Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Digital negative quality

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    261

    Digital negative quality

    Hi- I posted this over at the hybrid site, but I thought I'd put it here too: I know this is a loaded and open ended question, but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size? I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances. The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.

    Thanks,
    Tim

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    751

    Re: Digital negative quality

    You should get plenty of responses to this on the hybrid forum. In short, for alt processes, which are printed on mat papers, I'm pretty sure that you can produce prints from digital negatives which are almost indistiguishable from in camera negatives. For silver gelatin, my own personal experience has been that this point has not yet been reached, but I do know that there has been a fair bit of work done on this recently using QTR and that if it is not quite there yet, it's getting closer. I spent some time about a year ago using Pictorico white film and thought at the time that it was worth pursuing as I was getting decent results, just not perfect.... I haven't found the time to go back and revisit it.

  3. #3
    windpointphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Racine, WI
    Posts
    262

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Don is correct, plus with the quality of inkjet printers ie: Epson's 3800, and papers, there is no need to go through the work of making a digital neg for silver printing. This is if you have the printer, but how else would you make the digital neg? As for Platinum prints, I can see no difference with a silver neg or a digital.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    261

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Thanks to you both. I don't actually have any of the digital equipment yet, but was thinking that rather than buying an 8x10, all the holders, lenses, cost of film... and lugging it, I would be better off perhaps going the digital route, and perhaps getting a 5x7 enlarger for those negs I want to print a bit bigger on silver paper. I'm essentially trying to choose a path and not just buy a bunch of equipment (as much as I'd love an 8x10 system). With the scanner and printer, I could then also do my own color work.

    Tim

  5. #5
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    ...but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size?
    Short answer is "yes."

    Long answer is that for what you are doing, making a digital negative that you use to contact print in the wet darkroom, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised. If, of course, you are willing to put the work into it to climb the learning curve. If instead you think that you'll just be able to "push a button" and out pops a perfect digital negative, then you'll probably be (very) unpleasantly surprised. It will take time and effort on your behalf to learn how to do this well. But if you do it well you'll end up with a digital negative that prints really easily with all your corrections already in place. Which makes it much easier to get the print to do exactly what you want.

    If instead of making a digital negative you just make an inkjet print, you might be even more pleasantly surprised. Again, there are learning curves, especially with B&W. But the best looking B&W prints I've ever seen, and I've held a number of excellent master prints in my hands (silver, platinum, etc.) have been inkjet prints. If you are really into black however, or really into glossy papers, then contact printing is still the way to go IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances.
    Close? We equaled or exceeded about eight or ten years ago IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by timbo10ca View Post
    The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.
    There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO. However, there are some aesthetic reasons -- like you want the bigger ground glass or you like the decrease in DOF, etc.

    Bruce Watson

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Winnipeg, Manitoba
    Posts
    261

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Thanks Bruce. You've put force behind my conviction. The digital route, especially of the digital negative is daunting and I have *much* to learn, but I think I see myself going in that direction rather than an increase in camera size. I will continue to enjoy the wet darkroom for 35mm and MF, and my 5x7 contacts, but for color and alt processes, digital seems to be the way to go.

    Tim

  7. #7
    Don Nelson
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    275

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Dick Arentz gave up ULF negatives four years ago in favor of Leica M8 and Jim Nelson's digital negative methods. At last year's Arentz Masters Workshop (Pt/Pd) all of us could tell the difference between a digital and an in-camera negative, but the effect was entirely due to the treatment of the blacks in the print, not accutance or sharpness. For those of you that have last year's Viewcamera (July-Aug 2007), you can see some of Dick's work. The 12x19 sized verzion of the cover image was taken with M8, and the final print is outstanding!

  8. #8
    jetcode
    Guest

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Don does this mean that a M8 photograph of a LF image/print was on the cover of View Camera magazine or a M8 original (35mm film) image?

  9. #9
    Richard M. Coda
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Posts
    973

    Re: Digital negative quality

    IMHO, I have seen prints from digital "inkjet" negatives and I have not been impressed. And these are from respected members of the photo community. In fact, some were downright fuzzy.

    I, personally, have made "real" silver negatives (via Chicago Albumen Works) and prints from them from both digital files and from scanned LF negs, and find them indistinguishable from in-camera negatives/prints. I use digital negatives to a) salvage a bad negative of a good image, or b) make a silver print from a DSLR image (in which case that was the only camera I had at the time and could not go back... the flag on my website is a silver print from a DSLR/silver neg.).

    Just my 2 cents...
    Photographs by Richard M. Coda
    my blog
    Primordial: 2010 - Photographs of the Arizona Monsoon
    "Speak softly and carry an 8x10"
    "I shoot a HYBRID - Arca/Canham 11x14"

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,955

    Re: Digital negative quality

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
    Short answer is "yes."

    Long answer is that for what you are doing, making a digital negative that you use to contact print in the wet darkroom, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised. If, of course, you are willing to put the work into it to climb the learning curve. If instead you think that you'll just be able to "push a button" and out pops a perfect digital negative, then you'll probably be (very) unpleasantly surprised. It will take time and effort on your behalf to learn how to do this well. But if you do it well you'll end up with a digital negative that prints really easily with all your corrections already in place. Which makes it much easier to get the print to do exactly what you want.

    If instead of making a digital negative you just make an inkjet print, you might be even more pleasantly surprised. Again, there are learning curves, especially with B&W. But the best looking B&W prints I've ever seen, and I've held a number of excellent master prints in my hands (silver, platinum, etc.) have been inkjet prints. If you are really into black however, or really into glossy papers, then contact printing is still the way to go IMHO.



    Close? We equaled or exceeded about eight or ten years ago IMHO.



    There's no print quality reason to go to the larger camera, again IMHO. However, there are some aesthetic reasons -- like you want the bigger ground glass or you like the decrease in DOF, etc.
    Bruce, have you used NK7s to make digital negs, and if so, do they work well for that?

Similar Threads

  1. Digital Printing with LCD negative???
    By Abe Slamowitz in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25-Nov-2005, 10:37
  2. Dan Burkholder's Pt/Pd, Digital Negative Workshop
    By neil poulsen in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 5-Sep-2005, 03:17
  3. Digital -> Large negative for Contact Printing
    By Keith Baker in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19-Nov-2001, 23:00

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •