Digital Silver

[DennisD]

Many images (from negatives) lend themselves to scanning and digital printing for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons were already mentioned and many more not mentioned. Such images can often be printed better digitally due to the limits of traditional methods, and type of manipulation required to reach the visualized result.

We all love a well done traditional print, but there's no law requiring a film negative to be enlarged and printed traditionally.

Also, there's absolutely no shame in printing by digital methods whenever the photographer so desires (for whatever reason).

[Deval]

As originally stated , I would love to use a traditional enlarger if I had access to one...I suppose by using a digital intermediate I feel like I still have control of the print as far as the contrast, dust, unsharp mask to compensate for the imperfect scan ,etc. i don't know a lot of traditional printers that I have built a level of trust with sending my negatives, but would be open to suggestions as well. I know ilford started the public darkroom site but not a lot have popped up in Florida. I'm going to try to reach out to the local university photo department but don't expect them to open their doors to an outsider.

[Thom Bennett]

Deval,

Sorry I hijacked your post to make a point but, at this time in photography, one has a multitude of choices on the road to making a fine print and I'm just curious as to why someone would shoot film but then scan the neg to have a fiber print made when one could just as easily have the print made directly from the neg. There are a number of labs (lamentably, not nearly as many as even five years ago) and Elevator may be one of them, that offer direct-from-negative printing. I am a bit biased since I used to do printing for other photographers and can appreciate a well made darkroom print. I am not a Luddite and can appreciate the hybrid process. I just wanted to raise the question.

In response to Vinny, (Scratches, lots of dust, uneven development are the reasons I cannot enlarge plenty of my negs w/o the resulting prints looking like shit. Of course, all those defects only happen to my favorite negs. Now do you get it?) no, I don't get it. If one has all those problems with film, why not just shoot digitally if you are ultimately going to use a digital file to print from? To me, working with film requires discipline, patience, lots of study, and trial and error to learn how to achieve a quality negative. It is a worthy goal and one of the reasons I shoot large format.

Stepping off my soapbox, here are some traditional labs, as you requested. Some also offer scanning and digital printing services as well. Good luck in your photographic endeavors!

http://www.mvlabs.com/
http://www.4photolab.com/
http://www.dalmatianlab.com/
http://www.gammasf.com/
http://www.printlab.com/
http://www.hanksphoto.com/

[vinny]

All of my cameras take film. I'd rather print a great neg than leave it in a box somewhere. You've never botched a great shot? I guess you're just luckier than the rest of us

[Thom Bennett]

Botch them all the time, most to the point that no digital manipulation known to man would save them. I figure there's another negative more deserving to print. I keep the botched ones and write notes on them as to why they are no good. Got a stack of 8x10 negs I periodically go through to remind myself to slow down, pay attention, be present in the moment, and all that jazz. Always learning and, hopefully, perfecting my process as well as my vision.

I understand using digital technology to save a one-of-a-kind negative and for web use. I don't understand making it a work flow for final prints. Just my point of view.

All of my cameras take film. I'd rather print a great neg than leave it in a box somewhere. You've never botched a great shot? I guess you're just luckier than the rest of us

[bob carnie]

I think I should clarify this a bit.. I have split Elevator into two different companys.. My long time business partner is keeping the name Elevator Digital Ltd.
I am starting a smaller fine art lab and have moved to a second location on Toronto.s Subway System. The Lambda and enlargers and scanners are with me, as well I have opened an exhibition space.
total 3000sq ft on two floors , I have been here for two weeks now and finding my way. The move was very , very difficult .

The website is www.bobcarnieprintmaking.ca we are still adding to the site and fixing any glitches but you can find out a bit about our services and us there.
Indeed Erics lab is in Boston, I have visited his place and he does excellent work.

Just to be clear, "Digital Silver Imaging" isn't a generic term for digital printed on silver, it's the name of Eric Luden's lab, near Boston:

http://digitalsilverimaging.com/

Bob Carnie's lab is Elevator Digital, in Toronto:

http://www.elevatordigital.ca/

[bob carnie]

jjj

[bob carnie]

Hi Thom
I do use both methods.. I have a Durst Lambda 76, for the digital prints, but I also have two 4x5 condensor enlargers, 1 8x10 Durst 2000 horizontal enlarger for murals up to 40 x50 inches. and very unique a mint 11 x14 Deveere Vertical enlarger for up to 11 x14 film.

So why do digital prints.... First off as a business owner making prints for others, I either added this service or move to a rural location and take on less customers.. Toronto my home, is very expensive to rent space for darkrooms. I have to pay the bills.. This would also be the reason why I make digital C prints and Digital inkjets... If I was to rely only on enlarger prints I would have to downsize and cut my rent dramatically to survive.
Second reason, I use some pretty great scanning equipment and the Lambda output is excellent... Your point is well taken about putting a negative in the enlarger and letting light come through, but I will point out that one needs to compensate under the enlarger for failings of the enlarger set up.
Also most of my main clients are under 40 and to be honest do not have a clue about film , and have no desire to learn, what they are providing me are excellent files that once going through the lambda recorded on paper beautifully.

Also Eric (digital silver) and I use laser technology and that is being laid down is a beam of concentrated (light) onto photosensitive material. It is not dots, and you do not see dots. What you do see is the grain of the original(if using film) and not pixels, under magnification... This was an eyeopener for me.......So if you think about it in this very simple way, the pixels are smaller than the film therefore there is no image loss, in fact you have the ability to manipulate the file, as Kirk points out to actually expand or contract the scene much like one does with split printing under the enlarger.

The silver paper we use is Gallerie Grade 4 with an extended red sensitivity... so we are getting amazing black(dmax) and by manipulating the file, and then running a 21 step control wedge we can accurately lay down any tone anywhere we want from L 100 pure white to L 96 slight highlight tone all the way down to L 0 pure black to L 4 first signs of shadow detail.

Fragile films, historic film, customers who do not want anyone touching their film, customers who want to completely control their prints, heavily damaged films - customers who don;t have film - are all reasons for this.

New to us is Large silver film that we then contact onto all sorts of material... I dove into this wormhole about 4 years ago , because I was unhappy that Ilford would not make a warmtone paper for the digital device. I have successfully made up to 24 x36 silver film that is then used in contact onto different papers... This allows me to use any type of silver paper to make prints, as well make pt pd prints.. the benifit of this I think would be of great use to archives who want to make silver negatives for archival purposese,,,, young photographers with out darkrooms to get a film made and then do a contact print on silver in their kitchen at night, just like Brett Weston..


This is all sounding too self serving right now Thom so I will stop but thanks for the question as I was dying to answer this..

Bob

I'm not trying to take anything away from what Bob does at Elevator as I understand he does a fantastic job and I think the hybrid technology is wonderful. My question is in the broader sense; why wouldn't one use a traditional printer who uses enlargers so that the light passes directly through the negative and onto the paper? Why scan negs when you can still have a print made traditionally? Seems like it is adding an extra step unnecessarily. There are labs around the country that offer this. (perhaps Elevator offers this? Looks like they are putting together a new website so I don't know) If one is going to use Bob's DSI, wouldn't one simply shoot digitally? I want to be clear, I think what Bob offers is wonderful. I could see someone shooting a wedding digitally and then having beautiful black and white silver gelatin prints made for an album. A great use of hybrid technology. But, if shooting negs, why not have someone print them traditionally?

[Willie]

Do you have a way to order a comparison print set? Say one with the laser enlarger and one with an regular enlarger - on the same paper?
Would be nice to see them side by side from one of our own negatives.

[bob carnie]

The digital silver paper is different than the enlarger paper. so a dead nuts comparison is not available... also the quality of scan would be a second variable.

Do you have a way to order a comparison print set? Say one with the laser enlarger and one with an regular enlarger - on the same paper?
Would be nice to see them side by side from one of our own negatives.