Digital Negative systems-Burkholder vs. Precision

**Bobby Sandstrom** · 13-Apr-2005, 22:19

Ellen, try to keep in mind you're not paying 75.00 for an e-book, you're paying 75.00 for the 100's of hours of research and hard work that went into the system. It might not be a bad idea to at least check it out if, of course, that type of printing is something you really want to pursue. It really is a good system, however, again, to my eyes it's just not the same as a straight silver print in the darkroom.

Tim, I did my experimenting with a 3 pass scan (meaning one scan for the low, mids, and highs respectively) using a Nikon Supercool Scan 8000 with 2 1/4 film TXP 320. I then built a file from those by masking areas from each appropriate level. I'm a very carefull photoshop user and try to maintain the integrity of the data wherever possible, so please understand, I started with a good solid file. The actual inkjet print (black only dye ink on an r300) has more sharpness and apparent depth than the contact print. The contact print was an 8" by 8" print and the negative was made on the recommended transparency film on a 7600 using ultrachrome inks. (Sorry I forgot which film it was and I don't want to tell you the wrong one.) The contact print looks very nice, don't get me wrong. I would hang it on the wall. However, it just has more of a 2nd generation kind of look to it. Here again, i'm talking small details. But... it's the details when added up that can really make a difference. We work really hard to achieve the best possible results. Why stop short.

**tim atherton** · 13-Apr-2005, 22:48

"I did my experimenting with a 3 pass scan (meaning one scan for the low, mids, and highs respectively) using a Nikon Supercool Scan 8000 with 2 1/4 film TXP 320."

I'm talking about a scan from an 8x10 negative enlarged only to something like 11x14 or 12x16 or so - which are the coontact prints I've seen and worked with from digital negs.

That's not the same magnitude of enlargment as 2 1/2 enlarged even to just 8x8

So for me, either way it's going to be enlarged, either a a digital neg or in a good old fashioned enlarger.

**Bobby Sandstrom** · 14-Apr-2005, 00:01

Tim, the only way to know for sure is to give it a try for yourself. Just wanted to try and give you some feedback as it was hard to come by when I was scouring the internet for any clues. I ended up just going for it and was able to see for myself first hand just how everything looked.

best of luck

**phil sweeney** · 14-Apr-2005, 04:02

Hi Tim,

I tinkered with Dan's methods many times and shelved the projects for my inability to create the appropriate curve. I was not willing to pay the cost of the imagesetter negatives needed to fine tune the curves. However not much before PDN came out I had derived a method for constructing curves. For silver printing I had to make 3 negatives (starting with a digital step tablet and analyzing the prints with a densitometer) to make a virtually perfect curve. Thereafter with the original step tablet negative I was able to make a curve, for any chosen paper, after another test negative. I have constructed a curve for kallitype on COT-320 also. Takes a little more work than silver gelatin papers. Appears the densitometer cannot measure the highlights very well off of art papers, so a little more visual work and another test negative was necessary to construct the curve.

I was skeptical about inkjet negs for silver printing and needed the sharpness obtained from the imagesetter negative to yield a print on AZO that could compare to a in camera negative. There are some process problems (occasional unexplained streaking) with the stochastic process. For those problem files I am planning to create a curve for halftones to complete my digital AZO negative project.

**Brian Ellis** · 14-Apr-2005, 21:00

I know little about either system and haven't used either but I did attend a lecture by Mark Newman and saw his 11x14 prints made from enlarged 35mm negatives. They looked pretty darn good to me. I've done a lot of 8x10 contact printing from original negatives and I'm not sure I could have distinguished between Mark's prints from his enlarged negatives and a contact print made from an origianl 11x14 negative (and he's enlarging his negatives from 35mm).