LOL....Here's a contact print from an 8x10 in-camera negative printed as a Kallitype:Originally Posted by Michael Mutmansky
As you can see, it is SHARP. Check out the coal deposited between the rails. And this was printed on a matte surface paper. And the negative was developed in plain old' Xtol.
Thomas
Thomas, I have to tell you that at least on my computer, the jpg that you posted looks pretty fuzzy. I think it would take a much larger file to show anyone the sharpness you're achieving. Also, pertinent would be the paper you printed it on, there's a wide variation among papers in terms of finish, and consequently sharpness. (As an example, in the platinum printing world, there's a very large difference between printing on Bienfang marker paper and BFK Rives.)
Assuming the use of very good LF and ULF negatives (well focused, exposed and developed) the limit to resolution in printing pt/pd with these negatives is the texture of the paper itself since the image resides partly in the texture of the paper. Resolution will vary some, highest on very smooth surface papers, lowest on those that have a lot of texture or a pebbly look. As a general rule, however, the highest resolution of pt/pd on art papers like Platine, Revere or the new Hahn Rag is about the same as what you get with an inkjet print on smooth matte surface ink papers, about 7-14 lpm, which corresponds closely to setting your file dpi to between 360-720 dpi. Reflective Dmax is also limited with these papers with pt/pd, with a practical maximum for pt/pd of about log 1.6, about the same you can get with inkjket prints on mattte papers using Matte Black ink.
The immediate conclusion one reaches in comparing pt/pd prints made with good in-camera negatives and with good digital negatives is that image quality is approximately equal. This comparison would also apply to a number of other alternative processes where thin emulsions are surface coated on art papers. Those processes would include kallitype, vandyke, salted paper and cyanotype.
In a separate group of alternative processes we have those that have an emulsion that consists of a light sensitive component mixed with a colloid such as albumen, carbon or silver gelatin. In these cases the image is formed by a metal or pigment encapsulated in a thin hardened albumen or gelatin. These processes have much higher potential maximum resolution, up to 30 - 40 lpm, and also much higher reflective Dmax as log 1.8 or above is easily obtained with these processes. These processes are indeed capable of taking advantage of most of the resolution/detail in an in-camera negative, which makes these processes attractive for use with negatives made with ULF cameras. But, as appealing as this may be, bear in mind that the use of a 12X20 camera in the field presents levels of difficulty that are far more challenging than the use of FF-DSLR, MF, 4X5 or 5X7 fim cameras.
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Great detailed reply.
Explains a lot.
Salt prints here I go.
Thank you.
I think your reading comprehension may be missing. Check your pockets.LOL....Here's a contact print from an 8x10 in-camera negative printed as a Kallitype:
As you can see, it is SHARP. Check out the coal deposited between the rails. And this was printed on a matte surface paper. And the negative was developed in plain old' Xtol.
Thomas
Do you understand that I did not state that film was deficient, but that the higher resolution that is achievable in a film negative does not necessarily translate into greater perceived sharpness on the print? Further, the ability to unsharp mask in a digital negative can produce a print that is perceived as sharper, even though it doesn't have higher resolution in the negative.
Add to that the ability to contrast control the negative, build in dodge and burning, make enlargements, cropping and other adjustments makes a very strong argument for using a digital version of the image as a intermediary source for contact printing.
However, none of this is necessary, as film is capable of great results; they just won't be as flexible of a source for most alt process work, so they will be a bit more demanding to produce equally masterful images (if they are able to do it at all, due to the ability to control contrast with the digital negatives).
My point was, and remains, that a person shouldn't take up ULF shooting because they want to make pt/pd prints. They should consider taking up ULF because they want to shoot ULF.
---Michael
I just uploaded some videos that one of my darkroom mates made of me making a 7x17 gold-toned Kallitype from an in-camera negative. Very similar to Pt/Pd as far as coating, exposing, processing, etc. so it may give you an idea of the scale of the print as well as the look of the Kallitype.
https://vimeo.com/user50078189/videos
How would one go about testing the lp/mm of a printing method paper combination?
Thank you, I'll check them out!
get a negative lp/mm printing gradient resolution wedge like this:
http://www.stouffer.net/Specialtygui...solution Guide
Then, print it on a few different papers with a few tries each, and see what you can see. This will only test the final step in the process, the paper resolving capability, but it should show differences.
The differences in the optical paths to the paper are different, but in theory, if you are contact printing in both cases, they should be similar. That is, if you are using the same camera for both, etc., the results will be comparable. However, if you are comparing a ULF negative (with relatively low resolving power optically because of limitations in the lens, the camera, and the filmholder, etc.) to a smaller source like a 4x5 or digital source, there will be differences in the results that may favor the smaller negative or digital if your lens/camera/filmholder combination is not capable of resolving at a comparable level of the smaller camera (even with the enlargement happening).
And, as I said, the ability to enhance the negative in the digital realm is a major asset for alt. process work, and that won't really be a factor in this testing you are doing.
It's all good and worth trying this! I strong;y encourage people to try these types of things as the go to learn more about what their process is capable of.
One last thing, note that the sharpness of a contact print image is dependent on the light source, even though you wouldn't think it should be prima facia. So, you will want t use the same light source if at all possible. If not, you aren't necessarily testing the resolving power of the paper in the process you are testing as much as the paper/process including the printing method. That is, you really are testing all three, but if you don't change the printing method, that is a constant that you can normally disregard.
---Michael
I will be starting this service up in 6-12 months using my Durst Lambda.
The only "honest" photos are the ones made by non-photographers!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks