Digital negative quality

[mcfactor]

I think the answer to the original poster's question lies in the chosen process. When one creates a digital negative from scanned film for the purpose of gelatin-silver printing, one has already decided that they like gelatin-silver prints better than ink-jet prints (for whatever reason, e.g., tonality).

I take it as given that in gelatin-silver printing, the larger the negative, the better quality of the print (quality meaning tonality, sharpness, richness, etc.). In other words, an 8x10 contact print made from and in-camera 8x10 neg will look better than a 4x5 in-camera negative enlarged to 8x10 (the traditional way).

When a digital negative is made (say, a 4x5 neg scanned and enlarged to an 8x10 digital negative), the film is still being enlarged and thus there is a loss of quailty. Even if the digital negative made is the same size as the original negative it was scanned from, the scanning itself necessarily involves a decrease (even though it may be slight) in quality (at the very least, sharpness). Therefore, a digital negative cannot be of the same quality as an in-camera negative (it may be easier to print, and thus look "better", but the quality will be decreased to some degree).

[sanking]

You make some very good points.

And to emphasize the point about quality loss in scanning, one will need to scan with a very high quality scanner in order to capture as much detail in scanning as one can capture from an in-camera negative in projection printing, especially when the scanned negative is to be enlarged more than about 3X.

For 4X5 or 5X7 negatives that are not to be enlarged beyond 3X - 4X most people will be happy enough with one of the better Epson or Micretek flatbeds, but beyond that a high end flatbed or drum scanner is needed.


Sandy King

I think the answer to the original poster's question lies in the chosen process. When one creates a digital negative from scanned film for the purpose of gelatin-silver printing, one has already decided that they like gelatin-silver prints better than ink-jet prints (for whatever reason, e.g., tonality).

I take it as given that in gelatin-silver printing, the larger the negative, the better quality of the print (quality meaning tonality, sharpness, richness, etc.). In other words, an 8x10 contact print made from and in-camera 8x10 neg will look better than a 4x5 in-camera negative enlarged to 8x10 (the traditional way).

When a digital negative is made (say, a 4x5 neg scanned and enlarged to an 8x10 digital negative), the film is still being enlarged and thus there is a loss of quailty. Even if the digital negative made is the same size as the original negative it was scanned from, the scanning itself necessarily involves a decrease (even though it may be slight) in quality (at the very least, sharpness). Therefore, a digital negative cannot be of the same quality as an in-camera negative (it may be easier to print, and thus look "better", but the quality will be decreased to some degree).

[muskedear]

My interest in digital negatives is marginal. However, I can imagine exploring this process to rescue some in-camera negatives that are scratched, bent, developed unevenly, or are in some other way less than ideal and unprintable. Can someone speak to how in-camera negatives compare to carefully produced digital negatives that are not enlarged?

[sanking]

OK, the following comments apply only to a comparison of prints made from digital negatives or in-camera negatives that are not enlarged.

The rescue of a few unprintable ULF negatives is the reason I got interested in scanning and printing from digital negatives some six or seven years ago. ULF is much more difficult to get right than smaller formats like 4X5 and 5X7 and I experienced a pretty steep learning curve. The old Korona cameras that I used were not very stable, the holders sometimes leaked, and the lenses I had sometimes did not give adequate coverage. To say nothing of the problem of film development. The result is that I made a lot of negatives of interesting scenes that for one reason or another were not printable. So it passed my mind that I might be able to scan these negatives and correct them in Photoshop. At the time my skills with Photoshop were almost non-existent.

What I found was that it was possible to correct almost any problem with the tools in Photoshop and this allowed me to print some of the damaged negatives. The results in kallitype and palladium on art papers was very good, so I then begin to scan really good negatives that could be printed directly to compare the quality between a print made from the in-camera negative and one made from a digital negative, limiting controls to what was necessary to more or match tonal values on the two prints. Turned out that in kallitype and palladium there was very little difference in quality, if any, between the comparison prints. However, when I did the same comparison with AZO and with carbon transfer I found printer artifacts that were masked by the texture of the art papers used in kallitype and palladium printing.

The current Epson printers are much better than the ones I have used to make most of my digital negatives, an Epson 2000p and a 2200. The 3800, which I am currently using, has a dithering pattern and grain that is so fine that it compares favorably to that of silver prints made from in-camera negatives that have been enlarged about 4X. It is not, however, as smooth as a contact print from a continuos tone silver negative.

So at the current level of my technology, here is my opinion about printing on smooth surface papers like silver gelatin and carbon transfer.

1. You can make excellent prints both ways, printing directly from the in-camera negative or from a digital negative.

2. Prints made directly from an in-camera negative have more smoothness, finer grain and more detail, though the extra detail may not be evident except to print sniffers. But if any corrections of tonal values are needed these must be done manually and can be very time consuming.

3. Prints made from digital negatives may look just as sharp as those made from in-camera negatives, but on close inspection do not have the same amount of detail. On the other hand, the digital file allows extensive corrections and controls in Photoshop that allows one to enhance the print.

Due to the fact that most of my work is done with alternative processes that are very time consuming I am trending to print only with digital negatives, so this means that in many cases I find it more practical to scan a ULF negative and print from a digital negative than to print directly from the in-camera negative.

Sandy King

My interest in digital negatives is marginal. However, I can imagine exploring this process to rescue some in-camera negatives that are scratched, bent, developed unevenly, or are in some other way less than ideal and unprintable. Can someone speak to how in-camera negatives compare to carefully produced digital negatives that are not enlarged?

[mcfactor]

Its good to know that there is a process that will let me make previously-unprintable negatives printable while still maintaining a good amount of the original quality.

[PViapiano]

I don't have a 3800 yet, since I have used the bulk of my time during the past year learning how to print in my darkroom, but I have considered getting LVT negatives of a few digital images to use with my enlarger to make silver prints.

I know that Linda Butler did that for some images in her China book, and the quality seemed excellent. LVT negs run around $12 for a 6x7 med format, and about $45 for a 4x5 lrg format.

I haven't had a foray into alt processes yet but I know that's coming soon ;-)

Also, as a side note, you don't always have to print large for your alt process. Jan Pietrzak had an incredible exhibition at Freestyle recently of pt/pd prints in 4x5 and medium format sizes which was very striking and beautifully displayed. They were like little jewels...