35mm negatives from digital files

[sepiareverb]

https://digitalsilverimaging.com/lvt-digital-to-film-output/

Yes that is the place. Their web address didn’t work from my bookmark.

 

[Bob Carnie]

You need to find someone who has a film recorder - a machine designed to write digital files to film.
I don't know though whether I've ever heard of one set up for preparing negatives!

Matt is correct for enlarger work as final result this is the only way, inkjet negs or even lambda negs will not resolve well.

Salgado has done all his last 15 years of imaging this way in BW and I know many that have done it in colour. Works well but is extremely expensive.

I kind of do this now by making enlarged separation negatives from my colour files and I register print them into full colour prints via tri colour Gum Dichromate process.

this type of work is fun. fun . fun... but there is some learning curves

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I used an Agfa film recorder decades ago. It was a SCSI device that made up to 4x5 negatives. This is from memory, but I think the film recorder was basically a high res BW CRT monitor that separated the RGB exposures. There were filters put in front of the monitor with each exposure. There was awful software where color lookup tables were built for each film. I tried to make 4x5 color negs and it was a trying experience. Even when the color neg was "balanced" there were color crossovers. Delicate tones were lost with the film recorder. The film recorder costed a pretty penny and I'm sure the agency I worked for threw it in the junk pile years ago.

 

[Kino]

In my experience, the problem with negatives made from digital files is a lack of true latitude beyond the exposure capability of the recorder.

The $1 Million + dollar Arriflex 35mm Motion Picture Film Recorder we have is optimized for 2.048d max on color negative stock as per Cineon .DPX standard. The lasers are not powerful enough to expose our usual B&W lab stocks of 2234 Kodak or DN2 Orwo dupe neg, let alone 2366 Kodak or DP31 fine grain positive, so we only output to to specialized film stocks in b&w, like KODAK VISION3 Digital Separation Film 2237 or Fuji ETERNA-RDS.

In other words, its made to expose the exact density for a proper exposure to a matched print stock, with little to no latitude to be manipulated beyond a few points (each point 1/12th a stop) up or down. It's more or less a "one-lite" medium...

I have heard that the older Lasergraphics CRT based motion picture recorders could record up to a 4.0 dmax onto traditional lab intermediate stocks (which would have given you real latitude), but they are no longer being manufactured and I have no direct experience with those machines.

Now that Fuji is taking a bow out of consumer B&W film, that will probably reduce us to Kodak B&W and Color film stocks.

In any event, you have to be dead-on with color science and exposure before you output to the film recorder or you are sunk.

 

[Fall]

I really appreciate all the ideas!(and the chatter!). I have decided to skip the digital camera idea. Everyone here is right, the quality that would be achieved for what i want is subpar, and the idea is quite novel. Everyone gave me good resources, but all of those resources ended up being wildly expensive for someone like me. I will just stick to film, digital is more of a novelty for me i guess. I haven't any real use for it. And Dead Link Removed!!! why did you mention ilfochrome prints??? i'm already depressed because ektachrome is coming back and no way to have those beautiful beautiful ilfochrome prints...

 

[nmp]

I really appreciate all the ideas!(and the chatter!). I have decided to skip the digital camera idea. Everyone here is right, the quality that would be achieved for what i want is subpar, and the idea is quite novel. Everyone gave me good resources, but all of those resources ended up being wildly expensive for someone like me. I will just stick to film, digital is more of a novelty for me i guess. I haven't any real use for it. And Dead Link Removed!!! why did you mention ilfochrome prints??? i'm already depressed because ektachrome is coming back and no way to have those beautiful beautiful ilfochrome prints...

You can still do contact prints from large digital negatives.

 

[jtk]

Rather than mourning Ilfochrome (never as good as was advertised/claimed, and far from "archival") it might be fun to learn to make (or pay somebody to make) good inkjet prints on (for example) Epson Legacy Baryta or (if you want maximum gloss) Canon Platinum Pro. Just a suggestion.

 

[paul ron]

Why complicate your life? Just make a perfect print of that digital file, then shoot it with a copy film camera?

 

[Chan Tran]

The OP said that he didn't want to simply print his digital files with an inkjet or dye sub printer because he hates them. I doubt that he can ever make a negative that he would love to print.

 

[Fall]

The OP said that he didn't want to simply print his digital files with an inkjet or dye sub printer because he hates them. I doubt that he can ever make a negative that he would love to print.

Ha, how did you know i'm a bad photographer? psychic. I don't like digital prints because they seem strange to me, I grew up without them, and therefore to my eyes they look plastic and lack depth. Maybe i will try them again in the future, as i haven't used them since the early 2000's, but right now i like my process as it works for me.

P.S the use of insults is not a very adult way of discussing the disagreeances in opinions and preferences among individuals, it comes off rather immature

 

[Fall]

Rather than mourning Ilfochrome (never as good as was advertised/claimed, and far from "archival") it might be fun to learn to make (or pay somebody to make) good inkjet prints on (for example) Epson Legacy Baryta or (if you want maximum gloss) Canon Platinum Pro. Just a suggestion.

You can still do contact prints from large digital negatives.

Yes i know, but I wouldn't be able to dodge and burn, and i'm not familiar with how photoshop works. I am not the brightest, so the learning curve would be too great.

 

[Fall]

Thanks everyone for the help! I think this is good and closed)

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I don't like digital prints because they seem strange to me, I grew up without them, and therefore to my eyes they look plastic and lack depth. Maybe i will try them again in the future, as i haven't used them since the early 2000's, but right now i like my process as it works for me. . . .

There is a rich variety of paper for ink jet printers. You should be able to fine some that look more like traditional photo paper.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I don't like digital prints because they seem strange to me, I grew up without them, and therefore to my eyes they look plastic and lack depth. Maybe i will try them again in the future, as i haven't used them since the early 2000's, but right now i like my process as it works for me.

A lot has changed in printer technology, inks and papers since then.

 

[Chan Tran]

Ha, how did you know i'm a bad photographer? psychic. I don't like digital prints because they seem strange to me, I grew up without them, and therefore to my eyes they look plastic and lack depth. Maybe i will try them again in the future, as i haven't used them since the early 2000's, but right now i like my process as it works for me.

P.S the use of insults is not a very adult way of discussing the disagreeances in opinions and preferences among individuals, it comes off rather immature

Sorry! Did I insult you? I said that not only you but I don't think any one can make a 35mm negative from the digital files that you would love to print. I grew up without anything digital and I do love to make prints from negative but if my original is in digital I would go the digital way. Using a digital source to make negative would not make it look any less digital. It simply make it look worse.

PS: I always make print from a negative in the dark room and do not scan and digitally print. Same way I do not want to make a negative out of a digital file.