-
Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
This is a two part question to avoid making two seperate threads to keep things, with hope, more simple...
1) What is the consensus at present time about "the look" from contact printing a 5X7 or larger piece of film vs. scanning the film and printing it off the inkjet?
2) I have read probably way too many threads on digital scanners, with too many different views. Of course the Epson V750, Microtek 1800, etc. scanners are said to be either comparable/just as good as a drum scan (especially since these files go into extensive photoshop anyhow) OR they are greatly inferior and more importantly "limited" to final output print size. In other words, the drum scan will allow, say, an 8X10 negative to be enlarged to 40X60, whereas a flatbed would be limited and should not be used to more than 16X20 (usually said about 4X5 scanning, but seemingly applicable to any size film since it is clipping at a certain size so it doesn't matter what size the film is due to the scanner's "limiting threshold". At the same time, I have heard people say the flatbeds can indeed produce massive prints with zero distortion/grain/and perfect clarity, etc. So my question here is, what do people that have had "extensive" experience with the highest end flatbeds such as the V750/Microtek/etc. have to say about what can be achieved with them AND if film size makes any difference (i.e. if there is the threshold factor with respect to the scanner's limitation=no reason to bother with 8X10 other than to keep grain minimized if doing b/w and 4X5).
Hope this all makes sense and it will spark some interesting conversation about where things are at in this day of age with regards to "the final print".
Thanks!!!
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Hi Audioexcels. Im not sure where you heard that the v750 and microtek are even in the range of any drum scan. These scanners are low end compared to most of the the pro flatbed scanners.
Someone was selling a recent Creo model on ebay for approx 1,500. This is one of the best scanners made.
I suggest you take a look at the scanner comparisons on the LF page which is excellent. You can purchase a scanner that was $ 15 - 50K new, for approx 10 cents on the dollar. I have a eversmart II pro that is suberb although huge. Spring for one of the pro scanners on the used market. They are significantly better and quite the bargain.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
I work in both 5X7 and ULF format, and scan and print both on the inkjet and via digital negatives. My answers below are in part opinion based, but they are also fairly informed since they are based on a lot of direct comparison. I have also made direct comparisons of my own work in several processes with consumer type flatbeds, high-end flatbeds, Imacon and drum scanners so my comments are based at least as much in fact as opinion.
Your question.
What is the consensus at present time about "the look" from contact printing a 5X7 or larger piece of film vs. scanning the film and printing it off the inkjet?
Answer. Depends on process and scale of reproduction. In 5X7 a direct contact print from an in-camera negative on silver or carbon, or other smooth surface papers, is superior to a 5X7 print from a digital negative. With pt./pd. and other processes on art type papers, you probably won't see a difference.
In magnifications of 2X-4X a pt./pd. print (or print from other process on art paper) from a digital negative of a 5X7 original in-camera negative is as good as a print from an in-camera negative of the same size. With carbon and silver on smooth papers a print from an in-camera negative, within the limits noted above, should be better.
If the issue is one of projection printing of 5X7 negatives or making digital prints (either directly on an inkjet or via digial negatives) the larger you go the more advantage there is to digital printing.
Your question.
I have read probably way too many threads on digital scanners, with too many different views. Of course the Epson V750, Microtek 1800, etc. scanners are said to be either comparable/just as good as a drum scan (especially since these files go into extensive photoshop anyhow) OR they are greatly inferior and more importantly "limited" to final output print size. In other words, the drum scan will allow, say, an 8X10 negative to be enlarged to 40X60, whereas a flatbed would be limited and should not be used to more than 16X20 (usually said about 4X5 scanning, but seemingly applicable to any size film since it is clipping at a certain size so it doesn't matter what size the film is due to the scanner's "limiting threshold". At the same time, I have heard people say the flatbeds can indeed produce massive prints with zero distortion/grain/and perfect clarity, etc. So my question here is, what do people that have had "extensive" experience with the highest end flatbeds such as the V750/Microtek/etc. have to say about what can be achieved with them AND if film size makes any difference (i.e. if there is the threshold factor with respect to the scanner's limitation=no reason to bother with 8X10 other than to keep grain minimized if doing b/w and 4X5).
Hope this all makes sense and it will spark some interesting conversation about where things are at in this day of age with regards to "the final print".
Answer
With a 5X7 negative the consummer type flatbeds will give excellent results up to about 3X-4X with negatives or transparencies of normal transmission density. Beyond that size, or if the negative or transparency has a very high transmission Dmax, a high-end flatbed or drum scanner would be recommended.
Sandy King
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
"Im not sure where you heard that the v750 and microtek are even in the range of any drum scan."
He may have heard it from me (actually quite a few others here have said the same thing I believe). In my admittedly limited experience having drum scans made (about five or six) I find minimal differences between the scans I make on my 4990 and those drum scans with prints in the 11x14 range. A lot still depends on the operator, not all are created equal. For prints of that size I'd rather have a scan on a 4990 or V700 made by a talented and knowledgeable operator than a drum scan made by an operator of medium abilities (hopefully none are totally incompetent).
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Brian is correct and so is Sandy. The important distinguishing characteristic is the dyammic range of the original ..... as noted by Sandy.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
Answer. Depends on process and scale of reproduction. In 5X7 a direct contact print from an in-camera negative on silver or carbon, or other smooth surface papers, is superior to a 5X7 print from a digital negative. With pt./pd. and other processes on art type papers, you probably won't see a difference.
Sandy King
Hi Sandy,
What exactly is PT and PD?
Regarding DMAX and film size, say we have an 8X10 sheet of film and a flat bed scanner...is there any benefit at all to having a 4X5 or even 5X7 negative in the flatbed or are you saying that due to the DMAX of the larger neg, the scanner simply cannot pull out the information on the neg and is not only limited to 3-4X enlargement size, but also limited to film negative size???
What I'm trying to get to is where/when/how contact printing should be used, whether it should be used/considered, and the alternative methods of having a contact print. It is the reason I brought up the digital workflow and if it is competitive with the contact print (equal to), regardless of the paper that is used. I know you mentioned that a contact print is equaled when you use alternative papers...again, the reasoning for use of Silver/Carbon papers for contact printing vs. alternative papers raises the question of why it really matters what paper it is on when the final image is what one is after...and if both look equally as good, why the silver based one would be considered better, ever, than an alternative based one.
Hope I am making sense. Trying to keep things simple without going to far off base.
Thanks again Sandy and to all else with their contributions. It is very helpful having hands on people involved in helping me determine the direction I would like to take.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Pt./Pd. is short for platinum and palladium printing.
Digital flow from scans of 4X5 and 5X7 in-camera negatives is very productive up to about 3X-4X. If you are working in LF the bottom line is that a consumer type scanner will probably give you as much image quality as you need up to 16X20 size from 4X5 in-camera negatives.
Sandy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
Hi Sandy,
What exactly is PT and PD?
Regarding DMAX and film size, say we have an 8X10 sheet of film and a flat bed scanner...is there any benefit at all to having a 4X5 or even 5X7 negative in the flatbed or are you saying that due to the DMAX of the larger neg, the scanner simply cannot pull out the information on the neg and is not only limited to 3-4X enlargement size, but also limited to film negative size???
What I'm trying to get to is where/when/how contact printing should be used, whether it should be used/considered, and the alternative methods of having a contact print. It is the reason I brought up the digital workflow and if it is competitive with the contact print (equal to), regardless of the paper that is used. I know you mentioned that a contact print is equaled when you use alternative papers...again, the reasoning for use of Silver/Carbon papers for contact printing vs. alternative papers raises the question of why it really matters what paper it is on when the final image is what one is after...and if both look equally as good, why the silver based one would be considered better, ever, than an alternative based one.
Hope I am making sense. Trying to keep things simple without going to far off base.
Thanks again Sandy and to all else with their contributions. It is very helpful having hands on people involved in helping me determine the direction I would like to take.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
In 5X7 a direct contact print from an in-camera negative on silver or carbon, or other smooth surface papers, is superior to a 5X7 print from a digital negative. With pt./pd. and other processes on art type papers, you probably won't see a difference.
I find my contact size digital prints to look a bit better than contact prints on silver paper of the same negatives. i'm saying better in terms of the qualities we normally associate with contact prints: sense of fine detail, edge definition, illusion of tactile qualities. As far as the tonal characteristics and surface, they're somewhat different from each other, and which you like better will be a matter of preference.
I'm comparing air dried glossy surface fiber based prints to carbon pigment quadtone prints made on a fairly smooth, matte finish art paper.
As far as scanner differences, the two issues are resolution and dynamic range. The flatbed scanners you mention have more than enough dynamic range for scanning negatives. If you're going to scan transparencies the advantages of drum scanners will show themselves.
Resolution becomes an issue when you enlarge past a certain point. Exactly what degree of enlargement is neded for a drum scanner to show its superiority is up for debate, but it will depend in part on the quality of the original, the printing method, and the viewing distance. I scan black and white 4x5 negs on a flatbed scanner (wet mounted) and enlarge a maximum of 3X. In this application a drum scanner will have no practical advantages. Most likely if I was enlarging 10X the drum scanner would produce significantly better prints.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Hi Sandy,
One more clarification needed...when you speak of "in camera negative"...what do you mean by this?
I may have some further questions once this one is answered.
What I am interpreting is this...Lets assume our final output size is 8X10.
One person uses an 8X10 camera, the other a 4X5 camera.
If we take the 4X5 negative, and we tray develop or Jobo develop it...then scan it via flatbed/use CS2 for post-processing/and inkjet it via an alternative paper method, it will look as good as the contact print from the 8X10 camera?
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Hi,
So why would people use larger than say an 8X10 camera when a contact print is not as good as one from a digital workflow? In other words, many use the larger cameras specifically to contact print. But granted the digital scan/ps/inkjet is better or as good makes me wonder why people so much for even an 8X10 camera.
Trying to figure out what I am missing here...
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
One advantage of scanning, is that you can perform corrections/adjustments/improvements to the image - via Photoshop or other software - that are difficult if not impossible via analog/darkroom methods.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
So why would people use larger than say an 8X10 camera when a contact print is not as good as one from a digital workflow? In other words, many use the larger cameras specifically to contact print. But granted the digital scan/ps/inkjet is better or as good makes me wonder why people so much for even an 8X10 camera.
Trying to figure out what I am missing here...
Some folks prefer to use film, and not monkey around with the digital workflow. Making a contact print from an original 8x10 negative has a much simpler workflow than starting from a 4x5 negative. Simplicity is important for some. It's a biggie for me.
A well made contact print is as good as it gets.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
I agree with Matt "a well made contact print is as good as it gets".
There is a certain atmosphere about an in-camera negative contact print that I have yet to see reproduced.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
Hi Sandy,
"iOne more clarification needed...when you speak of "in camera negative"...what do you mean by this?
An "in camera negative" is an analog negative made within the camera at time of exposure.
Hope this helps!
WG.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
1) What is the consensus at present time about "the look" from contact printing a 5X7 or larger piece of film vs. scanning the film and printing it off the inkjet?
As you may have noticed, there isn't one. Those who scan and print typically say it's as good or better than a wet darkroom print. Those who print in a darkroom typically say it's better than an inkjet print. *Shrug* You'll have to make your own judgements.
Mike
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
Hi Sandy,
What I'm trying to get to is where/when/how contact printing should be used, whether it should be used/considered, and the alternative methods of having a contact print. It is the reason I brought up the digital workflow and if it is competitive with the contact print (equal to), regardless of the paper that is used. I know you mentioned that a contact print is equaled when you use alternative papers...again, the reasoning for use of Silver/Carbon papers for contact printing vs. alternative papers raises the question of why it really matters what paper it is on when the final image is what one is after...and if both look equally as good, why the silver based one would be considered better, ever, than an alternative based one.
Hope I am making sense. Trying to keep things simple without going to far off base.
Thanks again Sandy and to all else with their contributions. It is very helpful having hands on people involved in helping me determine the direction I would like to take.
Not sure I totally understand your question but a contact print (at least as it pertains to LF) is a print made in a wet darkroom. The print is made by placing the negative in direct contact with the paper it is to be printed on. There is NO enlargement. It is a direct contact (and representation) of the negative it is in registration with. The final image size is that of the negative used to make the exposure. This is why LF's shoot with 8x10, 11x14, etc. The negative can be "contact printed" onto many different paper types. Digital negatives (made from scans or digital cameras) tend to be suitable for PT/PD or other alternative printing methods.
A well made contact print has a special luminance and 3D quality about it that is tough to match.
Hope this helps!
WG
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MIke Sherck
Those who scan and print typically say it's as good or better than a wet darkroom print. Those who print in a darkroom typically say it's better than an inkjet print. *Shrug* You'll have to make your own judgements.
I do both. Including a whole body of work printed in both silver and in quadtone inkjet. for the more subjective qualities you have to make your own judgements. For things like sharpness and sense of detail, I'd be surprised if anyone looking at these prints side by side would judge differently than I did.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
I know you mentioned that a contact print is equaled when you use alternative papers...again, the reasoning for use of Silver/Carbon papers for contact printing vs. alternative papers raises the question of why it really matters what paper it is on when the final image is what one is after...and if both look equally as good, why the silver based one would be considered better, ever, than an alternative based one.
Compared to prints on a glossy-surface commercial silver paper, printing on art papers via "alternative processes" such as platinum/palladium throws away some information from the negative in return for other attributes that are desired. Each type of print can be very beautiful in its own way, but they are different.
Ditto re paulr's point about contact size inkjet prints being "better" than silver contact prints. When printing in inkjet one can use sharpening and other digital post-processing tools to emphasize certain properties of an image that one finds appealing. But it's still a different medium. Anyone may legitimately prefer one or the other, or enjoy both.
As a general rule, scanning throws away information from the original capture, just like enlarging does. Printing - even contact printing - throws away information from the original capture, too, but printing on a paper with a textured surface throws away more information than printing on a glossy surface. How much information is lost depends on the particulars - if the original capture is crude enough, for example, the loss of information may be immaterial. In any case, whether it matters depends on one's taste in print character, and on how closely and how critically one likes to view prints.
I think trying to reach a conclusion about which print medium or workflow is "better" in some all-encompassing, objective sense is futile. All of these techniques, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, can be used to make prints that are technically impressive and esthetically expressive. But they look and feel different. You need to figure out which "look and feel" appeals to you. You can do this only by looking at actual prints, not by reading about them or by comparing specifications like nominal output resolution or Dmax, which are uninformative or even misleading when considered in isolation.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken Lee
One advantage of scanning, is that you can perform corrections/adjustments/improvements to the image - via Photoshop or other software - that are difficult if not impossible via analog/darkroom methods.
Digital editing certainly broadens the range of possibilities, and makes many kinds of image manipulation easier. But newcomers to digital imaging may not appreciate that many of the basic techniques of digital post-processing have counterparts in analog.
For example, digital sharpening techniques have counterparts in such methods as unsharp masking, or using highly diluted developers in compensating protocols to achieve exaggerated edge-and-adjacency effects. It's usually easier to do sharpening in the digital domain; and in fact, under most circumstances, moving an image into the digital domain forces you to use sharpening, which is not the case in a purely analog process. But conceptually, sharpening as a tool is not new.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
All processes destroy information. The simpler the process the less information destroyed. Katz's rule estimates that every time you subject an image to an optical system you lose about 30% of your detail.
One reason for using a large format camera is to capture as much visual information as possible. One reason to contact print is to destroy as little of that information as possible.
The main purposes of an analog to digital conversion is to eliminate as much extraneous information as possible. However, one man's extraneous is another man's essential.
A contact print is going to present more visual data, more faithfully than any other medium, however, people won’t always like it better.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
At first it seemed to me like a paradox that a digital print (at negative size) could somehow look more like a contact print than a real contact print of the same neg. The process logically must lose more information than the contact printing process.
And I realized that it does lose more information. But what matters more is what information it loses vs. what information it emphasizes.
The contact print preserves much more high frequency (high resolution) detail. The digital print has a cutoff determined by either the scan or the printing process. Below a certain frequency there's no information at all. But with the higher quality processes, that cutoff is below the threshold of human vision, and it's far below the frequencies that our minds use to perceive sharpness.
So basically the contact print is preserving a huge amount of information that is impossible to apprecieate without a loupe or a microscope.
The digital print, however, can be made to subtly emphasize edge contrast in the frequency range where we're most sensitive to quality. Sharpening works a lot like the mackie lines/edge effects produced by certain develeopers, except that its magnitude and frequency range can be precisely controlled.
The result is that a well made digital print can look sharper and more tactile to the naked eye than a well made contact print, but the contact print (assuming it's on glossy paper that doesn't act as a resolution cutoff) can look much more detailed under a loupe.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
I really like and agree with what is being said in this post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oren Grad
Compared to prints on a glossy-surface commercial silver paper, printing on art papers via "alternative processes" such as platinum/palladium throws away some information from the negative in return for other attributes that are desired. Each type of print can be very beautiful in its own way, but they are different.
Ditto re paulr's point about contact size inkjet prints being "better" than silver contact prints. When printing in inkjet one can use sharpening and other digital post-processing tools to emphasize certain properties of an image that one finds appealing. But it's still a different medium. Anyone may legitimately prefer one or the other, or enjoy both.
As a general rule, scanning throws away information from the original capture, just like enlarging does. Printing - even contact printing - throws away information from the original capture, too, but printing on a paper with a textured surface throws away more information than printing on a glossy surface. How much information is lost depends on the particulars - if the original capture is crude enough, for example, the loss of information may be immaterial. In any case, whether it matters depends on one's taste in print character, and on how closely and how critically one likes to view prints.
I think trying to reach a conclusion about which print medium or workflow is "better" in some all-encompassing, objective sense is futile. All of these techniques, in the hands of a skilled practitioner, can be used to make prints that are technically impressive and esthetically expressive. But they look and feel different. You need to figure out which "look and feel" appeals to you. You can do this only by looking at actual prints, not by reading about them or by comparing specifications like nominal output resolution or Dmax, which are uninformative or even misleading when considered in isolation.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
At first it seemed to me like a paradox that a digital print (at negative size) could somehow look more like a contact print than a real contact print of the same neg. The process logically must lose more information than the contact printing process.
And I realized that it does lose more information. But what matters more is what information it loses vs. what information it emphasizes.
The contact print preserves much more high frequency (high resolution) detail. The digital print has a cutoff determined by either the scan or the printing process. Below a certain frequency there's no information at all. But with the higher quality processes, that cutoff is below the threshold of human vision, and it's far below the frequencies that our minds use to perceive sharpness.
So basically the contact print is preserving a huge amount of information that is impossible to apprecieate without a loupe or a microscope.
The digital print, however, can be made to subtly emphasize edge contrast in the frequency range where we're most sensitive to quality. Sharpening works a lot like the mackie lines/edge effects produced by certain develeopers, except that its magnitude and frequency range can be precisely controlled.
The result is that a well made digital print can look sharper and more tactile to the naked eye than a well made contact print, but the contact print (assuming it's on glossy paper that doesn't act as a resolution cutoff) can look much more detailed under a loupe.
Paul, I respectfully disagree with some aspects of this analysis. Not with your having different preferences from mine, just with your framing of them.
What appeals to me about a good contact print on silver paper is not edginess ("sharper and more tactile"), it's subtlety of tone and detail combined with a sense of transparency. I don't want to get into a debate this time over how much of that is attributable to information at what spatial frequencies and how much to other things; for sure, it's impossible to achieve that transparency on a matt or textured surface, no matter what else you're doing or not doing to the image. But that's not an inkjet thing - it applies to alt-process printing on art papers too.
I don't accept the standard of "you can't tell the difference at normal viewing distances", though others are welcome to it if it suits their tastes and purposes. One of the things I look for in a print is that it be pleasing to me under unassisted viewing (i.e., no loupe) at all possible viewing distances. (That doesn't mean the print looks the same at all viewing distances, nor does it mean that everything has to be a contact print; I also very much enjoy the way the image resolves itself out of the grain in a print modestly enlarged from 35mm TX.) By this standard, no inkjet print looks like a good contact print on glossy silver paper - no way, no how.
Because of the way these discussions sometimes degenerate, I'm at pains to emphasize once more that any of these preferences is legitimate; none is objectively "superior". Nor am I arguing that hair-splitting over any and every image characteristic is always to be preferred to not hair-splitting. There are things I care about a lot - the particular print characteristics we've been discussing for one, and the subtleties of optical rendering for another. There are other kinds of hair-splitting that are evidently of great concern to others - for example, subtleties of Dmax and print color attributable to different developers - that I don't care about in the least; for all I know, many people who worry about those will be completely umoved by the things I care about. That's fine.
What's important, especially as guidance to someone newly exploring this craft, is that all of these subtleties do exist, and the only way to find out which ones matter to you is to look at prints that embody them. And in that context, while an inkjet print from a scan may effectively capture - indeed, may more effectively render - specific attributes of a contact print that are important to you, an assertion that judicious use of sharpening obliterates all possible perceptible differences between contact prints and inkjet prints from scans strikes me as objectively false. And an assertion that it somehow captures contact print character more effectively than a contact print itself strikes me as unfortunate semantic game-playing.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
Hi,
So why would people use larger than say an 8X10 camera when a contact print is not as good as one from a digital workflow? In other words, many use the larger cameras specifically to contact print. But granted the digital scan/ps/inkjet is better or as good makes me wonder why people so much for even an 8X10 camera.
Trying to figure out what I am missing here...
One important consideration is that there is a lot more detail in an 8X10 negative than in a 6X7cm or 4X5 negative. At some point of magnification the lack of detail in the smaller negative is going to show up, assuming you hold the print at the optimum viewing distance of about ten inches, or at some other fixed distance.
So if you have a very large negative, say 8X10 or larger, and scan it, you will have a print with a lot more detail than from a smaller negative. For my own work with alternative processes I find that I definitely get better results by scanning 7X17" and 12X20" negatives and printing from digital files after manipulation. There is no way a print from a negative 4X5 or smaller can capture as much detail, though it may look acceptably sharp.
In other words, even in the world of digital large negatives still have very definite advantages over small ones, IMHO.
Sandy King
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Oren Grad
What appeals to me about a good contact print on silver paper is not edginess ("sharper and more tactile"), it's subtlety of tone and detail combined with a sense of transparency. I don't want to get into a debate this time over how much of that is attributable to information at what spatial frequencies and how much to other things; for sure, it's impossible to achieve that transparency on a matt or textured surface, no matter what else you're doing or not doing to the image. But that's not an inkjet thing - it applies to alt-process printing on art papers too.
I'm getting two distinctions from this: subtlety of tone, and transparency (by which I gather you're talking about effects of a glossy vs. matt surface).
The matt vs. glossy thing is a real issue; if you like the look of of a glossy surface then you need a glossy surface (although usually I can't tell the difference when the print is behind glass ... for better or worse). I've been working on a process for hand varnishing ink prints, because some of mine do work better with a gloss surface. The results of this are stunning, but it's still too high maintenance a process to get consistent results from.
As far as subtlety of tone goes, i can only speak of the examples I have experience with (my silver prints vs. my ink prints of the same images). But I see much greater subtlety of tone in the ink prints than I was able to get from the silver prints. My silver prints (which I've always been proud of) in some cases look hard and coarse next to the ink versions. The ink prints have a more alt process look ... a very long straight line section that emphasizes subtle tonal separation much farther into the shadows and highlights than silver paper does. This is a particular "look" ... I don't think one kind of scale is superior overall than another ... but for images that benefit from this kind of subtle separation over a long range of tones, I like ink better. For images that benefit from more dramatic contrasts, I usually like silver better. But curiously, I've found I'm not very good at predicting which process I'll prefer for which image.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
As far as subtlety of tone goes, i can only speak of the examples I have experience with (my silver prints vs. my ink prints of the same images). But I see much greater subtlety of tone in the ink prints than I was able to get from the silver prints. My silver prints (which I've always been proud of) in some cases look hard and coarse next to the ink versions. The ink prints have a more alt process look ... a very long straight line section that emphasizes subtle tonal separation much farther into the shadows and highlights than silver paper does. This is a particular "look" ... I don't think one kind of scale is superior overall than another ... but for images that benefit from this kind of subtle separation over a long range of tones, I like ink better. For images that benefit from more dramatic contrasts, I usually like silver better. But curiously, I've found I'm not very good at predicting which process I'll prefer for which image.
Interesting points. "Tonal subtlety" is a subtle thing. ;) In most situations I prefer a long-scaled, "full information" print myself, but I prefer to achieve it via adequate exposure of the negative together with a good match between film and paper curves. The vagaries of field work, the choice of characteristics among commercially available silver papers, and the limits of my own skill being what they are, of course, I can't always get what I want. C'est la vie.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bob carnie
I really like and agree with what is being said in this post.
Thanks, Bob.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
Hi Sandy,
One more clarification needed...when you speak of "in camera negative"...what do you mean by this?
I may have some further questions once this one is answered.
An in-camera negative is one made in the camera. I differentiate between in-camera negatives and second generation negatives made by either wet processing or digitally.
Sandy King
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
An in-camera negative is one made in the camera. I differentiate between in-camera negatives and second generation negatives made by either wet processing or digitally.
Sandy King
This has been a very good discussion that from what I can see, brings me to conclude 1) Regardless, film size does matter. Whether it be on contact or via digital, the final print from the larger film will have that much more information/resolution...it should also help to print larger without any grain.
2) Contact or digital can have equally pleasing looks, sometimes with the Contact via proper exposure/processing being the better of the two, sometimes the post-processing with the digital being the better of the two.
In sum, it seems to me that contact printing should be done, especially when one has a larger camera because it does not take as long, and with extensive learning/understanding of how to mix in different chemicals to "alter" the original a bit, the contact can look exceptional (there is a person on Flickr with images that are phenomenal due to her amazing talent of knowing how to "treat" the contact and tweak it how she likes/prefers). At the same time, the digital flow may take longer, and even be something of a journey that involves not just nailing down a nice image in a week, but looking back on that image through time to see what else can be done to it. The advantage of having a digital file rather than a printed image to go off of is quite nice for future correcting/knowledge/advances/etc. This is just my opinion on it all and from what I have been reading.
Sandy, I must ask one last question...what is an in camera negative and how do I make one? How is it different this way than taking the image to the tray and tray developinging it?
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
An in-camera negative is not developed in the camera (well, there are such things, but that's not what's being discussed here).
The comparison is being made between a large negative made normally with a large camera, and an enlarged negative made either with an enlarger or digitally. If you take a 35mm negative, blow it up to a positive on 11x14" ortho film, and then contact print that positive to another sheet of ortho film to make a negative--that's an enlarged neg. If you make a small print from a negative and then photograph the small print with a large camera--that's an enlarged neg. If you take a 35mm neg and scan it and print it out as a negative on an 11x14" sheet of overhead projector film--that's an enlarged negative. If you take a photograph with an 11x14" camera--that's an in-camera negative.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
audioexcels
In sum, it seems to me that contact printing should be done ...
i think one of the best reasons to do it is the beauty of such a minimalist technique. if the gear and the materials and method serve what you're trying to do, there's something just about perfect about contact printing.
i like that for much of his career, Weston's darkroom had nothing in it but a tray and a light bulb dangling from the ceiling by its cord. in contrast to Adams' "factory" (as Weston liked to call it) or my Macintosh and piles of software, the simplicity is a beautiful thing. And there's a lot less to distract you from just getting on with your work.
Quote:
The advantage of having a digital file rather than a printed image to go off of is quite nice for future correcting/knowledge/advances/etc
for me there are two primary advantages to digital ink printing:
1) control
2) the simple fact it's a technology in the early stages of its dominance, so there are many more years of research and development and improvements forthcoming.
this is in contrast to silver materials, which have come to the end of their age of dominance. i trust (or at least hope) that these materials will still be with us for a long time, but since they're serving more and more of a niche market, we can't count on the kind of attention from the manufacturers that we got back in the golden days of the process. my old paper was discontinued along with many others. chances are good the same would happen to any new silver paper i switch to. it's a frustrating disruption, and one i'd like to put off dealing with again for as long as possible.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
this is in contrast to silver materials, which have come to the end of their age of dominance. i trust (or at least hope) that these materials will still be with us for a long time, but since they're serving more and more of a niche market, we can't count on the kind of attention from the manufacturers that we got back in the golden days of the process. my old paper was discontinued along with many others. chances are good the same would happen to any new silver paper i switch to. it's a frustrating disruption, and one i'd like to put off dealing with again for as long as possible.
We should point out that Ilford is currently marketing a silver paper designed for printing from digital files. Elevator Digital in Toronto prints with this paper. It is an interesting way to use Photoshop for tonal corrections and still produce a silver print by wet processing.
Many persons involved in pt./pd. and other forms of alternative printing essentially do the same thing, i.e. prepare a digital file, print a negative on OHP, and use that negative to expose the print, which is then wet processed same as if it had been exposed with a traditional in-camera negative.
Sandy
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
It is an interesting way to use Photoshop for tonal corrections and still produce a silver print by wet processing.
sure ... and this seems like the way the majority of c-printers are working now (lightjet machines, etc.).
i think the hibrid approaches are especially exciting ... digital files ending up as platinum prints, film images ending up as holograms, or whatever. my cameras are older than i am, but i'm currently printing using a digital process. these prints hang side by side with prints made on eastern european chlorobromide papers developed in 80 year old formulas. i think it's all pretty cool.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
i think the hibrid approaches are especially exciting ... digital files ending up as platinum prints, film images ending up as holograms, or whatever. my cameras are older than i am, but i'm currently printing using a digital process. these prints hang side by side with prints made on eastern european chlorobromide papers developed in 80 year old formulas. i think it's all pretty cool.
I completely agree. I have been printing with alternative processes for more than 25 years, but the hybrid approach has resulted in a significant bump in both the quality and productivity of my work.
And BTW, there is a hybrid site for discussions about this type of photography. Interestingly enough, it was put up by the same person who started APUG.
See http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/
Sandy
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
And BTW, there is a hybrid site for discussions about this type of photography. Interestingly enough, it was put up by the same person who started APUG.
ha! i bet he did it to give impure sons of bitches like us someplace else to go!
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
This thread answered my question, even though I didn't ask it! I'll buy a "consumer" flatbed scanner for now, since 16X20 is about biggest any international exhibition accpets, and for any occasional larger prints I can always use a "professional" tp scan it.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
David,
I hope you read closely before making that decision. 1) If your negatives and transparencies have either a wide tonal range and/or a lot of shadow detail then the consumers scanners won't compare to the high-end scanners an the differences become more and more obvious as you print larger. Granted they are barely noticeable at 8x10 or 11x14, especially when the print is mounted under glass, but they are there. They do start to become more visible at 16x20. 2) If your intent is printing for exhibition why would you want to settle for less than the best possible solution?
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Oren was so right when he spoke of contact prints. For me, they glow and do feel almost 3 dimensional.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
I agree with Ted on this one. Get a better scanner, or buy good scans from someone who has a scanning business and will deliver personal service. (OK, like myself, but not necessarily myself, as there are a good number of excellent scanner operators out there.)
As to contact prints - I used to make them. Then back in the 70's I discovered platinum. The matt surface of fine art papers didn't reflect light off the print - and this combined with the elongated tonal range made for a far more three-dimensional print.
When I tried digital printing I was floored - I could still use 100% rag fine art papers and the tonal range possible was even longer than platinum. Of course, there are a bunch of particulars. One has to know how to get a great scan, then know enough about Photoshop to make the right corrections (most photog's don't) and then you have to have the right equipment and materials to make a great print. I would use Hahnemule paper, or Crane's Portfolio Rag - and I would use Jon Cone's ink in a printer. You can't make a great black and white print with color ink (you can make an ok one). Then you have to have the right profile - one can't "just do it" - there is a lot of knowledge and testing required.
However, I don't think darkroom prints can compare to a great inkjet print from a great printer. Contact-printed or not. Of course, this is a subjective statement. I happen to love the look of the fine art papers. I have an image where I have an example of a contact print (Azo in Amidol), a platinum print and an inkjet print. The silver print is not even in the ballpark, and the inkjet is just a little better (and mostly different) than the paltinum print.
However, if someone loves the look of darkroom paper - then nothing else should do...
Lenny
EigerStudios
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lenny Eiger
However, I don't think darkroom prints can compare to a great inkjet print from a great printer. Contact-printed or not. Of course, this is a subjective statement. I happen to love the look of the fine art papers. I have an image where I have an example of a contact print (Azo in Amidol), a platinum print and an inkjet print. The silver print is not even in the ballpark, and the inkjet is just a little better (and mostly different) than the paltinum print.
EigerStudios
that's because most contact prints are done without any sort of adjustments, so they look realistic but boring. a contact print can be made to look exactly like an inkjet print (the converse is also true) by adjusting contrast, sharpening, bringing out shadow detail, etc. most adjustments you can do in Photoshop you can also do in the darkroom, but people just don't do it.
so the digital print has been adjusted while the wet print has not, do you think this is a fair comparison? contact prints and inkjets look exactly the same if adjusted, and with a magnifying glass you'll see that the contact print would have more resolution, though not as much as the original film. to me, the slide film is the most impressive to behold, though, especially when backlit.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
As someone irrationally enamored with the photographic image, I find the contact print anything but boring, in fact the most beautiful prints I have seen tend to be contact prints.
We do, because of the digital medium, have much more control over what goes on in those pesky shoulders and toes than traditional materials. It was pretty much impossible to use the full density range of the materials without losing detail there, now we can. These kinds of judgments are technical though, even with those limitations master printers were still able to create objects of profound beauty, rising above those kinds of evaluations.
The part continually left out of these discussions, is that most of us are now using glorified half tone printing processes, and given up continuous tone printing. There is still a difference. Most don't notice it because the source imagery doesn't reveal it. We're printing with dots, changing size and spacing, ingenious as it is.
We've given up a great deal of resolution and tonality on the actual surface of our prints without a second thought. These qualities literally define the uniqueness of the medium of photography and even though people may not see the difference in a definable way, they very well probably contribute to those indefinable qualities the best print display- glow, 3D, etc..
The only prints I've seen that actually approach the best B&W contact prints, silver otherwise, are the K6 or K7 mono inksets and special drivers to deal with them, particularly used at 2880. At this point the underlying mechanical structure of the device nearly disappears. Still, they have a bit of a unique look of their own, it's not a replacement.
Again, few images will reveal this, to few people. To get a bit over dramatic about it, I literally see the survival, or not, of the medium depending on those who care and love it keeping the pressure on, because we are now a niche.
Contact vs digital (inkjet) could be considered a less than productive conversation, as in my opinion they do not share similar concerns or goals. The hybrid people seem to be trying to make the best of both worlds. But you don't see Epson, Canon, or HP using them as beta testers.
I have fully embraced inkjet printing, and my old 10x12 camera hasn't been used to make an analogue contact print, silver or platinum, in a long long time. But I hope the highest traditional standards, that took centuries to perfect, are carried forward. My suspicion is that we will have to keep the pressure on.
Please excuse my rant, been on my mind...
Tyler
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyler Boley
Contact vs digital (inkjet) could be considered a less than productive conversation, as in my opinion they do not share similar concerns or goals. The hybrid people seem to be trying to make the best of both worlds. But you don't see Epson, Canon, or HP using them as beta testers.
Tyler
Not only do the printing companies not use hybrid printers as beta testers, they won't even recognize (so they don't have to offer support) that their printers are being used to make digital negatives on variouis types of OHP material.
BTW, if you make a pt./pd. print with a digital negative made with any of the current generation of Epson, Canon and HP photo there should not be any type of printer artifact on the print, even when viewed with a loupe. The texture of the paper breaks any patterns that may exist so that there is no difference in terms of continuous tone between pt/pd prints made from digital negatives and those made from in-camera negatives.
The look itself is not always the same because most hybrid printers put curves on their negatives so as to linearize tonal values, and this can look quite different from the typical long toe and long shoulder that is characteristic of the pt/pd process. Mark Nelson, of PDN, actually has several curves that can be used to capture the typical curve type of pt/pd.
Sandy King
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cotdt
most adjustments you can do in Photoshop you can also do in the darkroom, but people just don't do it.
consistency and control were my biggest nemesis in the darkroom
Quote:
and with a magnifying glass you'll see that the contact print would have more resolution
not true - paper grain in light sensitive materials limits resolution, nozzle diameters and raster algorithms control resolution for ink jets. I have a print made at 600dpi from 4x10 film that could pass as a contact print in terms of resolution, the detail is exceptional and it's 200 ISO Bergger, a grainy film.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sanking
Not only do the printing companies not use hybrid printers as beta testers, they won't even recognize (so they don't have to offer support) that their printers are being used to make digital negatives on variouis types of OHP material.
Sandy King
Sandy,
Not sure that is a completely fair statement. I don't know about beta testing, but I can tell you that at least Canon and HP are very interested in the digital negative capability of their printers.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jetcode
not true - paper grain in light sensitive materials limits resolution, nozzle diameters and raster algorithms control resolution for ink jets. I have a print made at 600dpi from 4x10 film that could pass as a contact print in terms of resolution, the detail is exceptional and it's 200 ISO Bergger, a grainy film.
if it's 600 dpi, wouldn't wet prints still have higher resolution? papers have 16-20 lp/mm and the grain can be controlled via developer. actually grain has little to do with resolution as the resolution can be finer than the largest grains.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ted Harris
David,
I hope you read closely before making that decision. 1) If your negatives and transparencies have either a wide tonal range and/or a lot of shadow detail then the consumers scanners won't compare to the high-end scanners an the differences become more and more obvious as you print larger. Granted they are barely noticeable at 8x10 or 11x14, especially when the print is mounted under glass, but they are there. They do start to become more visible at 16x20. 2) If your intent is printing for exhibition why would you want to settle for less than the best possible solution?
So you are saying to buy a cheap DSLR, put a decent piece of glass on it, and do equally clean 8X10's and 11X14's?
Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for someone to have a consumer scanner if "any" format can do 8X10's, and medium format will take care of 11X14 on up.
Seems that if one is not willing to have an image scanned for say, $100 average, one should not even shoot LF film. 25-40 photos pro-scanned is what you can buy a pro flatbed for on the used market.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ted Harris
Sandy,
Not sure that is a completely fair statement. I don't know about beta testing, but I can tell you that at least Canon and HP are very interested in the digital negative capability of their printers.
That may be true of Canon and HP, but the great majority of people making digital negatives are using Epson printers, and to my knowledge Epson does not provide any help, support or information at all on this topic. Unless things have changed in the last several months!
Sandy King
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tyler Boley
As someone irrationally enamored with the photographic image, I find the contact print anything but boring, in fact the most beautiful prints I have seen tend to be contact prints.
We do, because of the digital medium, have much more control over what goes on in those pesky shoulders and toes than traditional materials. It was pretty much impossible to use the full density range of the materials without losing detail there, now we can. These kinds of judgments are technical though, even with those limitations master printers were still able to create objects of profound beauty, rising above those kinds of evaluations.
The part continually left out of these discussions, is that most of us are now using glorified half tone printing processes, and given up continuous tone printing. There is still a difference. Most don't notice it because the source imagery doesn't reveal it. We're printing with dots, changing size and spacing, ingenious as it is.
We've given up a great deal of resolution and tonality on the actual surface of our prints without a second thought. These qualities literally define the uniqueness of the medium of photography and even though people may not see the difference in a definable way, they very well probably contribute to those indefinable qualities the best print display- glow, 3D, etc..
The only prints I've seen that actually approach the best B&W contact prints, silver otherwise, are the K6 or K7 mono inksets and special drivers to deal with them, particularly used at 2880. At this point the underlying mechanical structure of the device nearly disappears. Still, they have a bit of a unique look of their own, it's not a replacement.
Again, few images will reveal this, to few people. To get a bit over dramatic about it, I literally see the survival, or not, of the medium depending on those who care and love it keeping the pressure on, because we are now a niche.
Contact vs digital (inkjet) could be considered a less than productive conversation, as in my opinion they do not share similar concerns or goals. The hybrid people seem to be trying to make the best of both worlds. But you don't see Epson, Canon, or HP using them as beta testers.
I have fully embraced inkjet printing, and my old 10x12 camera hasn't been used to make an analogue contact print, silver or platinum, in a long long time. But I hope the highest traditional standards, that took centuries to perfect, are carried forward. My suspicion is that we will have to keep the pressure on.
Please excuse my rant, been on my mind...
Tyler
Here is one of my favorite photographers, if not, most favorite one's images that I have seen from any LF person's gallery. They are all contact prints. Not one uses a scanner except to scan in the contact print (I think she needs a better scanner or to take photos of the prints instead as the one she doesn't seem to know how to scan very well at all...I guess she is too busy with the manual flow and zero interest in the digital flow):
http://flickr.com/photos/laurensimonutti/
I wish I knew what she does with her work on these to make them into the prints they eventually become. I know she uses different, and very potent chemicals to gain that coloration into the majority of her work, but she has had to have been at this for a long long time to be able to do things like this as I have seen nothing like it.
Personally, I love this person's work no different than I love some few photographers that use a lot of movements to achieve spooky looking portions of the image in focus with other parts of the image blurred or partially in focus. Some of these shots amaze me because they aren't doing a simple blurring of one part, two parts, etc. of the shot, but blurring it in many parts, while keeping the sharpness only some other parts. Yeah..anyhoo...it's extremely creative to my eyes.
Obviously the delicious landscape and other more traditional compositions are so effortless and beautiful as well. I just personally love this women's work above the most (don't even look at the context, only how she is able to make the contact print), then creative people that show us why and what a view camera can do that no photoshopping could do for any other type of camera, and then of course the regular shots we are used to seeing of landscape, architecture, objects, etc.
Cheers!
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Sandy, you are probably correct about Epson. I can further affirm my earlier comment about Canon and HP. I just spent an hour on the phone with HP's senior managers and a good part of our conversation related to their planned support for third party media.
-
Re: Contact vs. Digital print AND scanners for large format...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ted Harris
Sandy, you are probably correct about Epson. I can further affirm my earlier comment about Canon and HP. I just spent an hour on the phone with HP's senior managers and a good part of our conversation related to their planned support for third party media.
I am curious to know how HP and Canon plan to support users who use their printers for making digital negatives.
Don Bryant