D-Max shootout

[Brian Ellis]

"If anything a contrasty negative is easier to scan since scanners are optimized for transparencies."

I'm not sure what you mean by "easier to scan" but FWIW the usual scanning advice (I thought) is to produce a somewhat flat scan so that as much detail as possible is retained in the scan, then make the appropriate adjustments in Photoshop.

[Struan Gray]

I was trying to say in shorthand that nobody makes a scanner for just negative film. This means that all dedicated film scanners have to at least pretend to be able to scan an optical density of at least 3.0 if they are to be taken seriously. Few negatives have that much absolute density, and fewer still get as dense as, say, Velvia with it's 4.0 blacks.

Given that, no film scanner is going to have problems seeing into the darkest parts of a typical pictorial negative, so there is normally no need to compress the negative's tonal range by N- development. Given the limitations of some cheap scanners, a more contrasty negative than normal can actually help. With printing paper you need to match the highlight densities to the paper's response curve, but even cheap scanners cope rather well with contrasty negatives. As I indicated in my original comment, all my problems have been with low contrast originals.

The point about making a flat initial scan is a different issue. I agree entirely that it makes more sense to set the contrast in an editing program where you have total control, than in the scanner driver where you often cannot judge the effect of your choices until it's too late. Also, if you scan to a high bit depth you can do local contrast adjustments without losing tonal nuances. I quite often use large-radius unsharp masks, which works best if you don't let the scanner driver clip or compress the end-range data.

Sorry if I've dragged this a long way off topic. The point is similar to the original responses vis-a-vis prints: Dmax is these days mostly a pointless marketing metric. Other aspects of performance are more important because almost all tools available have enough Dmax to get the job done.

[paulr]

"people like Jorge have already admited that if inkjet offerred more resolution, better tonality, greater permanence, at a lower cost, he has still said he would choose the silver based image. To me, that doesn't speak of logic....just emotion."

We're not talking about building suspension bridges here ... I thought we were talking about making art. I would expect the process to be emotional. More specifically, I think that in an emotional way the process needs to feel right to you. It needs to inspire you to work with it. A medium's is theoretically capabilities are different from what it's capable of doing in your hands, guided by your imagination.

I used to be a darkroom fanatic, and promised the world I would never stoop to using digital for my personal work (even though I used it professionally every day). Part of this was based on how much better darkrooms prints looked than any digital prints at the time. But a big part was my love of the process. Being in the dark, working with alchemy of the whole process, using hundred year-old formulas, inventing new ones ... it was all an inextricable part of what I loved. It inspired me, and so the process itself nurtured my ideas. I couldn't imagine ever having that kind of relationship with a computer screen and a plastic printer.

Things have been changing recently. For one, the paper that I printed on for over ten years finally disappeared, as I knew it would eventually. And for another, my experiments with the Piezography process have started bearing fruit. I've been using this quadtone carbon inkjet process for a book project, and have been experimenting with hand-applied varnishes to control the surface gloss and shadow depth. I am now starting to see prints that, for my esthetic, go beyond what I thought was possible. They have a dynamic range that comes close to the richest silver prints I've ever seen, combined with midtone separation (a long straight line section) that exceeds any platinum or palladium print I've ever seen. And the tonal scale is infinitely adjustable. It's early, and I'm still learning the process. But if it goes as well as it might, I will surely fall in love with it the same way I fell in love with my darkroom. My enlarger could end up on ebay sometime in the next year.

I never thought I'd say this. But the world is changing, and this is one case where I can adapt to it without lowering my standards.

Oh, and D-max? I don't have a densitometer. compared with my Fortezo prints, developed in Ansco 130 or Amidol, toned in selenium and nelson gold, I'd say the varnished piezo prints come within about a half of a "zone" ... not as desnse, but way more than dense enough to give a sense of swimingly deep, detail-rich shadows.

[David Luttmann]

Careful Paul,

You're probably going to get Jorge jumping down your throat screaming blasphemy & bias ;-) Your results are pretty much echoing mine. Ihave found that mounted prints behind glass were identical to my best silver work. However, because of the lack of shadow compression which is a problem with silver, I find I can dig deeper into the shadows with B&W Carbon Pigment inkjet printing. I believe this results in a larger usable dynamic range.

The world is changing. For my portrait, wedding and commercial work, I find my Canon 1DS is more often than not, more than enough for the job. Only when I'm printing large do I pull out the 4x5. For my personal work, mainly B&W, I use everything....digital, MF 6x7 & LF 4X5.

If the final print is pleasing to my eyes and my customers, than I don't care whether it's silver, pt/pd on gum, or inkjet.....and neither have my customers.

Best of luck on your inkjet progress.

[paulr]

if artists can't enjoy some blasphemy and bias, then who can??

[Brian Ellis]

Hi Paul - What varnishes are you using and on what paper? Is this done with color or b&w prints or both?

[paulr]

i've been working only with piezotone inks and with photorag paper (though i used moab entrada briefly, and found it worked with varnish in a similar way).

this is all a work in progress. the best resutls (aesthetically) have been from mineral spirits based acrylic spray varnish, but it's too toxic and slow drying to be practical. my next experiment will be with airbrushing water based acrylic varnish. i'm sure i can get it to work, but there are a lot of details to figure out.

the preliminary results are stunning.