Alternative Prints from Digital Negatives and Positives

[ndg]

Digital negatives have become an important part in the workflow of a lot of alternative process printers.
One can print larger images than the 5x7, 8x10 or even 6x7 negative.
One can clean up the image before printing. One can use digital images.
I think it has done a lot to resurrect the interest in the alternative processes.
So, what about a thread dedicated to alternative prints where the negative or positive was generated digitally?
Would it be fitting for this forum?

[Pete Watkins]

No!
Pete

[Emil Schildt]

No!
Pete

short - but (not so) sweet... ;)

nana - when saying NO I think it is because it opens up a can of worms regarding what is LF photography... there has been some rather heated discussions on this before...

I sometimes use transperancies - but why not use big linefilm? Much better quality (I fear I have to duck now..)

EDIT: there is a thread cakked digital something... why not there? Or in the lounge?

[Nathan Potter]

It would seem that if the original was LF then any derivative thereafter would be OK. Many examples of such already here.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Maris Rusis]

There is a technique called cliche verre that was popular in the 19th century where a drawing on glass could be contact printed onto a photographically sensitive surface. I think the modern version where a drawing representing a photograph is deposited on transparent film by a digitally controlled machine rather than by hand is essentially the same thing. The original cliche verre technique was most used when pictorial effects were desired that could not be achieved by direct photography. The modern digital version is driven by the same impulse, I think.

An extension of the idea would be to write a digital file directly to an "alternative" substrate, sensitised cyanotype or platinotype paper for example, without going through an intermediate digital negative. Something like a UV capable Lambda printer could in theory do it.

I reckon none of this stuff offers a credible or trustworthy way of making pictures that reflect the reasons photography was invented and practiced. I'd rather not see digital confections in this forum.

[hendrik faure]

catching the light should be by a (nostalgic) large format camera, thereafter digi cannot be eliminated imo or you go not to this forum
think of the many posts, where people show scans of negatives ("aaahhh, the great blacks!!!") and do not tell on which paper they print (none?).

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u568/hfa8/rattailandleg_zpsb526e02d.jpg
ATTENTION! This is a digital scan!

of a photogravure
using epson V 750 pro from a 30x40cm somerset antique paper supporting a 8x10 inch print by a hevy duty etching press using Gamblin bone black ink gravure using Talbot Klic-method basing upon a 8x10 inch Ilford HP5 negativ illuminated by Voigtländer Braunschweig lens with selfmade waterhouse stop (f=8??) baseballcap shutter under natural twillight develloped HC 110 dil B zero degree outside, devellopper 26-15 degree Celsius, fixed by I dont remember what, never washed, dryed over wood fire oven scanned above mentioned device dusted out with photoshop tools tone curve corrected following Lothar Osterburg suggestion printed Epson stylus Pro 3880 on Pictorio OHP cutted to size by my wife Caro pigment paper illuminated by snake-UV- lamp in B§S contact frame copper plate 1.5 mm with asphalt aquatinta, lot of digits, more questions?

Good thread idea by the way!
Hendrik

[Jac@stafford.net]

Would it be fitting for this forum?

With respect: It might be fitting, but not for me. I cannot dim my brain enough to see such prints as marginally as good as analog prints on silver paper.

I wonder if our popular, mediated expectations of Quality have been diminished due to the low resolution of the Internet .

[Mkillmer]

I cannot dim my brain enough to see such prints as marginally as good as analog prints on silver paper.

I'm interested! I'm probably dim, but I think this is a good idea for a thread!

[ndg]

Love the image!


catching the light should be by a (nostalgic) large format camera, thereafter digi cannot be eliminated imo or you go not to this forum
think of the many posts, where people show scans of negatives ("aaahhh, the great blacks!!!") and do not tell on which paper they print (none?).

http://i1322.photobucket.com/albums/u568/hfa8/rattailandleg_zpsb526e02d.jpg
ATTENTION! This is a digital scan!

of a photogravure
using epson V 750 pro from a 30x40cm somerset antique paper supporting a 8x10 inch print by a hevy duty etching press using Gamblin bone black ink gravure using Talbot Klic-method basing upon a 8x10 inch Ilford HP5 negativ illuminated by Voigtländer Braunschweig lens with selfmade waterhouse stop (f=8??) baseballcap shutter under natural twillight develloped HC 110 dil B zero degree outside, devellopper 26-15 degree Celsius, fixed by I dont remember what, never washed, dryed over wood fire oven scanned above mentioned device dusted out with photoshop tools tone curve corrected following Lothar Osterburg suggestion printed Epson stylus Pro 3880 on Pictorio OHP cutted to size by my wife Caro pigment paper illuminated by snake-UV- lamp in B§S contact frame copper plate 1.5 mm with asphalt aquatinta, lot of digits, more questions?

Good thread idea by the way!
Hendrik

[ndg]

BTW, I think your color negative images are great. Keep it up and post your workflow sometime.


I'm interested! I'm probably dim, but I think this is a good idea for a thread!

[rdenney]

I have seen some lovely carbon prints that used digital negatives. I'm not sure their beauty is easy to see on the screen, but I've still enjoyed those that have been shown here.

(Moderator note: Just make sure the original image was made using a large format camera.)

Rick "hoping to see some images from Sandy King" Denney

[jnantz]

i have some here
http://nanianphoto.com/blog/?p=374
but the images were first made with
one of those rotten digital things
then inverted, then printed at my
neighborhood staples
then waxed and printed as cyanotypes
then hand colored
the internegatives was largeformat ( bigger than 8x10 )

its not photography though, and definitely not largeformat photography ...

nice print hendrik!

[Andrew O'Neill]

Sandy King started a thread in the Lounge for carbon transfer images captured by means other than large format. Why don't you put it in the Lounge?

[rdenney]

If someone wants to post a photograph made using a large-format camera (per our usual guidelines), which was subsequently processed using a digital negative, that is within the guidelines for this forum. If they made the photograph using a medium or small-format camera, then it should go in the Lounge. The guidelines are agnostic on the subject of digital vs. non-digital processes. The guidelines apply to how the photograph was made (i.e., using a large-format camera), not to any intermediate process. I have made a number of 4x5 internegatives from 35mm color slides in my life, or reduced 35mm black-and-white photographs to line images using 4x5 Kodalith. Those would not be allowed in this forum--they would need to go into the Lounge. But making an 8x10 digital negative from a 4x5 negative or transparency? No issue here.

Rick "who doesn't want to push stuff into the Lounge unless the requirements demand it" Denney

[sanking]

And if the subject is making digital negatives that could be discussed in the Digital Processing threads without reference to type of image capture. Regardless of whether the original capture is with digital, small or medium format, or large format, the process once it becomes a digital file until the printing of the digital negatives and the production of the alternative print is more or less the same. Not exactly because some aspects of image processing like grain reduction, sharpening, etc. will be different depending on type of image capture.

The positive feature of the LF forum is that most people don't have a analogue/digital divide so at least discussions about digital that fall outside of the realm of what we call LF are permitted in the lounge. In one place that comes to mind anything about digital, even if it leads to wet darkroom prints like albumen, carbon, pt/pd etc. is placed in a segregated area, away from the general membership. Not a very welcoming place for the kind of work I do for sure.

Sandy

[Jim collum]

+1 on allowing them giving Sandy's & Rick's stipulations..

This has always been a welcome place for both analog and digital (I've been posting large format digital images since I joined, back in 2002. I've also made digital negatives of many of those images for platinum output.. not sure why some think that posting a digital image here is something new .. and forbidden)

The digital negative is probably largely responsible for a resurgence in alt-printing.. with some outstanding prints being produced over the years.

.. and thanks for making this a welcome environment

[ndg]

Thanks for all the comments. There is already an alt-process thread started by Emil where one can post prints using digital negatives or positives form large format negatives.
What i was looking for was a thread that encompassed all alt-process work done with digital negatives and positives.
Even though a fellow member insinuated that anything besides analog prints on silver halide paper are for the dim-witted, I think alt-process prints are beautiful and remind one of where we've come from.
Digital negatives are helping keep this part of photography alive.
If that makes me dim-witted, I have very good company.
I respect the need to keep the forum mainly for large format capture. That is why it was created.
I will create this thread in the Lounge to capture alt-process prints from dig negs using images form smaller format cameras..
Sandy, I hope that complements your Carbon Transfer thread.

[Maris Rusis]

...The digital negative is probably largely responsible for a resurgence in alt-printing.. with some outstanding prints being produced over the years....

I agree 100% with Jim Collum that digital negatives have driven some outstanding printmaking. Witness hendrik faure's striking photogravure earlier in this thread. Hand-drawn negatives, cliche verre again, also led to some outstanding printmaking more than a hundred years ago. Maybe it's how the negatives are drawn, by hand or by machine, that forms the decisive difference.

But I'm most uncertain that printmaking automatically qualifies as photography just because some light sensitive thing was used somewhere in the production chain. Remember virtually all high volume newspaper, book, and magazine text and picture printing is done by offset photolithography. But nobody is calling the front page of a newspaper a photograph or a photographic print. That front page is in truth a photo-lithograph and it may contain images that originated via a large format camera (Speed Graphic, for example) but seeing it presented it in a forum like this would be a surprise.

I propose that printmaking is it's own animal. It has a history that long predates the invention of photography. Many of the great treasures of Western Art have come from printmakers including Durer, Rembrandt, and Picasso. There are many ways of making printing plates and some of them dip into the properties of light sensitive substances. But I'm not convinced that the prints from those plates are some kind of photograph or that they accrue greater acclaim by being mistaken as such.

[ndg]

I agree 100% with Jim Collum that digital negatives have driven some outstanding printmaking. Witness hendrik faure's striking photogravure earlier in this thread. Hand-drawn negatives, cliche verre again, also led to some outstanding printmaking more than a hundred years ago. Maybe it's how the negatives are drawn, by hand or by machine, that forms the decisive difference.

But I'm most uncertain that printmaking automatically qualifies as photography just because some light sensitive thing was used somewhere in the production chain. Remember virtually all high volume newspaper, book, and magazine text and picture printing is done by offset photolithography. But nobody is calling the front page of a newspaper a photograph or a photographic print. That front page is in truth a photo-lithograph and it may contain images that originated via a large format camera (Speed Graphic, for example) but seeing it presented it in a forum like this would be a surprise.

I propose that printmaking is it's own animal. It has a history that long predates the invention of photography. Many of the great treasures of Western Art have come from printmakers including Durer, Rembrandt, and Picasso. There are many ways of making printing plates and some of them dip into the properties of light sensitive substances. But I'm not convinced that the prints from those plates are some kind of photograph or that they accrue greater acclaim by being mistaken as such.

Maris, this is not about printmaking. It is about using digitally printed negatives on a transparency or even paper that one uses in lieu of an in-camera negative.
Hendrik's image is a photogravure print and was made with a digital positive.
On the other hand, are you saying photogravures belong to the printmaking realm and are not photographs?

[Jim collum]

i'm also assuming that only in-camera negatives/prints exposed with strictly UV light would be considered photographs :) (The term 'chemical rays of light' referred to the UV spectrum in the 19th century, so would exclude the current method of exposure with visible light...)

of course, I haven't tested the sensitivity of current emulsions to strictly UV light.. still might get an exposure.. but I still think we need to filter out that pesky visible iight to keep it a photograph...

(.. and in case it can't be told.. this is slightly tongue-in-cheek...)

[Maris Rusis]

i'm also assuming that only in-camera negatives/prints exposed with strictly UV light would be considered photographs :) (The term 'chemical rays of light' referred to the UV spectrum in the 19th century, so would exclude the current method of exposure with visible light...)

of course, I haven't tested the sensitivity of current emulsions to strictly UV light.. still might get an exposure.. but I still think we need to filter out that pesky visible iight to keep it a photograph...

(.. and in case it can't be told.. this is slightly tongue-in-cheek...)

Jim, the points you raise are very important in establishing the identity of photography separate from other picture-making methods. I'll post a disseratation on "chemical rays of light" in the On Photography forum.