Digital negatives - what's the verdict on their use

I'm going to chuck this one out their just to see if I hook a good well-balanced response.

I've always liked the idea of contact printing - done properly of course on an Azo-like paper, etc., etc. That, and the fact that silver, or whatever, prints still have commercial value over inkjet prints in the gallery. Unfortunately, the sizes I would like to use, essentially Ultra LF, aren't particularly practicable for the images I envisage, i.e., landscapes.

One way around this is to enlarge your 4x5 or 5x7 negative and print it out on film via inkjet (a digital negative) and then using that as your contact negative. Now, I gather these only produce an image that is around 100 lp/inch (or maybe more with ever-improving printer technology?) so nothing like what the original negative can produce. The final print, of course, will only be as good as the negative used and I know they will be inherently poorer than a contact print made from the original negative, but by how much? I'm not keen on following this course but have no firm reasons.

I have no experience of digital negatives so I would like to know if these are worth the effort, and to what extent they differ in their characteristics (if any). Do they still retain that depth, tonal range, etc., so often seen with contacts?

Cheers,
Steve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duff photographer

I'm going to chuck this one out their just to see if I hook a good well-balanced response.

I've always liked the idea of contact printing - done properly of course on an Azo-like paper, etc., etc. That, and the fact that silver, or whatever, prints still have commercial value over inkjet prints in the gallery. Unfortunately, the sizes I would like to use, essentially Ultra LF, aren't particularly practicable for the images I envisage, i.e., landscapes.

One way around this is to enlarge your 4x5 or 5x7 negative and print it out on film via inkjet (a digital negative) and then using that as your contact negative. Now, I gather these only produce an image that is around 100 lp/inch (or maybe more with ever-improving printer technology?) so nothing like what the original negative can produce. The final print, of course, will only be as good as the negative used and I know they will be inherently poorer than a contact print made from the original neg. (but by how much?). I'm not keen on following this course but have no firm reasons.

I have no experience of digital negatives so I would like to know if these are worth the effort, and to what extent they differ in there characteristics (if any). Do they still retain that depth, tonal range, etc., so often seen with contacts?

Cheers,
Steve.

---

I think you'll find that plenty of people use such enlarged digital negs on a regular basis now, and that it is more than fine for contact printing and not "inherently poorer"

I've made many contact prints from 8x10 in-camera negatives. I haven't made any from digital negatives but I've seen quite a few that others have made and they looked as good to me as the contact prints I've made. Of course this wasn't a side-by-side comparison, perhaps that would show a bigger difference that I could see just from looking at the prints from digital negatives. But many very fine photographers/printers are making contact prints from digital negatives these days. So while I could believe the in-camera negative might be somewhat better in some minor respects, I'd be surprised if your statement that they're "nothing like what the original negative can produce" is correct.

As an aside, I've seen no evidence that silver prints have commercial value over ink jet prints "in the gallery."

I thought the consesus was DN are good enough for Alt Process but not for "regular" Silver Gelatin prints. My own experience supports this- mind you my printer (Epson R2400) is probably now considered ancient.

It's all a personal decision. My personal decision aligns with domaz. EXCEPT for LVT negatives, which are every bit as good as in-camera and are good enough for silver. I know Bob Carney is playing around with running litho film through a Durst and developing so the neg can be used for silver.

Hi Steve,

There is more than one kind of digital negative, and the printing qualities of each are bound to differ to some degree. The best prints I've seen from digital negatives are carbon transfer prints made from imagesetter negatives. If I could produce prints as good with any kind of negatives, I'd be very happy. I asked the person who made the carbon prints about inkjet printed negatives, and he said they didn't yet meet his standards. He said that getting good separation in the high values is difficult because of the size of the ink spots. While this person is an acknowledged master printer, with no reason to intentionally mislead me, there remains a shadow of a doubt in my mind that his assessment is globally accurate.

As an aside, I believe the future of printing is digital. Some of the world's top carbon transfer printers have turned their attention to digital printing, they claim because they can get results with a digital printer they can't get with any analog printing process. The printers they're using are made/heavily modified by them, and their process is anything but standard, but such is the leading edge. With 3D printing (evolving at a blistering pace), even the relief of a carbon print is possible in a digital print.

The above is not meant to discourage you from pursuing digital negatives, but to suggest any technical shortcomings that might remain are probably nearing resolution, and to my admittedly novice mind, if a printer is good enough to print a negative from which to make a print, it's probably good enough to make the print, too.

Richard

Not playing around any more, Rollie Ortho25 imaged on the lambda then contact printed on Ilford Warmtone, I can officially say that it works 100% to my satisfaction, in fact the test we recently did was enough for me to order some Azo from MAS to try different papers.
I am really happy about this, as it opens quite a few doors for my small little business .
The trick is to keep the large film clean, keeping detail in the highlights and detail in the shadows. The first tests I tried I used a neg prepped originally for pt pd so I had to drop the contrast on my light source to 1/2 filter , the next film I dropped the curve shape to be a softer neg and I am really excited.

Remember I am imaging at print size , no small for enlarger so my negs are slated for contact only.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard M. Coda

It's all a personal decision. My personal decision aligns with domaz. EXCEPT for LVT negatives, which are every bit as good as in-camera and are good enough for silver. I know Bob Carney is playing around with running litho film through a Durst and developing so the neg can be used for silver.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

Richard

Not playing around any more, Rollie Ortho25 imaged on the lambda then contact printed on Ilford Warmtone, I can officially say that it works 100% to my satisfaction, in fact the test we recently did was enough for me to order some Azo from MAS to try different papers.
I am really happy about this, as it opens quite a few doors for my small little business .
The trick is to keep the large film clean, keeping detail in the highlights and detail in the shadows. The first tests I tried I used a neg prepped originally for pt pd so I had to drop the contrast on my light source to 1/2 filter , the next film I dropped the curve shape to be a softer neg and I am really excited.

Remember I am imaging at print size , no small for enlarger so my negs are slated for contact only.

Bob

---

Great news Bob. I never got around to sending you a test file... oh well...

Just a personal opinion...

I've purchased a few silver b&w prints made from digital negatives by professional photographers for whom this is a standard product.
These are generally 11x14 in the $50 to $100 range, some matted, some not.

I find the tonal range and overall quality to be quite good, but not what I would expect from a full analog rendering of the same scene.

It's amazing how digital imaging has degraded our definition of quality and reduced our expectations.

- Leigh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leigh

Just a personal opinion...

I've purchased a few silver b&w prints made from digital negatives by professional photographers for whom this is a standard product.
These are generally 11x14 in the $50 to $100 range, some matted, some not.

I find the tonal range and overall quality to be quite good, but not what I would expect from a full analog rendering of the same scene.

It's amazing how digital imaging has degraded our definition of quality and reduced our expectations.

- Leigh

---

It's not just photography... it is almost every facet of life... the bar has been/is being lowered...

I have to presume that most of us could get the full dmax out of a sheet of silver paper if the negative called for it - but how about the digital artifacts: don't the dots show ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

I have to presume that most of us could get the full dmax out of a sheet of silver paper if the negative called for it - but how about the digital artifacts: don't the dots show ?

---

I don't see any digital artifacts in my carbon transfer prints up to 16X20" in size when printing with digital negatives made with an inkjet printer. I begin with high resolution scans of medium format or 5X7" sheet film and print with QTR on an Epson 3800. And for the record, carbon transfer is a process that when printed on an appropriate high resolution paper, is as sharp as silver gelatin.

I know many outstanding photographers who print with alternative processes (carbon transfer, pt/pd, gum over platinum, etc) using digital inkjet negatives and I am certain that the vast majority of them do not share the view that the use of digital methods results in less image quality than the use of purely analog methods.

As for the best method of making digital negatives, depends on size of the original and final output size. If you require the very best digital negative, regardless of output size, get a drum scan and have an LTV negative made. But since this will cost on the order of $500 or more per pop your print production will be somewhat limited.

Sandy

I'm going to try making some silver prints this way. Very exciting !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard M. Coda

It's not just photography... it is almost every facet of life... the bar has been/is being lowered...

---

From my perspective, just the opposite seems true. It seems almost everything I encounter in my daily life is getting better, and my expectations are rising too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

From my perspective, just the opposite seems true. It seems almost everything I encounter in my daily life is getting better, and my expectations are rising too.

---

No kidding! Meet George Jetson. Just think of all the fun, advances, money and trouble we could have gotten into 40 years ago with today's technology. Of course my 68 Formula Firebird 450 with dual carbs was better than anything on the road today. Then 1974 and the gas crisis hit and me getting 5 miles to the gallon.

Making good digital negative prints takes as much skill as making good analog prints or ink jet prints. It dosent happen overnight, but I am shure it is possible. First you need excelent control over your print process and materials. Then you can have an enormous amount of control over the final print using digital methods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

I have to presume that most of us could get the full dmax out of a sheet of silver paper if the negative called for it - but how about the digital artifacts: don't the dots show ?

---

No matter what I did, I could clearly see a grid like pattern in the lighter areas of my silver prints. I forget what it was, but I gave up on digital negatives because of it. I was using an Epson 3800.

I do not keep up with the recent technological advances in printing but I'd love to see one of these prints. Jay, can you point me in a direction where I may see one? I would love to see an inkjet 3-D carbon print.

I think one has to master their printing method and what it takes to get them there. For me it has always been the print.I have not seen, or printed from, a digital negative in any of my workshops that has given me what I get out of my in-camera negatives. It takes skill either way you go. I believe that Sandy has mastered this for carbon and maybe a few others. We work in a subjective medium and either way is good. Is one better than the other? That argument will go on forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

but how about the digital artifacts: don't the dots show ?

---

The individual dots from the printhead are measured in millionths of an inch.

For larger dot pitches, like 300 dpi, each dot is built up from multiple individual drops of ink.

So it depends on the pitch you use for the negative. If you print it at 300 dpi, your final print will also be 300 dpi.

This works exactly like half-tone masks used for offset printing.

- Leigh

Sorry, Kirk. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

I do not keep up with the recent technological advances in printing but I'd love to see one of these prints. Jay, can you point me in a direction where I may see one? I would love to see an inkjet 3-D carbon print.

---

Jim,

Getting the 3-D effect (relief) with carbon transfer using digital negatives involves the same principles needed with analog negatives, i.e. subject matter, negative of the right contrast, tissue with the appropriate pigment loading, a sensitizer matched to the negative and tissue, and an appropriate final support paper.

It won't help you much in California, but in the Toronto area Bob Carnie at Digital Elevator has some of my work. I also have a few prints on consignment at the Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisville.

I am not going to claim that making high quality carbon transfer prints from digital negatives is easy, but about 90% of the skill is in the process itself, the other 10% in image scanning, image processing, and making the digital negative.


Sandy

Sandy, thanks. One day I'll get to the East coast and meet up with you. Give me some time as I would love to see some of the work you are doing. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

I do not keep up with the recent technological advances in printing but I'd love to see one of these prints. Jay, can you point me in a direction where I may see one? I would love to see an inkjet 3-D carbon print.

I think one has to master their printing method and what it takes to get them there. For me it has always been the print.I have not seen, or printed from, a digital negative in any of my workshops that has given me what I get out of my in-camera negatives. It takes skill either way you go. I believe that Sandy has mastered this for carbon and maybe a few others. We work in a subjective medium and either way is good. Is one better than the other? That argument will go on forever.

---

Hi Jim,

I didn't mean to infer that anyone is making 3D carbon prints, but I can see how you might get that from my post. The carbon printers who are developing new printing techniques are working somewhere in the UK or Europe, if memory serves, and they're doing multiple pass printing, similar to the way Irving Penn printed his platinum prints, with special printers, but not 3D printers, as far as I know. Where I read about it has slipped my mind, but maybe someone here will know.

What I meant in reference to 3D printers and carbon prints is that I think the technology exists to do it.

These technologies are evolving so fast it takes some dedication to keep up with all the innovation. Even so, I don't know how making a digital print could be as much fun as making a carbon transfer print.

Jay, thanks it was confusing to me and I always love to see what other artist are doing.
Playing in the glop is the fun part of carbon! If they are doing it differently then they are missing all of the fun!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Fitzgerald

Jay, thanks it was confusing to me and I always love to see what other artist are doing.
Playing in the glop is the fun part of carbon! If they are doing it differently then they are missing all of the fun!

---

Jim,

I was also confused in that I thought you wanted to see carbon transfer prints with good relief made with digital negatives.

BTW, I believe the place doing the multiple pass printing is Salto in Belgium. George Tice and Michael Smith have had pt/pd work done there and the Dmax is apparently much higher than can be achieved with one printing. I have heard that they also do carbon printing but have never seen (or heard about) any of their work with this medium.

Sandy

My friend Allen Rumme, who lives just south of here and who posts here occasionally does multiple pass pt/pl prints that are very beautiful.

Sandy, yes I was referring to good prints from digital negatives. Jay's post was confusing in that I thought someone was making digital carbon prints with the same relief we get from our process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Hi Jim,
What I meant in reference to 3D printers and carbon prints is that I think the technology exists to do it.

These technologies are evolving so fast it takes some dedication to keep up with all the innovation. Even so, I don't know how making a digital print could be as much fun as making a carbon transfer print.

---

3D printers do work much like carbon printing in many cases, using a laser to harden a substance in some way (eg fusing a powder), so changing that to use a UV laser to harden treated gelatin is very much within the scope of possibility. No idea if anyone is doing it yet...

A 3D printer that would do medium-sized prints would be very expensive.

The largest one available from Alibre (at $15,000) is here: http://www.alibre.com/3dprinters/explorevflash.asp

Resolution is 768 x 1024 DPI (xy) and minimum layer thickness is 0.004", both of which would work for photography.

But the work envelope is only 9" x 6.75" x 8", which would not even do an 8x10 print.

- Leigh

I do alt process work using both traditional in-camera negatives and digital negatives using the QTR approach. Like many things in life, if you give two people identical ingredients and tools, the results they achieve can be very different in terms of quality. I know this may be throwing a flaming bag of poop onto some porches here, but a very careful workflow can produce alt-process prints from diginegs that actually look better than in camera negatives.

There are two primary reasons for this.

One, tonal control when editing the files for diginegs, particularly in the shadow and highlight areas, can allow the photographer to compensate for idiosyncratic and less than ideal film responses that you are pretty much stuck with if you are going straight from in-camera negs to prints.

Two, the ability to do appropriate sharpening routines on the files prior to printing the negative can allow the photographer to produce alt-process prints that appear sharper to the viewer. This includes the use of wide radius unsharp masking to enhance mid-tone contrast.

(As an aside, I know that you can do the same thing with traditional methods using an interpositive/internegative and unsharp masking approach. My experience about that particular approach can be best summed up with one word: Dust.)

As people have pointed out, contact printing silver gelatin prints from digital negatives requires an even higher level of care and calibration. The photographer has to take into account the color absorption characteristics of the various inks used in the micro droplets that make up the dense areas of the negatives in order to avoid graininess, for example. This is especially important for variable contrast silver papers. But just because it is hard doesn't mean it can't be done. And the nice thing about a digital negative workflow is that it is only difficult once - during the calibration phase. Once you get it locked in, it is much faster.

I like to make bread and I know that the difference between a great light crusty loaf and a hard dense brick is all in technique, because in either case the ingredients are the same: yeast, sugar, flour and water. It is not any different in this digital negative world. Mastery, understanding and practiced application of the process is vastly more important than the materials used.

+1 one only has to look at a Sandy King Carbon print of late to understand this line of thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clay harmon

I do alt process work using both traditional in-camera negatives and digital negatives using the QTR approach. Like many things in life, if you give two people identical ingredients and tools, the results they achieve can be very different in terms of quality. I know this may be throwing a flaming bag of poop onto some porches here, but a very careful workflow can produce alt-process prints from diginegs that actually look better than in camera negatives.

There are two primary reasons for this.

One, tonal control when editing the files for diginegs, particularly in the shadow and highlight areas, can allow the photographer to compensate for idiosyncratic and less than ideal film responses that you are pretty much stuck with if you are going straight from in-camera negs to prints.

Two, the ability to do appropriate sharpening routines on the files prior to printing the negative can allow the photographer to produce alt-process prints that appear sharper to the viewer. This includes the use of wide radius unsharp masking to enhance mid-tone contrast.

(As an aside, I know that you can do the same thing with traditional methods using an interpositive/internegative and unsharp masking approach. My experience about that particular approach can be best summed up with one word: Dust.)

As people have pointed out, contact printing silver gelatin prints from digital negatives requires an even higher level of care and calibration. The photographer has to take into account the color absorption characteristics of the various inks used in the micro droplets that make up the dense areas of the negatives in order to avoid graininess, for example. This is especially important for variable contrast silver papers. But just because it is hard doesn't mean it can't be done. And the nice thing about a digital negative workflow is that it is only difficult once - during the calibration phase. Once you get it locked in, it is much faster.

I like to make bread and I know that the difference between a great light crusty loaf and a hard dense brick is all in technique, because in either case the ingredients are the same: yeast, sugar, flour and water. It is not any different in this digital negative world. Mastery, understanding and practiced application of the process is vastly more important than the materials used.

---

Sandy , I sold all those prints at a flea market the other day, Laura and I had a great dinner, thanks, I hope you don't mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sanking

Jim,

Getting the 3-D effect (relief) with carbon transfer using digital negatives involves the same principles needed with analog negatives, i.e. subject matter, negative of the right contrast, tissue with the appropriate pigment loading, a sensitizer matched to the negative and tissue, and an appropriate final support paper.

It won't help you much in California, but in the Toronto area Bob Carnie at Digital Elevator has some of my work. I also have a few prints on consignment at the Paul Paletti Gallery in Louisville.

I am not going to claim that making high quality carbon transfer prints from digital negatives is easy, but about 90% of the skill is in the process itself, the other 10% in image scanning, image processing, and making the digital negative.


Sandy

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justin Cormack

3D printers do work much like carbon printing in many cases, using a laser to harden a substance in some way (eg fusing a powder), so changing that to use a UV laser to harden treated gelatin is very much within the scope of possibility. No idea if anyone is doing it yet...

---

Hi Justin,

I don't know either, but given the level of expertise (in both traditional carbon printing and digital printing) of the guys doing the multi-pass printing, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't working on it.

It seems to me several 3D printing technologies have potential for relief printing, Stereolithography with the photopolymer replaced by glop might be one possibility, selective laser sintering (SLS) might be another, and multi-jet modelling (MJM) might permit full color carbon with any degree of relief desired, blurring or erasing the line between photography and relief sculpture. It's inevitable these technologies will be used to create works of art, however those works will be labelled.

As for the size of works, there are machines capable of large parts/prints, though these are industrial machines, not desktop models, and the old model of the print shop would apply for these. In time, the capabilities of desktop units will increase as their costs decrease, just as it did (and continues to do) with desktop printing.

How many remember chromalins ??

I have always thought that technology would go towards a flatbed imaging device that lays layer of pigment/tissue down in order and sealing it into a permanent bond. I still think this will be the next generation of devices the big boys will come up with once Ultrastable like hand products start coming onto the scene in a bigger way. They will be forced to move to such a device to stay competitive to the future art market.


Year 1999 I was convinced that some type of progression was going to happen this way , instead inkjet spray has been the method that all major vendors persued To date we have large Rhoe units by Durst that lay down spray directly onto substrate, but it is a spray, and as far as I know the pure pigments will not go through any spray nossel . Small particles of pigment do indeed , but from what I gather not large enough to compete with the carbon pigment stack that workers like Sandy , Jim , Vaughn and other workers are layingdown. Or for that matter the colour pigment stacks workers like Todd Gangler, John Bentley, Steven Livik and Keith Taylor are laying down.

I am missing a lot of workers names here but the swell of popularity of these hand crafted pigment prints will soon grab the attention of some slick business and they will indeed enter this market .
I suspect the device will be built to wonderful specs , and then every device after will become cheaper and faster, this may take a few years but I truly believe this is where the print making industry is headed, I am doing it by digital negs and hand register and manual printing. Multiple pass printing is being done by many , many workers myself included. My assistant will probably invest in the new technology once it arrives.

I first was introduced to Nash Editions print in New York mid to late 90's, actually sat beside Mr Wilhelm. During lunch when every one left I stayed and looked at all the prints. By todays standards they totally sucked, looked like large polaroid transfer prints and frankly I was making hand Cibas with maskmaking that blew them away.

The Iris of those days was 200k and up, now we can buy a same size, and much better device for 10k. I had no desire to enter that market then,
Today I own a few of these devices as I think one inkjets look beautiful if imaged correctly and have a place in my shop, and probably always will.

Bob,

I think 3D printing technology has something in common with Chromalin, in that both use layering, but the 3D technology is so much more precise and versatile, I'm not sure there's any advantage to the Chromalin process. That being said, I defer to your considerable expertise.

Jay - most of what I posted above is my wish list and a bit of the past methods that make me think its possible to lay down pigments with a digital overpass.
I keep on wanting to say, electrostatic printing combined with charged/uncharged pigments, those not charged washvoff or go away and those charged stay.. but I am now sounding crazy so I will stop thinking.

Chromalin's were a method of colour matching separations before going to press, I never made one but sent continuous tone film to the separators to do this, I am sure on this site there are many experts from the ink press days that would have great insight as to how this worked.

I even remember taking a series of film's and putting in a pickle jar, adding some kind of ammonia and each colour layer would come up and then combining them together to produce a full colour image.
That was my first year at photo-school 1973.

so I am no expert, just a bit of a day dreamer who makes prints.

Bob,

You don't sound crazy to me! Electrophoretic ink (E-ink) utilizes a form of charged pigments in that technology, and I think the print/display distinction is rapidly eroding, thanks to creative people like you daydreaming, aka innovating.

I hate to interupt the conversation but just a quick thanks to everyone who's pitched in with a reply. Very interesting and informative!

...keep discussing.

Cheers,
Steve.

I think what will make this type of technology or something off the wall happen is the various alt printers getting their prints on museum walls, the photographers who may not necessarily know how to make the prints but will want to finance workers like me to make the prints, will help create a niche/demand for the highest of stable photographs. Whether its Ultra Stable by Charles Berger who by the way is very active of late on APUG , and his students like Todd Gangler and John Bentley. Or its monochrome Carbons or Pt Pd by the various workers that we are all aware of.
I think working on the stable colour product , is IMO the most important as we all can see that colour dominates the Art World these days and probably in the future.
A strong demand has to happen for change to possible with the manufacturers.

I suspect it will be some type of device that images flat with multiple passes and spits out the pizza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Bob,

You don't sound crazy to me! Electrophoretic ink (E-ink) utilizes a form of charged pigments in that technology, and I think the print/display distinction is rapidly eroding, thanks to creative people like you daydreaming, aka innovating.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob carnie

Sandy , I sold all those prints at a flea market the other day, Laura and I had a great dinner, thanks, I hope you don't mind.

---

Bob,

Hope you made enough to splurge at Tim Horton's.

Sandy

This is interesting and informative. At what point does the hand crafted part of print making process disappear? Does the new technology just become a means to an end? I can see it now, in years to come the cell phone camera guys will be spitting out carbon prints from the printer in their car! I hope I am long gone by then. I think there will be a time when we will discuss machine made carbon prints and hand made carbon print? Maybe I have my head up my ass and if i do that is okay by me. For me personally I would never feel the same about a digitally produced carbon print from start to finish. That is just me and my opinion. I always fall back to what is the artist method of presenting his work. I think that carbon printing is becoming more popular and I'm glad to keep this historical process alive. There will always be photographers such as myself who will rely on traditional methods and I feel we need this also. As it stands today people in the art community in Ventura still do not know what a carbon print is even with all the shows I've been in.

There is nothing hand crafted about an analog enlarged silver print, or an azo contact print. Not even an 8x10 carbon print on B&S tissue and fixed out fibre paper. Nothing. the only thing hand crafted about your workflow is the hand made tissue.

It's funny that this has gone as far as it has. Don't worry everyone because the reality is that in time the Chinese will take all of this info, find a cheaper faster way to produce these prints and sell them at Ikea for 29.95! It will happen in time! Think about it!

Hi Jim,

To some extent, printmaking is always a means to an end. If you ask a carbon printer why he goes to all that trouble, the typical answer includes something about the uniqueness of a carbon print- the long, straight line curve, subtle shadow separation, relief, whatever. Same goes for platinum printers, etc. It's rare a printer explains his printing process choice by saying he prefers to transfer tissue, or hand coat paper, even though they might admit to enjoying the process. It's the same with the guys I mentioned doing the multiple pass printing; they claimed to get results from their process unobtainable by others, so it is for them, a means to an end. I thin it's a mistake to conclude that because a machine is involved, the person is not. Any printer capable of making world class prints by any process has mastered his process, and if you suggest making great prints from digital files with digital printers is easy, you're likely to meet with disagreement by those who do it. It's arguable that making mediocre prints is easier by a digital process than by the laborious carbon transfer process, but who really cares about mediocre prints? I have a great deal of respect for print makers who consistently achieve excellence in their printing, whatever process they use to do so.

Jim , I hear where you are coming from , but I must pass this along.

2002 I put Agfa Classic on a friends lambda, drove 10km with the exposed paper and processed by hand. It worked, I was in safelight and could see the print emerge just like my enlarger print.
2003 invested every penny we had in a Lamda for ourselves.learned the machine
2005 Agfa went out of business, Harmon made a paper, no safelight,new learning curve.
2005- now and beyond intense PS training self inflicted.
9 solid years of making mistakes and successes before I feel good about it.

I finally feel I am now totally in control of my process, and that I can lay tone down as desired on the paper.
This 9 year journey was no different than the hand photo-comp journey I made in the 80's.
or starting a small silver lab in a large market in the 90's.

If there ever is a machine designed to spit out wonderful permanent prints I will learn that technology as well. I need to play with my rubik cube now so I can keep my brain fresh for that challenge.

Every time you pick up a camera, press a button on a timer, insert a fresh bulb in your enlarger you are using tools , and I think its what's going on in the grey matter that counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay DeFehr

Hi Justin,

I don't know either, but given the level of expertise (in both traditional carbon printing and digital printing) of the guys doing the multi-pass printing, I'd be surprised if someone wasn't working on it.

It seems to me several 3D printing technologies have potential for relief printing, Stereolithography with the photopolymer replaced by glop might be one possibility, selective laser sintering (SLS) might be another, and multi-jet modelling (MJM) might permit full color carbon with any degree of relief desired, blurring or erasing the line between photography and relief sculpture. It's inevitable these technologies will be used to create works of art, however those works will be labelled.

As for the size of works, there are machines capable of large parts/prints, though these are industrial machines, not desktop models, and the old model of the print shop would apply for these. In time, the capabilities of desktop units will increase as their costs decrease, just as it did (and continues to do) with desktop printing.

---

I saw this and was reminded of this thread:

http://www.tuwien.ac.at/en/news/news.../article/7444/

The degree of precision possible with Two Photon Lithography is well beyond anything achievable by the comparatively crude process of gelatin/ dichromate printing, though the former can be said to have evolved from the latter.

If managing large image files is demanding of resources, imagine managing large 3D files, and the creative possibilities that implies.