Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
I saw this comment by Bob Carnie in another thread, but thought it better to answer it with a new thread rather than intruding on the original thread of the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bob carnie
I was making some silver prints the other day for a gallery show and using PS to inkjet neg,'s on silver and I was amazed at what I was able to produce, If I can only make the dmax on the pictorico film more dense to block a bit more I think we will all find this is the wave of the future for silver printing. What I noticed on the white borders was bleed through, and on the internet there are many that say this method is better than silver negs or as good, I do not believe it yet but open to see how the blocking power can be increased.... Many talk about process, few master, and most bullshit about the prowess of this method, I feel its not there yet for silver but really , really damm close and a big opportunity for Ilford to find a whole new generation of young clients that do not want to learn how to operate a enlarger, or even have the space to set a decent one up.
Taking this thread away from the OP here a bit and I apologize..
Well, I don't want to detract from the OPs thread either, but Bob is absolutely wrong about the blocking power of digital inkjet negatives. There is way more than enough density range for any silver or alternative printing process. Many people are having no problem at all printing in pure palladium with digital inkjet negatives, and the required density range for pure palladium is WAY more than what is required for silver printing.
You got to believe me on this, Bob. I don't have 5% of your knowledge about silver printing, but I do know something about making high quality negatives with both film and digital that match the exposure scale of the process to the density range of the negatives in such a way that there is plenty blocking to give clean and clear highlights. I once used BTZS for film negatives, and now do most of my work with digital negatives. The digital negative process is pretty easy once you learn the secret of a raster image processor like QTR when used with an Epson photo printer. I teach this stuff in a day when doing carbon transfer workshops, and most people with lesser printing skills than you come to a pretty good understanding of it. But I have to admit, it took me a long time to really master the skill, but eventually it was possible with the application of basic understanding of photographic sensitometry as that applies to the effective blocking of the inks in an Epson ink set as it applies to specific processes. For the very highest image quality, especially highlight rendering through the digital negative, you may need to use a custom all gray ink set for monochrome silver prints. On the other hand, I use an Epson with the original OEM for my CMY color carbon work and with the multi-layering highlight gradations are very smooth.
Unfortunately, in order to make high quality digital negatives one has to have some mastery of the process. Both negative making skills and printing skills are required for optimum control of process. And there is no magical box that has a button one can push to transfer a complex skill set from one mind to the other. As you should know, to do good work with any hand made process you just have to saturate your mind with knowledge, and get your hands wet. And a master printer should not try to farm out the digital negative component to an assistant, because having a good negative to work with is at the core of fine print making. What was it Ansel Adams said about the negative and the print?
Sandy
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Couldn’t you just add some magenta?
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Recently, saw this guy's work- http://www.michaelmassaia.com Very amazing to see in person in gallery lighting! I saw his 30"x40" toned silver prints of central park made from digital internegs. They were shot at night with an 8x10 on black and white film. That's about all I know of his process, would be nice to know more. The photos have great tonality from highlights to shadow detail, that's not easy with nighttime photography! Absolutely no grain and tack sharp.
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Ok I am going to go into the corner and sit for awhile and think this one through without sulking..
I have a bunch of questions for the Southern Gentleman , it may take me some time but there coming.
\
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Bob,
I did not see your original thread. It is possible with a digital negative to have great highlights and detailed shadows. I don't know whose system you are using, but you should read the method on my website. It is really straight forward, and with a little patience you can produce quality digital negatives.
Mike
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Mike
I think I got that covered, have been making good negs for awhile, Ron Reeder set our system up here quite a few years ago and I am happy .
But with silver I would like a heavier laydown to create the white borders with no bleed through
my problem with inkjet negs on silver is not the highlight and shadow areas, I actually have made some nice silver prints this way, What I see is when I make a black border on the inkjet to create white on the paper as a border in place of easel blades I see bleed through when I get the image are correct. I would like to not see any bleed through, when I make digital silver negs on my lambda and put black on the edges to create this white border I see not bleed through.
If I cut off the borders I would be hard pressed to see any difference between the two methods.
Both prints exhibit the same range of tones but if I am seeing bleed through with one system and no bleed through with the other I can only assume one blocks light better than the other , I use an Epson 7800 with K3inks to make inkjet negs using QTR . I use Ilford Ortho 25 on a Durst Lambda 76 to make my silver negs.
I would love to figure out how to make the inkjet bleed through on the borders go away as I see this as a very viable way of making silver prints.
Bob
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Bob,
Back in the day, I would use rubilith tape on the borders. It only takes a minute to apply it.
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
No personal experience with this, but seems like
there may be other explanations besides ink opaqueness... thickness of the substrate, light piping in it, reflectivity of the inner surfaces, diffraction around the knife edge of ink on the surface...
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bob carnie
>
But with silver I would like a heavier laydown to create the white borders with no bleed through
my problem with inkjet negs on silver is not the highlight and shadow areas, I actually have made some nice silver prints this way, What I see is when I make a black border on the inkjet to create white on the paper as a border in place of easel blades I see bleed through when I get the image are correct.
>
Bob
Bob, what are you using for the digital negative substrate?
It's been my experience that using glossy inkjet paper for the negative substrate prints with clean white borders using Ilford Multigrade paper and Epson OEM pigmented inks. No masking required.
I believe this is the method Mike Rosenberg uses.
Don Bryant
Re: Mistaken Assumptions about Digital Negatives
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon.oman
Bob,
Back in the day, I would use rubilith tape on the borders. It only takes a minute to apply it.
Soon as Bob said it was a problem with borders, I thought Rubylith or Amberlith.
But you know, good old goldenrod masking paper would work as well. Cheap and easy. Just cut a rectangle around the image and let there be black border or fuzzy border artifacts around it as suits your mood.
Or you can do the red tape trick too.