Traditional vs Digital?

[John Conway]

I am an old fashion traditional minded guy, but I'm also open minded when it comes to photography. When I get my 20X24 black and white prints back from the lab that are printed by the same guy that has been printing for me for the last fifteen years, every print is like the first one, beautiful, and I'm always just as excited as I was the first time I tried large format. I have not yet had any of my large format work scanned and printed digitally. I use my digital slr and make my prints at CVS, usually 8X10.They come out very nice. My question is, if I have one of my negatives scanned and printed digitally(4X5) to 20X24 and put both traditional and digital prints side by side, what will I see? I know what I see when I compare prints from my D40 in black and white mode and F3 with HP5. But what will be the difference with 4X5 prints at 20X24?

[Nathan Potter]

Depends in part on the digital camera. Also what you are after as far as print quality goes. Further ifs have to do with the digital work flow sequence. How is the scanning done? Who does the post scan processing in PS and who does the printing?

I take it that you know pretty precisely what your silver prints are like but the digital analogs will be a black hole as far as quality goes unless you choose a top quality house. That's $$$.

Despite all this I think it now possible to achieve results digitally that are perilously close to your 20 X 24 prints from a 4 X 5 film although that is pushing it a bit using a full frame 35 mm digital camera. From my limited experience the difference will be a slightly better micro contrast definition in the analog print vs a sharper more contrasty look to the digital version. You may not even be able to detect that difference depending on the nature of the original film.

You need to try it to see.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Kirk Gittings]

For one because you supply a file with all your burning, dodging etc. in the file you may find you have more control of the final product. When I was exclusively printing traditionally, I could never work with a lab because no one but me could do the extensive burning and dodging etc I wanted (trust me I tried numerous times). Now all that is in my file for digital prints and I do use a service on large prints that I cannot print myself. I still require numerous proofs but via my file I can totally control the output even when I am not actually doing the print.

[Bruce Watson]

...if I have one of my negatives scanned and printed digitally(4X5) to 20X24 and put both traditional and digital prints side by side, what will I see?

Try it and find out. Why guess when it's so easy to know?

[Peter De Smidt]

But make sure to use someone who knows what they're doing. I needed to have a large color print made locally. A couple of places had large inkjet printers, and so I took a file to them. A bad sign is when you ask basic questions, such as, "Is the ink pigment or dye?" "What color space does your workflow require?" "What type of paper do you use." "Do you have an ICC profile?" .... , and they can't answer any of them, or, worse, they answer them but the information is wrong! All of my local places were totally useless, and this clearly showed in the prints.

[Jim Andrada]

To me the biggest difference is that an inkjet print is "on" the surface instead of "in" the surface. If you have any really bright white areas in the image there will be no ink on the paper and this could give a different reflectivity in the highlights - although once the print is matted and framed and behind glass this is not particularly obvious. I think the key is to have no pure white (ie "blown" highlights)

I find this less objectionable if the paper is not really high gloss and has some slight color of its own - I really like the Crane Museo papers as I think they have a richer feel to them, but for more abstract stuff and some of the 3D graphic stuff I do where I want the brightness I use Epson Exhibition Fiber. They say that the Optical Brightening Agents in such a paper will fade back over time, but I've had prints on the wall here in AZ for almost 7 years and so far so good - I think you have to be sure to use a good glass when you frame. I've come around to always using the so-called "museum" glass which is pricey but IMHO worth it.

Anyhow, I think if you had two prints framed and on the wall behind glass and one was ink jet and the other traditional it would be pretty hard to tell the difference unless you were a confirmed pixel peeper. And as Kirk was saying, the ability to embed all your adjustments in the file means you can make additional prints without having to try to mimic the burning/dodging/retouching etc every time. (If you use a RIP for printing they usually have a way to save the exact "as printed" file for you so multiple prints are a piece of cake)

In spite of which I miss doing it the old fashioned way!

As a P.S. - I once asked a gallery owner if he saw any hesitance to purchase ink jet prints vs silver prints and he said "no". Most of his customers accepted them quite well. (Particularly if they were called "Giclee" instead of "Ink Jet" I suspect.)

[John Conway]

Try it and find out. Why guess when it's so easy to know?

Of course I will try it and find out. But since I am part of a forum full of professional photographers, and photographers that actually print from scanned large format negatives, I thought it would be nice to hear their opinions. After all, isn't that why we are here?

[John Conway]

Thank you everyone for the input. It is all very helpful.

[Lenny Eiger]

This comes down to mostly style. There are those who like a glossy look and those who like matte. I worked in the darkroom for many, many years and enjoy a good darkroom print. However, when I came across alt process I was in love. I lived in NYC for a lot of years and I got to see a lot of prints from the 19th and early 20th Century, often at the auction houses. The albumen, gravure and platinum took my breath away and my path shifted away from darkroom paper to a different way of printing an image.

Watching the William Clift video that Kirk posted brought all the memories of darkroom back. I understand why people love it. If what you are looking for is the look of a darkroom print, get in the darkroom and don't worry about it. There are a number of good inkjet papers that simulate a glossy look, there are special inks, gloss coatings and everything else. I'm not the guy to ask about them...

However, if what you are interested in is a beautiful matte look, you can't beat good paper. Hahnemuhle started making paper in the 16th Century, Fabriano started in the 1270's, I believe. There is a fee l to this kind of paper. I'm printing on Kozo these days, which is a Japanese paper made in a many-thousand year old process. It's translucent, the highlights bounce off the matte and back thru the print.

I also use b&w inks, my own Cone mixture and I would say my prints live in the paper more than a darkroom print. There are no areas where the print goes to a blank white. The magic of b&w inks is that you have different dilutions. One of them is very light, which is a 2% dilution of black. This will spread over a light sky. There is no place where the ink is not applied, and this accounts for the platinum-like smoothness.

Hope this helps,

Lenny

[Jim Andrada]

By the way, while I understand and in general support Bruce's point re the value of experimentation versus speculation so to speak, I would suggest that it ISN'T so easy to try it and see. Like anything else there is a learning curve for scanning and digital processing, and it can be a pretty steep one at that. Photoshop is not the easiest piece of software in the world to get comfortable with, and the kind of profiling and color calibration of your gear that you need to do to get great results, to say nothing of the scanner software, to say nothing of the scanner itself can be daunting and it can all add up to making your first efforts less than satisfactory.

So ask questions, read books, ask more questions, read more books, etc etc.

[barnninny]

There are a number of good inkjet papers that simulate a glossy look, there are special inks, gloss coatings and everything else. I'm not the guy to ask about them...

Jared Polin (FroKnowsPhoto) has a couple of videos on YouTube showing how his giant (from FF digital) inkjet prints are made by a shop in NYC. They use some kind of laminating process. Should be easy to find on the Tube.

[John Conway]

I think when it comes down to what method is used to print, so much has to do with how a person is wired. Jim mentioned how daunting it can be to work within the digital printing process, pointing out the steep learning curve. My printer, who is also a photographer, has been working in a lab for most of his life. He told me he would never print digitally. Someone else does the digital work in the lab. I find the simplicity of my view camera very satisfying. I find my digital camera to be extremely over loaded with programs, buttons, and options that are endless. The latest pro model digital slr cameras scare me with all the buttons. I use my D40 on the basic settings. I will admit, when I take a picture with the D40, I like being able to crop and the option to make a b&w or sepia image in camera. But I always go back to my F3 Nikon. It just "feels" good .I'm drifting off point a bit here. I don't think I would enjoy the complexity of the digital printing process. I'm just not wired for it. But if the digital printer at the lab makes me a beautiful print from my 4X5 negative, I will respect his craftsmanship. And like Kirk said, additional prints can be made exactly the same.

[Lenny Eiger]

And like Kirk said, additional prints can be made exactly the same.

I think quote was actually from Jim: " (If you use a RIP for printing they usually have a way to save the exact "as printed" file for you so multiple prints are a piece of cake)"

I use a RIP myself (StudioPrint) and this is not exactly the case. A file is a file. The RIP I use requires a flattened tiff, which I create out of PhotoShop. With all that the RIP does, its saved file is no different from starting with a new flattened tiff from the same PhotoShop file.

Digital printing is very consistent going from print to print at the same time, one after the other. Most RIP's can even lay them out on a large roll if you want. However, tomorrow is a new day. There is certainly much less consistency from something you printed last month, or a year ago. There are a ton of variables, from subtle shifts in the pressure of the lines, different inks, partial clogs, a degree of settling and two very important ones, temperature and humidity. The coating on the paper is very sensitive, and specific in its absorption rate. I would never imagine that a print I printed for someone a while back would print perfectly on the first print. It just doesn't work that way. I keep a reference print of every print I make and match to it when reprints are requested.

We've spent some time talking about marketing lately, and this is just another way of saying "any idiot can just press a button and get a result as good as any top professional". It's simply not true.

Lenny

[Greg Miller]

I'm printing on Kozo these days, which is a Japanese paper made in a many-thousand year old process. It's translucent, the highlights bounce off the matte and back thru the print.

Sounds interesting. Is that the Moab Kozo paper or something else? The Moab paper is 110 GSM so it's hard to imagine it being translucent enough to bounce light through from the mat.

[tgtaylor]

I think quote was actually from Jim: " (If you use a RIP for printing they usually have a way to save the exact "as printed" file for you so multiple prints are a piece of cake)"

We've spent some time talking about marketing lately, and this is just another way of saying "any idiot can just press a button and get a result as good as any top professional". It's simply not true.

Lenny

But that is truer today than it was in 2000; and truer in 2000 than it was in 1900; and truer in 1900 than is was in 1840. The commercial appeal of photography demands this.

Thomas

[Kirk Gittings]

And like Kirk said, additional prints can be made exactly the same. John Conway

I don't know who the heck you are quoting but it certainly is not me. Repeatability is an entirely different question than I was addressing. If you want me to address that I will.

[John Conway]

I don't know who the heck you are quoting but it certainly is not me. Repeatability is an entirely different question than I was addressing. If you want me to address that I will.
My apologies.

[Kirk Gittings]

No problem.

On repeatability. A number of things affect repeatability IMO&E. If you are doing it immediately it is usually ok but later on humidity, unannounced or announced changes in the paper manufacturing from batch to batch, subtle changes in the ink dilutions from batch to batch (There used to be a lot of this with Cone), humidity, room temperature etc. can all impact on repeatability down the line.

[Lenny Eiger]

Sounds interesting. Is that the Moab Kozo paper or something else? The Moab paper is 110 GSM so it's hard to imagine it being translucent enough to bounce light through from the mat.

I tried the Moab, I believe its called Moenkopi Washi. At 110 grams it is, in fact, translucent. It's a wonderful paper. I buy a very similar paper from Hiromi Paper, in LA. It comes in rolls and at the time I was researching it, the Moab did not.

Lenny

[Lenny Eiger]

But that is truer today than it was in 2000; and truer in 2000 than it was in 1900; and truer in 1900 than is was in 1840. The commercial appeal of photography demands this.

Thomas

I mostly disagree. Certainly its easier to make a print than it was to lug around 20x24 glass plates, for example. It's true that you can make a print fairly easily from a digital camera, with no film, and its passable, or maybe it isn't passable, but its all people know. That's true.

But I call upon the old adage, "Playing the guitar is easy for beginners". The obvious point is that playing it at a very high level is quite another matter.

I am talking about making a fine print. The process is not much different today than it was making albumen in the 1850's. One has to spend years developing ones eyes to be able to do it well. What is it that they say? 10,000 hours....

Lenny

[Noah B]

I agree with John on this one, it all really boils down to how you're wired. I like to tinker with things and I love mechanical watches and tying flies for fly fishing. When I first started out in photography I got the very first digital rebel. It was a great exploration of the medium, but I didn't make a single print until I reached college and took a b&w darkroom course. I still remember the first time I put my exposed paper in the developer tray and watched my image appear out of nowhere, it was a magical event and it still is today. Last fall I struggled with figuring out whether or not to print all digital or silver gelatin. I learned to make a good b&w print digitally, but when I held the print in my hand and looked at it, it just didn't feel unique. I think it's the tonal range or the fact that the ink is all sprayed on top that makes it feel flat. I'm aware of the cone inks and they look great, but are way too expensive. For me the darkroom is simpler, instead of taking 4 4x5 negatives and scanning them, I can just put them over an 8x10 piece of paper and less than 3 minutes later I have a print. Something physical that I can hold and develop a relationship with to get an idea of where to take the picture and make a great print out of it. I enjoy the darkroom, it's a quiet place for me to think and relax. I got bored printing digitally waiting for my pictures to pop out of the printer, and I got bored of sitting for extended periods using the healing brush to remove dust specks. It was nice though because each print was seamless with no blemishes and the only thing to worry about was if the print was too dark. The main question is what does it mean to print analog in the digital age? For me it's silver gelatin prints. I love the rich tonality of the silvery goodness, it's seducing and everything just looks better in it.

[Jim Andrada]

By the way - as the one who sang the virtues of one virtue of a RIP - of course nothing is the same the second time around - on a grosser level, you might even have different paper in the printer so of course the new file won't be a perfect "clone" - or the second batch of paper might be different, or the computer gods might be crankier or...

But the same is true of the fact that just using the same profile doesn't mean 100% consistency because things drift. Heck - if you tighten the tolerances enough I bet you'd find that there are shifts from one end of the print to the other (sort of like with carpet - if you take two pieces from different parts of the roll and seam them together they'll look like hell.) So I think it might be fairer to say that you can produce the same result "within a tolerance" and whether that tolerance is close enough is open to individual interpretation. I think though it's nice to have the same starting point each time. There are so many twiddly steps in digital that I always forget some obscure setting that I used the last time! And the older I get the more of an issue it is!

Heck, even St Ansel never made any two prints that looked the same as far as I can tell. I once saw five prints of "Hernandez" side by side - you'd have had to be blind not to have seen the enormous differences in the prints. Glaring differences!

[paulr]

There's such a range of choices in paper surfaces, colors, and textures now, and so much control over digital printing, that I don't really see a fundamental stylistic difference in digital prints. Leaving out darkroom processes that have unique surface characteristics, like dye transfer, inkjet today is more like an esthetic superset of darkroom prints. You can come very close to matching darkroom processes, or you can do things that lie outside their bounds.

There's one stylistic difference that I've chosen, and it's the way I print highlights. Darkroom prints have a pronounced toe and shoulder to the curve. Less with some processes (PT/PD) but significant with chromogenic and black and white materials. If you're starting with film, the toe and shoulder of the film compound this. The resulting low contrast in the highlights has led me to print the highlights in darkroom prints pretty far down. I don't like the look of blank paper in my prints, so I followed Paul Strand's model, and learned to create a sense of brightness based on relationships of tones rather than on absolute lightness. This is why I always liked Strand's prints more than Ansel's. At least late Ansel, when the highlights all look blown out and empty to me. Digital printing lets you have a straight line all the way from d-min to d-max. If you want it. You can have every bit as much tonal separation in zone 9 as you do in zone 5. I still don't print highlights as light as Ansel, but I find myself printing them a bit lighter than I did in the darkroom. The precise control also facilitates this.

Someone mentioned the gloss differential between inked an uninked parts of the paper. This used to be a much more pervasive problem. The papers I'm using now don't exhibit this noticably. Behind glass it's completely invisible.

[Greg Y]

Well stated Lenny. Thank You

[Brian C. Miller]

Besides the surface, blah blah blah, here's something to consider:

There are things like the Chromoskedasic Sabattier process (plug for Freestyle Photo (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10945-Arista-Premium-BandW-Chromo-Activator-32-oz.-For-Chromoskedasic)) which require the use of real photographic paper, especially paper with a high silver content. Also, when I tone paper, I like the fact that metal is being transformed.

-- Brian "I make prints with hammer and chisel on hot forge" Miller

[Lenny Eiger]

Besides the surface, blah blah blah, here's something to consider:

There are things like the Chromoskedasic Sabattier process (plug for Freestyle Photo (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/10945-Arista-Premium-BandW-Chromo-Activator-32-oz.-For-Chromoskedasic)) which require the use of real photographic paper, especially paper with a high silver content. Also, when I tone paper, I like the fact that metal is being transformed.

-- Brian "I make prints with hammer and chisel on hot forge" Miller

The metal actually transforming is very interesting, kinda cool. I used to like my platinum prints, where the light sensitive material isn't platinum, but iron (the ferric oxalate). In the development there is a bonding and dropping out of the iron (I forget the technical name of this switcheroo) and all that's left is the platinum (and usually a little palladium).

Of course, if you really want to get into metal, there's always gravure. I've never seen anything more beautiful. Plenty to learn, not just the basic process, but a lot of creativity in the inking, etc. I don't know how traditional got to mean darkroom. One is not doing it the "old way". If anything it should probably mean albumen... that's a lot older. (And not too many people want to do salt printing.)

Lenny

[Drew Wiley]

I've never worked in albumen, though I've collected and framed a number of vintage albumen prints. Such a beautiful process.
But every time one of my neighbors built a henhouse, the racoon got most off the eggs first! I have a lovely albumen print of my mother when she was three years old holding a kitten in front of a big carved upright grand piano. Her 2-yr old brother was standing beside her with a scowl, dressed up in one of those frilly Little Lord Fauntleroy costumes of the Edwardian era. No wonder he grew up to be one of the most bitter persons I ever met! But I'm not all that excited about trying to reproduce
something antique just to make it look antique. It would be pretty hard to upstage Carleton Watkins when it come to albumen images. I'm pretty content with plain ole silver gelatin technique.

[GG12]

The biggest difference is that now you can spend the time in a daylit room, whereas before it was in the darkroom. Its no less demanding.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . There's one stylistic difference that I've chosen, and it's the way I print highlights. Darkroom prints have a pronounced toe and shoulder to the curve. Less with some processes (PT/PD) but significant with chromogenic and black and white materials. If you're starting with film, the toe and shoulder of the film compound this. The resulting low contrast in the highlights has led me to print the highlights in darkroom prints pretty far down. I don't like the look of blank paper in my prints, so I followed Paul Strand's model, and learned to create a sense of brightness based on relationships of tones rather than on absolute lightness.

Paul is making an important point here but more or less just in passing so I'd like to take the liberty of amplifying what he's saying (I think, he obviously can correct me if I misunderstand).

When he says he "learned to create a sense of brightness based on relationships of tones rather than absolute lightness" I believe he's making the point that the apparent brightness of a highlight can be created in two different ways in a darkroom. The obvious way is to dodge the highlight. But that isn't always easy to do and sometimes causes a loss of texture or detail in the highlight. The other, less obvious way that I think Paul is talking about, is to leave the highlight alone and instead darken the area around the highlight. Darkening the surrounding area makes the highlight appear brighter even though it hasn't actually been changed.

It's a good way in my experience to increase the apparent brightness of a highlight without dodging (or with less dodging than you might otherwise have done) and without losing detail or texture. I'm sure all the experienced darkroom people here know this but I thought some of the beginners might find it useful.

[LuisR]

Since this is a large photography forum I presume that traditional means film and wet processing for both film and printing, while digital means film plus digital processing of the scanned film and digital printing on a professional level inkjet. Since traditional has thankfully not changed in over 100 years, then the issue is digital processing of the scanned film, especially since there is no large format digital capture available. It starts with the scan. To extract the most detail available in the negative, drum scanning is absolutely required and done by a house with skilled operators at the scanners. Consumer level scanners, even the best ones, such as the Epson V750/V700 are inferior to drum scanning. For an amateur the Epsons are acceptable, but beyond that drum scanning is without equal.

[Bruce Watson]

Of course I will try it and find out. But since I am part of a forum full of professional photographers, and photographers that actually print from scanned large format negatives, I thought it would be nice to hear their opinions. After all, isn't that why we are here?

Sigh... Fine. What you'll see, is two prints from two completely different processes. Each will have strengths, each will have weaknesses. Which one you like better will depend on your image, your preferences, and your purpose. Yours in the only opinion that matters when it comes to your prints; don't be afraid to have one.

[linglestudios]

I was reading and reminded about a utube video I saw where the hp media labs had used a designjet z2100 i think ti "print" a negative. now I have had almost no expierence with the traditional developing process, my husband did for a long time work the one hour labs fro walmart. but I like the ides of using the new tech, to augment a traditional process. at least in my mind it's fun to try. let me introduce myself My name is Amy Lingle, I am a photographer from Michigan's southwest, it's fruit and farm country. I've lived here my whole life, and curently raising my family here. I launched my website twm months ago, and would appreciate any constructive criticism, that is how I learn the best, the address is http://www.linglestudios.com check out my work, and I look forward to any tips, or advice you all are willing to give.

[Jim collum]

welcome to the forum!

Large format photography can be a daunting prospect to consider undertaking.. but if you get hooked.. you're hooked for life. I don't think Walmart will process 4x5 film, so you'll probably end up having to get in touch with the analog processes & darkroom work.. unless you plan on sending the film out to a 'professional' lab. There are a number that can be found online.. and i'm sure people here will help you with selections.

Do you have a camera already? (if not.. i'm sure there are also opinions here on cameras with a wide spectrum of cost .. i'd recommend used though until you know it's something that you'd continue with)

anyway.. welcome to the forum, and looking forward to seeing some of your new work posted here!

jim


I was reading and reminded about a utube video I saw where the hp media labs had used a designjet z2100 i think ti "print" a negative. now I have had almost no expierence with the traditional developing process, my husband did for a long time work the one hour labs fro walmart. but I like the ides of using the new tech, to augment a traditional process. at least in my mind it's fun to try. let me introduce myself My name is Amy Lingle, I am a photographer from Michigan's southwest, it's fruit and farm country. I've lived here my whole life, and curently raising my family here. I launched my website twm months ago, and would appreciate any constructive criticism, that is how I learn the best, the address is http://www.linglestudios.com check out my work, and I look forward to any tips, or advice you all are willing to give.

[richardman]

B&W Inkjet print can look more or less beautiful than darkroom prints, and if the right printer and paper are used and especially if a print is framed under glass, sometimes the only hint of difference is the lack of creases!

And for the people who really want to do make a 360 degree loop, you can even output a computer post processed files on real fiber paper in at least 3 ways:

1) send to a shop that will project to silver paper using a digital LED enlarger. I did a 16x20 test and it looks fine enough, although truth be told, I prefer the inkjet printed output better (this is a scanned Mamiya 7II file).

2) print to a transparency (digital negative) and then contact print in dark room. Requires special software to determine the right curves.

3) make a 4x5 internegative and then print in the darkroom using enlarger. Peter Turnley just had a print sales from his Leica Monochrom (digitial) B&W files using this technique.

I am actually somewhat interested in #3, but not sure who provides that service.