Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print

[neil poulsen]

It would be interesting to hear from someone who's actually tried printing silver gelatin contact prints from digital negatives. I haven't tried it, because I've always heard that digital negatives aren't up to contact printing on silver. Besides, I rather like enlarging traditional negatives.

Digital negatives work well for alternative processes, though. Like, pt/pd, Van Dyke browns, photogravure, etc.

[D. Bryant]

It would be interesting to hear from someone who's actually tried printing silver gelatin contact prints from digital negatives. I haven't tried it, because I've always heard that digital negatives aren't up to contact printing on silver. Besides, I rather like enlarging traditional negatives.

Digital negatives work well for alternative processes, though. Like, pt/pd, Van Dyke browns, photogravure, etc.

Based on my experience with inkjet negatives, contact prints on silver gelatin don't compare at all with contact prints made from film. Others may disagree.

I just find the ink jet dither visible in the final prints unacceptable. With printers like the Epson 3800 it is very fine but my gold standard is to match the appearance of prints made from enlarging 4x5 film - never mind contact printing.

I've heard that the Epson 1800 printer maybe a good candidate for diginegs targeted for contact printing on silver gelatin since the ink droplets are so small - about 1.5 picoliter.

I've worked with the Epson driver and Quadtone RIP to produce negatives but have yet to be satisfied. If someone out there has better results please share your technique.

Michael P. Rosenberg reports that he uses QTR with success but I could never emulate his success.

http://www.mpr-photography.com/


Contact prints made from LVT, image setter, or Lambda printers are probably much better but I've not used those because of the expense.

Don Bryant

[Mark Sawyer]

I think to make the digital equivalent of a contact print, you'd have to print it the same size as the original sensor chip...

[BradS]

Why bother with 8x10 if you're going to scan and make inkjets?

If you're going to all the trouble and expense of shooting 8x10...why not simply make contact prints? How hard is it to set up three trays (ok, maybe four) and a light bulb?

[D. Bryant]

.why not simply make contact prints?

Because of the power of PS to perform edits impossible with direct film to paper printing and to make enlarged prints from smaller negatives or digital files.

Read into that what you will, I just think it's a better way to work for me.

Don Bryant

[Bob McCarthy]

Don is on the mark, it provides capability that is just not possible with enlarging and manual masking (dodging/burning, etc.).

Anyway that why I'm trying to get a process/system down that can make digital contact prints.

My original thought was "scan size in" = "print resolution out" - in an optimum way, but that doesn't appear to be supported.

bob

[Richard M. Coda]

Talk to Oleg at Albumenworks.com

Film to digital and back to film is the most precise and closest to silver method there is. Yes, if you have a negative (any size) that is a PITA to print, drum-scan it, fix it in Photoshop, send it to Oleg for a new negative (same size, or even larger) and then straight contact print (or even enlarge) to your heart's content.

[Jim Galli]

No.

[Bob McCarthy]

Through this thread I have become aware of the LVT process, from a rudamentary viewpoint I think I see the point. Can someone point me at any websites that have more than a superficial explaination.

I think most of my questions are about matching adjusted scan to a silver paper, is it with profiles?, is soft proofing available?, am I stuck with one unique paper and grade????

bob

[natem]

I'm not quite sure what aspects of the contact print are being 'lost' but I think it has a great deal to do with the comparible resolution of each medium.

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/printer-ppi/

This site says the human eye can discern up to 1000 ppi or so, which starts to make sense as to why a contact print seems so "limitless" in a way (it's over 1000 ppi). He does a test with 300-600 ppi prints and said that 100% of people could correctly identify which was the higher ppi. I think this test would have to be continued to test 1000 vs 2000 ppi to really see where the human eye stops.

He also makes the point that a 600 dpi output can make, at best, a 300 ppi image.

So my point is that you need a printer which at least prints at 2000 dpi to get in a 1000 ppi range. Are there printers which are capable of printing this fine detail?