Is it possible/practical to make digital negative for use in an enlarger?

[John Brady]

I hope you all don’t mind me starting this new thread, I know the subject has been touched on but I thought maybe time for a refresh.
I have read a lot about making digital negatives, as with QuadToneRIP, etc. Most of that seems to be for alt process or contact prints.

I would like to be able to make a negative from a digital file, as an example, from my digital or converted camera and make silver gelatin enlarged prints on my 8x10 enlarger.

Is there a good method for this or is it still not possible with todays technology.? I would like to do this in my own studio with an Epson 3880 printer.

Is Piezography or the QuadToneRIP method the best way to go, or do you know of other methods.

Thanks in advance,
John

[Michael R]

I started researching all of this stuff around a year ago so I’m far from an expert, but it seems to me when it comes to enlarging digital negatives, we’re not quite there with the equipment one can reasonably have at home (even if you implement Piezography etc.). Of course this may depend on personal standards/expectations, magnification factor etc.


I hope you all don’t mind me starting this new thread, I know the subject has been touched on but I thought maybe time for a refresh.
I have read a lot about making digital negatives, as with QuadToneRIP, etc. Most of that seems to be for alt process or contact prints.

I would like to be able to make a negative from a digital file, as an example, from my digital or converted camera and make silver gelatin enlarged prints on my 8x10 enlarger.

Is there a good method for this or is it still not possible with todays technology.? I would like to do this in my own studio with an Epson 3880 printer.

Is Piezography or the QuadToneRIP method the best way to go, or do you know of other methods.

Thanks in advance,
John

[Wheathins]

I've messed around with digital negatives, they don't enlarge well at all. They honestly barely hold up when contact printed. Inkjet just doesn't have the resolution.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[xkaes]

Give us more details. Creating negatives from a ? format digital to print ? sized prints on an 8x10 enlarger?

What's the goal?

Making prints an a BIGGER enlarger does not makes them BETTER.

[Bruce Watson]

I have read a lot about making digital negatives, as with QuadToneRIP, etc. Most of that seems to be for alt process or contact prints.

Yup.


I would like to be able to make a negative from a digital file, as an example, from my digital or converted camera and make silver gelatin enlarged prints on my 8x10 enlarger.

Not really possible from an inkjet printer. Wrong tool for the job. The problem is, it's not really possible to print inkjet dots small enough to print at photographic negative resolutions. Say, in the neighborhood of 4000 ppi. When you print at 360 dpi, there's nothing there to enlarge. Said another way, when you enlarge the 360 ppi negative, you just make the inkjet dots bigger, big enough to see with the naked eye if you enlarge very much.

And if you could inkjet print at 4000 dpi, it would take hours of printing to make your new negative.

OTOH, there's always an imagesettter, like an Agfa Avantra 44, or Accuset, or something. These things can give you film output (you'll have to send them a negative image file if you want an negative film output) at up to around 3600 ppi. It should be enough for mild enlargement. You'd have to try it and see if it will do what you want.

There are places online that do this kind of work. One I found is FilmOutput.com (https://www.filmoutput.com/). There are undoubtedly others. I've never used this kind of service so I have no idea what level of quality anyone provides. I'm just listing it here to give you a starting point if you choose to investigate. You could call them and pick their brains, see what they think, or where they might send you. What can it hurt?


Is there a good method for this or is it still not possible with todays technology.? I would like to do this in my own studio with an Epson 3880 printer.

Not going to happen with an inkjet printer. And you probably don't want to splash out for your very own image setter. Although really -- who doesn't need an imagesetter in the basement? :rolleyes:

So, it comes down to a choice. You can inkjet print a contact printing negative the size of your final print. Or perhaps you'll use a service to print you a film negative you can enlarge, at least somewhat. I don't see any other viable options. If someone else does, hopefully they will append what they know to this thread and enlighten us all. I for one could certainly use some more enlightening. Just sayin'.

[Pieter]

Inkjet printers don't have the resolution to accommodate much enlargement. You really need to make (more likely have made by a lab) an LVT film negative from you digital file(s).

[MartinP]

The long-running project by Salgado, called 'Genesis', started being shot on film (mostly 120) and ended up with digital. For the digital images an imagesetter sheet-film-sized interneg was made for enlarging, and for the film images in some cases a digital file was scanned. The two approaches were used to enable the widest distribution of the exhibition, both as physical prints and as digital files for regional / local printing.

The version I saw had both silver prints and digitally-made prints (for images of more than three metres or so, whole walls of the expo rooms, for example) and the effect was not too disjointed visually. However, remember that there was basically a bottomless budget to get this right for the project, so the same approach is unlikely to be such a success using a $99 inkjet printer from a discount store.

Edit: Seems that might have been a film-recorder then (from other posters). I do recall that there was an electronic-looking, box-shaped machine in the background of a video-clip at the French company producing the internegs, and it was that machine which produced the negs. They looked about 4x5", but could have been a little bit larger.

[John Brady]

Give us more details. Creating negatives from a ? format digital to print ? sized prints on an 8x10 enlarger?

What's the goal?

Making prints an a BIGGER enlarger does not makes them BETTER.

In this instance, the 8x10 negatives would be sourced from a sony a7rIV, 60mp. If I wanted just a large print, I could do that on a large digital printer.
I much prefer Silver Gelatin to inkjet for black and white. I make silver gelatin prints to 20x24 from 8x10 film negatives currently. With the lack of 8x10 IR film, my hope was to do some of this work with the sony and still get Silver Prints.

[John Brady]

Hi Bruce, thanks for the detailed explanation, your answer is what I had feared.


Yup.



Not really possible from an inkjet printer. Wrong tool for the job. The problem is, it's not really possible to print inkjet dots small enough to print at photographic negative resolutions. Say, in the neighborhood of 4000 ppi. When you print at 360 dpi, there's nothing there to enlarge. Said another way, when you enlarge the 360 ppi negative, you just make the inkjet dots bigger, big enough to see with the naked eye if you enlarge very much.

And if you could inkjet print at 4000 dpi, it would take hours of printing to make your new negative.

OTOH, there's always an imagesettter, like an Agfa Avantra 44, or Accuset, or something. These things can give you film output (you'll have to send them a negative image file if you want an negative film output) at up to around 3600 ppi. It should be enough for mild enlargement. You'd have to try it and see if it will do what you want.

There are places online that do this kind of work. One I found is FilmOutput.com (https://www.filmoutput.com/). There are undoubtedly others. I've never used this kind of service so I have no idea what level of quality anyone provides. I'm just listing it here to give you a starting point if you choose to investigate. You could call them and pick their brains, see what they think, or where they might send you. What can it hurt?



Not going to happen with an inkjet printer. And you probably don't want to splash out for your very own image setter. Although really -- who doesn't need an imagesetter in the basement? :rolleyes:

So, it comes down to a choice. You can inkjet print a contact printing negative the size of your final print. Or perhaps you'll use a service to print you a film negative you can enlarge, at least somewhat. I don't see any other viable options. If someone else does, hopefully they will append what they know to this thread and enlighten us all. I for one could certainly use some more enlightening. Just sayin'.

[interneg]

You don't want a litho film imagesetter output for your specific purpose (unless you are contact printing the result - and can get a fine enough dot/ stochastic dot) - in essence they are not (for practical purposes here - not getting into the fun, games and headaches of soft/ hard dot) that dissimilar to inkjet on to inkjet transparency film, what you want an LVT film recorder (or similar). LVT's unfortunately all need ageing computers to run them. While an imagesetter can deliver several thousand dots per inch, the screen patterns they use will usually output something in the 200-300lpi range or stochastic micron equivalent (on average - some might be willing to go a bit higher) - thus about 400-600ppi equivalent - LVT's usually output at 2000ppi-4000ppi range - thus you can do the maths for subsequent optical enlargement from that. They date from an era when you'd drum scan your original, do the digital retouch work etc, LVT output, then darkroom print your final prints (i.e. they pre-date the Lambda and those type of machines).

[Bruce Watson]

Hi Bruce, thanks for the detailed explanation, your answer is what I had feared.

It's not all that bad. A continuous tone imagesetter negative seems to cost about the same as drum scanning a similar negative. Maybe less; I'm comparing back and forth between NA and Europe.

A European company called TheWetPrint.com (https://thewetprint.com/imagesetter-negatives/) seems to offer what you want. Scroll down the webpage to the final illustration. Page though that to see the image structure various methods can deliver. This will at least show you the difference between QTR and Piezography. Not at the image level, but at far greater magnification so you can see how the image is created. This might help you decide which system to use should you decide to go the contact printing route.

This page also shows you what a continuous tone imagesetter negative looks like and what it can do. This will almost certainly do what you want -- I would be very surprised if this product couldn't handle a 4x enlargement with relative ease. The only problem is, you can't do it in your room, and it's more expensive than an inkjet print so you'll only want to do this with images you really like.

But the bottom line is, you can make enlarged silver prints this way.

You might want to run this past Bob Carnie -- he has been a LFP.info regular who has a wealth of experience and knowledge in all kinds of alternate processes like this. If Bob doesn't know, he can probably point you in the right direction at least.

Ah, yes, another alternative might be an LVT film recorder output. PrePress Express (https://www.prepressexpress.com/pages/filmoutput/filmoutput/lvt.html) will sell you an 8x10 on Ilford FP4+. This too should be take low to medium level enlargement well.

[Bruce Watson]

You don't want a litho film imagesetter output for your specific purpose (unless you are contact printing the result - and can get a fine enough dot/ stochastic dot) - in essence they are not (for practical purposes here - not getting into the fun, games and headaches of soft/ hard dot) that dissimilar to inkjet on to inkjet transparency film, what you want an LVT film recorder (or similar). LVT's unfortunately all need ageing computers to run them. While an imagesetter can deliver several thousand dots per inch, the screen patterns they use will usually output something in the 200-300lpi range or stochastic micron equivalent (on average - some might be willing to go a bit higher) - thus about 400-600ppi equivalent - LVT's usually output at 2000ppi-4000ppi range - thus you can do the maths for subsequent optical enlargement from that. They date from an era when you'd drum scan your original, do the digital retouch work etc, LVT output, then darkroom print your final prints (i.e. they pre-date the Lambda and those type of machines).

Yes, this! We were typing at the same time, but you said it better than I did.

[interneg]

I would be very surprised if this product couldn't handle a 4x enlargement with relative ease.

It won't. The halftone screened image is equivalent to a few hundred PPI, but has to be made up of a few thousand DPI to achieve that. Stick a 4x magnifier on a halftone neg & you'll see the whole story.


LVT film recorder output. PrePress Express (https://www.prepressexpress.com/pages/filmoutput/filmoutput/lvt.html) will sell you an 8x10 on Ilford FP4+. This too should be take low to medium level enlargement well.

2000ppi ought to do at least 4x with ease, 4000 probably twice that.

[Oren Grad]

In this instance, the 8x10 negatives would be sourced from a sony a7rIV, 60mp. If I wanted just a large print, I could do that on a large digital printer.
I much prefer Silver Gelatin to inkjet for black and white. I make silver gelatin prints to 20x24 from 8x10 film negatives currently. With the lack of 8x10 IR film, my hope was to do some of this work with the sony and still get Silver Prints.

You might try this service:

https://digitalsilverimaging.com/dsi-digital-silver-prints/

The proprietor, Eric Luden, used to work for Ilford/Harman Technology.

[Bruce Watson]

It won't. The halftone screened image is equivalent to a few hundred PPI, but has to be made up of a few thousand DPI to achieve that.

I agree that halftone won't cut it, even at the highest level. That's just not what halftone is for. OTOH, some imagesetters can do continuous tone as well has halftone. I'm talking about the continuous tone stuff. But the more I think about it, the more I think that what the OP really needs is output from an LVT film recorder.

[Pieter]

I have made nice 10x10 prints from 3000x3000, 300dpi digital files ganged 12-up for 8x10 and sent to Cox Black & White Lab for an LVT on Tri-X 320. There was a bit of a learning curve, since they don't provide a profile for the LVT. Essentially they gained in contrast, the shadows started to block up and the highlights lost detail. I made initial test files including a grey scale for 4x5 output to get started. Once I got a handle on correcting for that, it worked out well. I actually prefer the prints from the LVT to high-end inkjet output.

[John Brady]

You might try this service:

https://digitalsilverimaging.com/dsi-digital-silver-prints/

The proprietor, Eric Luden, used to work for Ilford/Harman Technology.

Yes, that looks interesting, I used a service like that years ago for an exhibit Ebony camera had at the Fuji Salon Gallery in Tokyo. Fuji wanted all film to be theirs and prints to be on Fuji Crystal Archive. If I am recalling that correctly, it was some type of a laser process and the paper was some type of RC.

For this project, I don’t mind sending out files to have negatives made, via the LVT method as many of you have recommended. I would like the ability to make the fiber prints as needed once I have the negatives.

Thank you all for the suggestions, now I need to find a US based company still doing this work. I see a couple from doing an internet search, such as Albumen Works in Massachusetts, they still have a website,but I’m not sure if they are still in business. I sent them an email inquiry and I’ll wait for a response.

[Oren Grad]

Yes, that looks interesting, I used a service like that years ago for an exhibit Ebony camera had at the Fuji Salon Gallery in Tokyo. Fuji wanted all film to be theirs and prints to be on Fuji Crystal Archive. If I am recalling that correctly, it was some type of a laser process and the paper was some type of RC.

FWIW, Digital Silver Imaging "prints" on both RC and FB - your choice. You can even order toning if you want.

[Drew Wiley]

Jim Browning still uses an 8x10 film laser recorder, but of his own design. It's how he generates separation negatives for his dye transfer printing. For personal work he scans color transparencies, but in-camera digital files could also be used. Possible? Absolutely. Practical? Depends on how much you're willing to pay. It was once a standard "Service Bureau" procedure, but expensive. I don't know how many commercial labs might still offer that option. It's an awfully convoluted way to get from point A to point B.

The prices by the service Oren linked aren't all that bad compared to the old days. But how are you going to factor localized contrast controls like we do with contrast filters and actual pan film? That kind of customization might cost extra. Dunno. Contact them.

Actual digital enlargers have also been marketed. Very expensive to purchase, especially for the relatively so-so results. Kinda like the difference between a digital Power Point projector sales seminar versus a real slide show, I guess.

[domaz]

I've messed around with digital negatives, they don't enlarge well at all. They honestly barely hold up when contact printed. Inkjet just doesn't have the resolution.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I've been contact printing silver gelatin with digital negatives and they are actually very good. You see some inkjet "grain" only very close up- kind of indistinguishable from anything but perhaps an 8x10 in-camera contact print. The key is to use the newer versions of Quadtone RIP that actually support the High DPI modes, and also a high dpi printer of course. Even better is to use the beta Piezography Driver (https://piezography.com/piezography-driver/) which uses Gutenprint under the hood which as far better resolution and dithering algorithms than the kind of outdated QTR at this point.

[Pieter]

I've been contact printing silver gelatin with digital negatives and they are actually very good. You see some inkjet "grain" only very close up- kind of indistinguishable from anything but perhaps an 8x10 in-camera contact print. The key is to use the newer versions of Quadtone RIP that actually support the High DPI modes, and also a high dpi printer of course. Even better is to use the beta Piezography Driver (https://piezography.com/piezography-driver/) which uses Gutenprint under the hood which as far better resolution and dithering algorithms than the kind of outdated QTR at this point.
I doubt this will work in an enlarger, as the OP intends to do.

[domaz]

I doubt this will work in an enlarger, as the OP intends to do.

Unlikely no- it's possible an 8x10 digital negative might enlarge to 11x14.. that's about my perception of the quality of it in general.