Digital negatives for contact printing "are you experienced"

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Here is something I've wondered about for some time. I've heard the praises of digital negatives and I'm wondering what is the total cost to get set up with something like this. I mean a ball park from scratch. What is the learning curve and material costs to produce consistent negatives for alternative processes. I'm assuming one has to have a fairly recent computer, software, printer,ink, film etc. Thanks.

[mdm]

Quite a lot. The advantage is you dont have to buy, feed and carry the big camera. You have more control of the tonal relationships in a print. But they have limits. I have been trying to print some grainy 35mm negative scans since christmas and am still failing dismally. Carbon seems to accentuate the grain so I have given up and started printing them as inkjets with epson K3 black on hand sized paper made for carbon, they are so spectacularly better I wont be going back. You need a smooth file to start with, and its got to be good for a big print so that means paying for it. Exposures are twice as long for the same dmax as most camera negatives. Ink and pictorico is expensive and you waste some getting it dialed. Its frustrating sometimes. I made a new profile yesterday for my new tissue made with better gelatine, it is quick and easy when you have it sorted, but you need to be able to repeat the print process exactly next time with very little variation, and thats where I have trouble because I printed in slightly cooler weather today, exposure was quicker and contrast higher so the shadows were blocked up, so there is still skill left in using a digital negative. Every one of the 10 carbons I made for the print exchange, frome 4 identical digital negatives, was slightly different to the others. The joy of a camera negative is hard to beat, but more people have printers, software and computers already than have ULF cameras. Even building a ULF camera costs mega bucks, not to mention 3 of them. A simple computer and second hand printer is plenty adequate, and big printers are available relativly inexpensivly secondhand. They allow you to make big inkjets too, which should not be sneezed at. Fair to say digital negatives are as much of a black hole as ULF cameras. Expecting my new bellows on Monday and I will be dabbling in both, though I expect I will always love the 5x7 contact, however its made, the most. They are just something that needs to be mastered if you want to have control over ceratin things.

[Jess C]

FWIW, I have been expirimenting ( more like playing) with the VDB process and have been making digital negatives on Pictorico OHP. I was doing some VDB's back in the 80's from 4x5 negs and since I bought an Epson 3880 over a year ago I thought I would try my hand at making some digital negatives. I use ChartThrob to plot the adjustment curve for the VDB process. I have had some very good results so far. I use an iMac 27", Epson 3880, CS5, and Lightroom 3. The initial hardware and software expense wasn't cheap but I already had made the investment before I decided to delve into making digital negatives.

The great thing is you can make ULF negatives without the extra expense of mortgaging the house on ULF equipment and supplies. So if you have a decent computer and an inkjet printer and photoshop you should be good to go.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Thanks for the replies. Since I have built my cameras over time and never found the digital work flow to my liking I'll stick with the traditional method. My ULF's did not cost me a fortune because I found some great deals on the expensive parts. I think my traditional in camera carbon prints for the negatives that I produce will ho;d up to anyone's prints. But then we all think this! The reason for my question is there may come a time when I can't carry the beasts and one has to consider the options at some point. Still, it is not a problem and it would take a considerable investment because my computer is old and photoshop and a good printer are something I do not own.

[Andrew O'Neill]

The learning curve is steep. Very steep. But I'm glad I made the investment. I use an old epson 4000 and cheap ink from China. Cheap, real cheap compared to what Epson charges... and it's been no problem. The film is from a local silkscreen supplier. Not called pictorico, but it probably is the same stuff. I use QTR system to lay down the ink. Chartthrob to make the profile. Nice to have both worlds now.

[David Aimone]

I'm going to be delving into digital negatives from 4x5" film, printed on an Epson 4900. I have some Pictorico OHP Film, but apparently Pictorico has no profile for the 4900. Does anyone have a suggestion on what alternative profile/approach I may try?

[mdm]

Precision Digital Negatives by Mark Nelson or Ron Reeders QTR ebook.

[zenny]

The learning curve is steep. Very steep. But I'm glad I made the investment. I use an old epson 4000 and cheap ink from China. Cheap, real cheap compared to what Epson charges... and it's been no problem. The film is from a local silkscreen supplier. Not called pictorico, but it probably is the same stuff. I use QTR system to lay down the ink. Chartthrob to make the profile. Nice to have both worlds now.

Thanks Andrew for sharing about the alternative cheap materials you used. Could you tell a bit more about from where you ordered and the supplier? Would be helpful if you post links to the item numbers for inks and the OHP transparency?

/z

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks for the replies. Since I have built my cameras over time and never found the digital work flow to my liking I'll stick with the traditional method. My ULF's did not cost me a fortune because I found some great deals on the expensive parts. I think my traditional in camera carbon prints for the negatives that I produce will ho;d up to anyone's prints. But then we all think this! The reason for my question is there may come a time when I can't carry the beasts and one has to consider the options at some point. Still, it is not a problem and it would take a considerable investment because my computer is old and photoshop and a good printer are something I do not own.

There is a third option -- optically enlarged negatives. For someone already invested in a darkroom, this workflow offers some advantages over both working with a large camera, and making digital negatives.

[Curt]

It appears the the big ticket prices are the computer, Photoshop, and printer, and scanner.

I personally would need a new computer. Which one and how much?
Photoshop, I have a very old version, which one and how much?
A printer, I need a new one. Which one and how much?
I have an Epson scanner so I don't need that.

Consumables aside, can someone give me some high and low suggestions? I'm sure others would be interested also in a roadmap to the digital process.

Like a good, better, best.

Thanks
Curt