Re-tooling your technique for a mixed workflow

Mods: I'm posting this here because it sort of seems to fall in-between particular forums. If it would be better placed elsewhere, please boot it to the appropriate forum.

I no longer have a darkroom and honestly may not have a darkroom of my own for another decade until after I finish graduate school, etc. Right now I use a mixed workflow and develop my film in a Jobo tank or regular SS tanks for my 120 and 35mm work. I load in a changing bag, develop in the sink, etc. Not ideal, but it works. I scan my film and do everything after film development on the computer now. I find that I mostly get the results I want, with only a few nagging difficulties. However, I know that I still have a lot of room to refine how I do things.

The problem is, whenever I start to draw out steps for dialing everything in, I find that I really only ever learned how to do so in the context of a full traditional workflow, and not the mixed workflow that I am using now and will likely continue to use and become more invested in (I'll probably get myself an Imacon scanner before I build another darkroom).

I know others here have made this same transition. I want to learn from your experience. How would you suggest one go about really refining the whole process from exposure to print in the mixed workflow? When I say refine, I mean I want to get things crazy dialed in, pushing the technique of everything at the highest level I can manage. The hardware will likely change over time (acquisition of a Jobo, better scanner, etc), but anything that does change will only afford me finer degrees of control.

So - how would you go about it?

David--I could be completely out of line but I would be surprised if in ten years you actually do get a traditional darkroom--I could be wrong. I made this transition almost a year ago to the day. In fact I had just finished building a very elaborate darkroom when I turned around and sold all my enlarging equipment and went to a digital output. Now I have probably one of the nicest film developing areas around:)

Here is what I have learned--if you really want to get into digital LF and do it right then invest in a digital back. These are VERY expensive and if I hadn't spent all that money (hope my wife doesn't frequent this forum) on my darkroom I could have afforded one myself. Without a doubt the weak link to the whole workflow is the scanner. Drum scanning gives the best results but I have never been interested in sending my negs off and waiting for results. The more affordable scanners can do a decent job if you do it right. The largest I have printed is about 24" wide and my scanner holds up pretty well to that point but would guess the flaws of scanner would begin to show after this. The good news is--I do have the original negatives that can always be rescanned with better equipment so not all is lost.

Exposure/development: I still expose/develope the same as before--zone system. However, after scanning my library of negatives I did notice that the negatives developed in pyro scanned the best by quite a bit. I don't normally deal with pyro and briefly dabbled in it so wasn't interested in making that my normal procedure. What the scanner liked about the pyro negs was the "slightly" denser--less contrasty negs. I have tailored my exposure/development in this direction but nothing drastic.

With LF a complex database system isn't essential but eventually you will wish you got one started. I put all of my negs in indivual envelops and numbered them. The corresponding #'s are part of my file extension in the database. Once all negs are scanned I placed them in an archival negative box and put them in a safe deposit box at the bank. I keep a file of "original scans"--untouched scanned at 2400. I have a file of "Master scans" which is the original will all layers and adjustments. After this I have folders that house the different sized I have made--8x10", 11x14", etc--flattened, sharpened and ready for print. This takes a lot of storage space--get an external HD now that I think of it. Not necessarily for the extra space but you don't want to have to redo all of your work if your HD should ever fail.

The rest: All I can do is tell you what I do/use but there really isn't a one right choice for everyone. I have a 20" iMac with 2gig of ram. I would consider this "ok" but would like to have more ram and a bigger monitor personally. I use photoshop CS2--as of now I personally think this is the only option worth considering. I won't go into detail my photoshop workflow but if you are interested I am more than willing to help you out. I print to an HP 8750 printer. Not wanting to start an HP/Epson war--this is my preference since I do 99% BW work on glossy paper. Love the printer. There are many options depending on what you want to do and what type of media you want to print on.

I use a product called 3M for cold mounting my images to 4-ply archival mount board for portfolio and the same board as a matte for framing.

I'm not sure if this was the info you were looking for--if you need more detail in any of these areas let me know I would be glad to help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David R Munson

The problem is, whenever I start to draw out steps for dialing everything in, I find that I really only ever learned how to do so in the context of a full traditional workflow, and not the mixed workflow that I am using now and will likely continue to use and become more invested in (I'll probably get myself an Imacon scanner before I build another darkroom).

I know others here have made this same transition. I want to learn from your experience. How would you suggest one go about really refining the whole process from exposure to print in the mixed workflow? When I say refine, I mean I want to get things crazy dialed in, pushing the technique of everything at the highest level I can manage. The hardware will likely change over time (acquisition of a Jobo, better scanner, etc), but anything that does change will only afford me finer degrees of control.

So - how would you go about it?

---

Digital work is much like darkroom work in that you have to setup controls and test them. You need reliable equipment that you can trust. For image processing work, this means a good monitor and a calibration system. That's the first part of the control - knowing that what you see on the screen is accurate. The second part is how you get the image into the computer. If you want to work in 4x5, the Imacon is the most reasonable answer if you want to scan your own film. You can use flatbeds and get by, with tweaks like focusing film holders, wet mount systems, etc. But, ultimately the final image is only as good as the weakest link.

Next is printing, and you have a lot of choices. If you only want to do B&W work to a certain size (13-inches or less in width) - then a relatively inexpensive Epson printer with a quadtone ink system will give you really good results. If you want to do both B&W and color, then an Epson with K3 inks will give you good results. If you want to do larger than 13-inches then you're into the 4800, 7800, or 9800 (currently, of course, and this will change when improved models are brought out).

But, what you have to understand about printing is the amount of work it takes to really tweak the final output. You can use a RIP, but it always gets down to the amount of work you put into printing. I don't always agree with the way a RIP inks the paper. You have to understand, that if you're using a manufacturer's RIP profile or environment, you're relying upon the eyes of a person at the software firm to determine that the inking is correct. With some testing, I often find I don't agree with the inking level.

This means you have to want to take the time to expirement with the RIP until you get the results you like. Likewise, if you're using paper profiles provided by a paper manufacturer, you're relying upon someone's opinion at the paper company as to what paper choice in the printer driver control is correct for the manufacturer's paper.

Again, most of the time, I find the manufacturer's choice to be less than optimum through testing and evaluation. If you want to get to that level of control, then you need a profiling system. I have yet to find a paper manufacturer's profiles (with the exception of Epson who provides Atkinson's profiles - but only for Epson papers) that can make a profile with as wide a gamut as I can make with my profiling system.

This all comes down to ink control on the paper. When you choose a paper type using the standard printer driver, you are telling the printer how ink receptive the media is, and the driver adjusts inking levels, dot gain, and a number of other parameters to match the paper choice.

So, you have to find the correct paper choice, for the inking level for the paper you're using. One way is to print out a test target that includes color patches plus a 20 step gray scale. The more shades of gray you get, the better the inking. You print the test target out with 5-7 different paper types (watercolor, smooth fine art, etc.) and then evaluate the inking level for each printer driver paper choice on the paper you're evaluating.

The results are usually fairly obvious as to which one is best, but, you need to evaluate the entire sheet, including color patches with a loupe so that you can see the ink coverage. If it's too thin, you'll see paper fibers through the ink and the solid areas will break up. If it's too heavy that also will be obvious as the ink application will look too heavy and thick with the loupe.

Once you determine which paper choice is "just right" for the printer driver, or you tweak the RIP for your paper, then you write all that down and hope the manufacturer doesn't make an "improvement" in the paper when you buy the next batch.

You test each paper you want to use, and establish the correct settings and control for the paper. The mistake many people make, is to think of the color controls in the printer driver or RIP as the equivalent of a color head on an enlarger. The problem with making color tweaks in the driver for color prints, is that you're not just making a certain correction - you affecting every other color that uses the basic ink color your tweaking. A simple test is to print out a test target (like a 972 patch target) and then make a "10" change in a color in the printer driver. After making the tweak, compare the tweaked print to a straight print and evaluate every color patch that's been changed - you'll really be surprised.

Even more telling, is to read the straight test target and the tweaked test target into a profiling system, make a profile from each and then look at them in a color evaluation program like Chromix or GamutWorks - the changes are immediately apparent on L*a*b* axes. You make image adjustements in the software, knowing that the monitor and printer are in control and will give you the image you see on the screen.

B&W work is different that color, you actually have to make some of the tweaks in either the RIP or the printer driver as the inking control is another adjustment for the image tone (warm, cool, selenium look, etc.). But, knowing you have the correct inking level is still a main consideration, and you can only arrive at that through testing.

If you can make a full gray scale, with separation on all 20 steps, and each step is correctly inked; and you've evaluated solid color areas (CMYand RGB) and those are correctly inked - you can be assured that the printer is being controlled properly.

If the monitor is profiled, the paper is inked correctly, and you have paper or RIP profiles - the entire system is now in control and all you have to work on is the image.



Just like a wet darkroom,