3800, which I am currently using, has a dithering pattern and grain that is so fine that it compares favorably to that of silver prints made from in-camera negatives that have been enlarged about 4X. It is not, however, as smooth as a contact print from a continuos tone silver negative.

So at the current level of my technology, here is my opinion about printing on smooth surface papers like silver gelatin and carbon transfer.

1. You can make excellent prints both ways, printing directly from the in-camera negative or from a digital negative.

2. Prints made directly from an in-camera negative have more smoothness, finer grain and more detail, though the extra detail may not be evident except to print sniffers. But if any corrections of tonal values are needed these must be done manually and can be very time consuming.

3. Prints made from digital negatives may look just as sharp as those made from in-camera negatives, but on close inspection do not have the same amount of detail. On the other hand, the digital file allows extensive corrections and controls in Photoshop that allows one to enhance the print.

Due to the fact that most of my work is done with alternative processes that are very time consuming I am trending to print only with digital negatives, so this means that in many cases I find it more practical to scan a ULF negative and print from a digital negative than to print directly from the in-camera negative.

Sandy King










My interest in digital negatives is marginal. However, I can imagine exploring this process to rescue some in-camera negatives that are scratched, bent, developed unevenly, or are in some other way less than ideal and unprintable. Can someone speak to how in-camera negatives compare to carefully produced digital negatives that are not enlarged?

[mcfactor]

Its good to know that there is a process that will let me make previously-unprintable negatives printable while still maintaining a good amount of the original quality.

[PViapiano]

I don't have a 3800 yet, since I have used the bulk of my time during the past year learning how to print in my darkroom, but I have considered getting LVT negatives of a few digital images to use with my enlarger to make silver prints.

I know that Linda Butler did that for some images in her China book, and the quality seemed excellent. LVT negs run around $12 for a 6x7 med format, and about $45 for a 4x5 lrg format.

I haven't had a foray into alt processes yet but I know that's coming soon ;-)

Also, as a side note, you don't always have to print large for your alt process. Jan Pietrzak had an incredible exhibition at Freestyle recently of pt/pd prints in 4x5 and medium format sizes which was very striking and beautifully displayed. They were like little jewels...