digital negatives or in camera neg?

[michael Allen]

I've been doing a little research and was weighing my options as to if I should purchase an ULF (11x14) or go the digital neg route? I read on another forum (AZO forum) that an 8x10 digital neg can now be created to equal an in camera neg. If this is true can it be done on a larger bases 11x14, 12x20..........? The digital route would keep me from switching formats, keeping my gear light, I could still process in tanks, enlarge and contact print as well.

[David A. Goldfarb]

You can certainly make a good enlarged neg by digital or conventional means, but it will never be "equal" to a ULF neg. It might be better in some regards and worse in others, but every format has its own signature look, because you'll be using different lenses, different apertures, possibly different film (choices being fewer as you go up in format), and different procedures in addition to enlargement.

[clay harmon]

I use both methods. Short answer: Digital negs are very good, but not the same. You can put a loupe to a great ULF contact printed photo and continue to pick up detail instead of dots. But for prints at typical viewing distances and targeted for uninformed (i.e. not print-sniffing) audiences, the digital neg route offers a great deal of convenience and economy, but sort of cheats you out of a lot of suffering, which I firmly believe is good for developing character.

[Bruce Watson]

It can't hurt to try. If you don't like it, you can always go the ULF route.

My 4x5 kit weighs in at about 14Kg with food and water for an all day hike up the mountain and back. There is no way I could do 8x10 and do the work I want to do and live to tell about it ;-). My way out has been inkjet printing which lets me print very large - well in excess of what you'd want to do with a digital negative.

My experience with drum scanning 4x5 is that there is an immense amount of detail in the negative, and you can get most of it out. If done right, you should be able to get that detail right back down onto a 12x20 negative for a contact print that should give you nose sharp contact prints.

It's true that the look will be somewhat different due to the different lenses and different apertures, you can't get around that. But I suspect the results will be quite good. And the only way to find out for sure is to give it a try.

[Ken Lee]

Clay - Does the transparency material unto which you print your negative, have any special properties with respect to Ultra Violet light ? In other words, does it block UV in a way similar to a b&w negative ?

While we're on the subject, I have read that Plattinum/Palladium prints have the greatest longevity. Are there other processes which offer something in the same range, but which do not require dealing with UltraViolet light ?

[sanking]

I am in general agreement with most of what has been said, but not with everything. There can be a different look to prints made from digital negatives when compared to prints made from in-camera negatives, but the look results more from the choices we make in preparing the digital negative than to any inherent difference in quality. For example, prints made from digital negatives often look more "perfect" for the simple reason that it is easier to correct problems in Photoshop than it is with a wet processed negative.

Like Clay I am printing with both digital inkjet negatives, made from scans of 5X7, 7X17 and 12X20 originals, and from in-camera negatives in the same sizes. And I have directly compared several times prints made from same digital and in-camera negatives in an effort to address to my own satisfaction the question about quality. My opinion is this. If you are printing on silver gelatin papers, including AZO, the in-camera negative is capable of giving slightly better quality, as determined by close inspection of the print, than a digital negative. If you are printing in Pt./Pd. the quality of prints made with digital and in-camera negatives is the same, even when viewed with a loupe, because the limiting quality to resolution and information is the paper, not the negative.

[michael Allen]

Well I appreciate all the input, especially from the more advance memebers.


Hogarth, I think I will just give it a try. I already have most of the equiptment.

Clay, I am also big beleiver of "sufferage" and paying your dues. but if you aint cheat'n you aint try'n. (print sniffer) I like that one.

[tim atherton]

I recently got an emial that digitalartsupplies was expection the first shippment of a new transparency film that was supposed to be compataible with the Epson 2200 inks etc

[tim atherton]

expecting, compatible etc

[clay harmon]

Just checked back in on this thread. The answer to someone's question is that I am using Pictorico OHP transparency film, which holds the ink wonderfully and does not block the UV light needed to expose the prints.

As far as non-UV alternative print processes go, the only one I can think of offhand is bromoil, where one can bleach a silver gelatin print and then re-ink the print with a brush, printer's ink and patience. www.bromoil.com is David Lewis's site, and a fellow named Gene Laughter (sp?) also has a site I believe. Most of the other long lived alternative processes use UV light, something the sun has quite a lot of.

[sanking]

Might as well throw carbro in there along with bromoil among the alternative processes that do not need UV light.

[MJSfoto1956]

At large sizes (such as 30"x40"), the "quality" of digital prints equals or even surpassses that of analog (Christopher Burkett's disdain of digital notwithstanding). Noticed I said *digital prints at large sizes*. The issue, IMO. is that at smaller sizes (say 8"x10") digital prints look NOTHING like a contact print from an 8x10 negative. Analog under these conditions blows digital away. What you have with a large-format contact print is essentially limitless resolution (notice I said *contact print* -- this is NOT true with extreme enlargements). For digital prints, their effective maximum resolving power, using current inkjet technology, is "approximately" 200lpi (notice that I did not say resolution) which is more than enough at large sizes but pales in comparison at small sizes.

So I think the question for you is this: do you plan on printing large or small? If large, then you will be very pleased with digital. If small, then you will surely be happier with analog.

The problem is we all want "one" way of doing things that works for all situations. Hence the digital/analog divide.

As such, I think shooting 8x10 or 11x14 and contact printing them, then scanning the negs and outputting them digitally at 30"x40" (or larger!) on an Epson 9600 or comparable device would give you the best of both worlds. If you are into modifying your digital images, then you can always output digital contact negatives at quite large sizes. Digital rules! Analog rules!

Michael

[michael Allen]

Well I had to check back and i got what I asked for. Michael, Im sorry but I have to ask, Has yourself or anyone you know tested this output method?