More detail from internegative or digital negative ?

[Blackmarxz]

Hello,

Which process would provide more detail for a contact print…. Enlarging 4x5 sheet film via an internegative, or by scanning and creating a digital negative ?

Cheers

[Michael R]

Not sure there is a hard and fast answer. It will likely depend on how you go about each of these processes as there are quite a few variables involved either way.

One benefit of doing it digitally (assuming sufficient quality in the scanning, processing and printing process, of course), is that you can fine tune everything to your eventual contact printing process in a digital editor so that the digital negative you eventually output incorporates all of the local adjustments (contrast, burning/dodging) you need. While this can be done via an interneg/darkroom process it is quite tricky and will involve a lot of trial and error.


Hello,

Which process would provide more detail for a contact print…. Enlarging 4x5 sheet film via an internegative, or by scanning and creating a digital negative ?

Cheers

[Tin Can]

Internegative is far faster and cheaper

[bob carnie]

Without going into the pros and cons, the main ingredient will be the operator doing the work, both methods have good ways and bad ways getting to the final print. I doubt there really is a good answer to this question.

[bob carnie]

Internegative is far faster and cheaper

Ok - I am making digital negs today, I open the computer load the film and 10 mins, I have the negative. I buy the roll at $100 for 17inch x 100 ft. so the 16 x 20 I just made in 10 min cost me under $2.00 I think digital negatives are faster and cheaper.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ok - I am making digital negs today, I open the computer load the film and 10 mins, I have the negative. I buy the roll at $100 for 17inch x 100 ft. so the 16 x 20 I just made in 10 min cost me under $2.00 I think digital negatives are faster and cheaper.

I totally agree. I made internegs, then switched to digital negs. Faster. Easier. Cheaper. AND... you can build all your burns and dodges IN the negative. Less waste.
Scanning films pulls out plenty of details, in my opinion.

[Michael R]

Internegative is far faster and cheaper

Other way around.

[Tin Can]

It seems volume matters

I do no Digi negs, well I did a couple, I was an early adopter of Xerox negs, 1997, they worked my purpose

15 years later my need for internegative was simple curiosity to make a better print by reversing it and some huge positive negs for a window or 2

the few I did looked great

[djdister]

If you want to make an 8x10 contact print on glossy paper, then an internegative may have higher resolution and acutance, but it is a more difficult process to get a perfect internegative. On the other hand, diginegs are great for making contact prints in a process such as platinum/palladium printing, which are usually on matte surface papers.

[Drew Wiley]

Depends who does the interneg. If I make it myself, especially by contact, it's going to win hands down. If a commercial lab did it, like they once routinely did by optical means, I wouldn't be very optimistic. I do this mostly for sake of very high quality optically enlarged color prints, but sometimes with respect to black and white printing, like going from a sheet film color chrome original to a black and white printing neg. There are some tricks to doing it well, but those can be learned a step at a time.

Enlarging is best done with a vacuum film holder or vac easel for receiving the projection, and a high quality apo graphics lens on the enlarger, rather than a conventional enlarging lens. For 4x5 to 8x10 or somewhat larger, I like to use a 240 f/9 Apo Nikkor barrel lens. A precision glass carrier is mandatory - glass both sides, if you expect precise results. The problem with a significant degree of enlargement is going to be the high cost of ULF sheet film these days. Cheaper Ortho Litho is a real headache when it comes to predictable con tone imagery.

But as far as precise tonal or curve control and automatic dodging and burning already in place in a master printing neg, it was all routinely done long before any kind of digital equivalents were ever invented. Sometimes the all-darkroom style of doing it is faster and more efficient anyway. All depends. If you need to use multiple sheets of actual photosensitive film to do that, the cost can add up pretty fast. But there are all kinds of shading controls that can be done on reusable frosted mylar with dilute red dye or soft pencil instead. For some tricks you ideally need punch and pin registration gear, for others, less so. It is obviously more complex if you adapt this to color printing instead of black and white workflow.