As much as it sucks to admidt it, I may have to do that with a scan of a otherwise stunning neg with uneven development, at least I can move it up from 120 to 4x5....
As much as it sucks to admidt it, I may have to do that with a scan of a otherwise stunning neg with uneven development, at least I can move it up from 120 to 4x5....
of course it's steep. how much demand do you think there is for this?Originally Posted by SpeedGraphicMan
How many do you need to print?
there are tons of places to get lightjets made on fuji crystal archive direct-to-print style. aspencreekphoto charges $13.99 for 16x20's.
http://www.aspencreekphoto.com/products/prints
http://www.gammatech.com/
4x5 negative from digital are $20.
8x10 negative from digital B&W $75 and color $80.
When I get the Nikon D800 I am going to sell my MF rig and use digital negatives instead for enlarger printing exclusively for '120'. 36MP is larger than the majority of MF digital systems out there.
The ability to print from a postworked digital image to a film negative is extremely powerful to me. I am surprised that the demand or it's use is as low as it is. I do expect to see more of this hybrid work in the future, honestly.
Said the head of Kodak's LVT product line in 1992....
That was how we worked back then (actually circa 1994), because printers would not accept digital files (or negatives) from photographers. It was bassackwards but you would scan, work on the file, output it on the film recorder, then give it to the client who would give it to the printer to be rescanned and worked on again. Added multiple generations and expense for lessor quality. But some people still have LVTs running and they are the best, highest res and quality film recorders. Most of the film recorders were intended for slide shows at the Powerpoint level of quality so you get what you pay for.
The best digital to analog output with the least generational loss would be something like the Durst Lamda prints Bob Carnie makes at Elevator Digital in Toronto, beautiful stuff but not $20 cheap either.
If you want cheap, consider inkjet negs contact printed. I don't know anything about them though, ask around.
Frank,
The biggest generational degradation that I experience is going from negative to paper. For example, small wispy clouds clearly seen on a negative just don't render out as I want them to on paper using an enlarger(even with extensive filtering and burning). And they don't render out on contact prints either, not without blackening the rest of the print.
The difference is much larger than any detail lost going from a digital file to a film negative, with the test prints I have done(with a 12M file).
If your experience is different, so be it. Or maybe I am just doing something wrong.
1994? You must have been working with Photoshop 2.0 or some other proprietary editing software back then.
I'm in Rochester where they made these things, we had a place in town that started around 1992 with Silicon Graphics workstations, they hated PS. It wasn't until 94 or so that they really began humming, and by 97-98 they were passé but they made mint for a few years as we all did.
I would work on 100mb files with a Quadra 950 ~ 1995 and it was so slow but outputting to chrome was the easiest workflow. By the time it was printed it hardly mattered.
Thanks for the plug Frank
Richard , I have found that with Lambda silver prints , you really need to know your numbers. The wispy cloud formation you speak of should have L numbers between 89-93 so that they retain detail on print.
I have been making these silver gelatin prints from digital files now since 2002. The hardest part of the learning curve is to understand where the endpoints for highlight detail and shadow detail are.
Much like profiling your paper with a eye one , the trick is knowing where the burn off is and making sure that significant detail areas are going to fall on the curve within the endpoint numbers.
This sounds so very simple but in practice , took me many years to master.
We apply this practice with every process we do , by knowing the numbers and how they relate from your computer to print is the painful part.
Regarding Gamma Techs LF film output, they are using a CRT film recorder not an LVT.
Its an entirely different beast with very different quality output. CRTs suffer from edge to edge sharpness problems, hot spots, cold spots, burn in, tube flicker, scan lines…..the list goes on.
The LVT doesn’t and cant have any of those problems. The LVT also has a very special aperture that eliminates any patterning like stochastic in inkjet or scan lines from the CRTs.
The aperture looks like <> A diamond shape that interweaves with its neighbor. Even under a 50x microscope you cant see anything.
Another interesting difference, CRT image recorders can be sensitive to vibrations from the room. Walking nearby can cause wavy scan lines.
Not a problem with the LVT. The film in an LVT is mounted on a drum that spins at 3-15 RPM, not fast but enough that vibrations don’t have an effect (the 100lbs of steel also helps).
There is also a huge difference in what they sold for, the LVTs were and still are very expensive.
CRT units like the Polaroid ProPalette 8k that i also have was very inexpensive but the quality is and was only really good for a 2-4x enlargement.
Maybe a little more if you were lucky to have one that was made well. LF was an afterthought, they never did it well…at least when compared to the LVT.
Daniel is correct, there isn’t a super huge demand for LVT negs. Chromes on the other hand, huge demand!
I usually do 20-40 8x10 chromes per month compared to 10-15 B&W and color negs.
But neg the quality is amazing, i have a client that i make 6x12 negs from drum scans we do for him. He prints them around 30-40” wide.
The prints look as good as the camera negs. The best part of an LVT neg, you can do a lot more color correction in the file before you print it then you would ever be able to do in the darkroom.
Its calibration is super tight and it reproduces colors so much better then a CRT device can. It uses laser diodes vs. the B&W CRT shot through colored filters.
The LVT calibration routine uses 26 density measurements and multiple iterations to normalize a grayscale to an aim file.
The aim file can be changed to almost anything you want, want a denser neg or chrome, different color balance, just change the aim file and recalibrate.
From my years of also using CRT film recorders, it’s a lot harder to calibrate them. Much of the software that did it no longer exists.
The Polaroid software for one cant be calibrated except by eye. There is no real way to change or add a new profile in it.
Some of the other manufacturers did a better job of it and did worse. But there is nothing like consistency of an LVT on the market.
In the years i have had mine, my calibrations haven’t varied more then the processing tolerances. Processing is usually the biggest variable in film recording.
Regarding the cost of a print, the biggest part is the time involved to print and process.
It about an hour to print an 8x10 and 35 minutes to process C41 dry to dry. E6 is about 45 minutes dry to dry.
Then you have the machine cost (which was a lot), parts & maintenance, chemistry, film, water, power, people to do it all…it all adds up.
I have 3 LVTs, 2 Rhinos (8x10 max) and a 16x20. Each one was expensive to buy and is expensive to maintain.
There is only one tech in the US (maybe the world) that can fix and maintain one. Luckily he is a friend and lives very close, otherwise it can be a loosing proposition.
Btw, i bought all of my LVTs from him. He fixed, refurbished and warrantied them. That is very important considering that almost all of the LVTs ive seen on the used market have known problems (big problems).
The first LVT i almost bought was used, found it through an equipment marketer. I went to see it and it was dead as a doornail.
The cost to fix it was 5k over the 6k i would have paid for it. Needless to say i killed the deal and ended up with an Aztek Premier from another guy.
It took about a year for my tech to find me a Rhino in a condition that could be brought back to spec.
Interesting to note, Durst (really Kodak) made a number of versions of each model. The earlier ones were problematic and not worth buying.
They used a very old interface system that is very hard to get to work now. They also used 3 specialty bulbs that needed to be matched spectrally.
Those systems were mostly abandoned in favor of the newer laser diodes which almost never fail or dim. But they still come up every now and then.
Most are impossible to get working like the current models but people keep trying.
Ian,
Can you help me navigate your site? I can't find the pricing, uploading, etc info.
or just cut to my questions if you prefer
What is the cost for digital to 120 black and white film?
What is the cost for digital to 4x5 black and white sheet film?
I want to send some test images through to see how they will work out for me.
Thanks for the info.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks