Advantages of a silver printing with digital negatives compared to inkjet?

[Per Bjesse]

Hi all,

I have just made my first digital negative and contact print with a p800 and stock inks and Pictorico white film on Ilford Warmtone multigrade fiber using a QTR profile that I constructed for my process using a densiometer with a custom gray curve and then a linearization. When I look at a printed step wedge and check linearity of the flow it is good. The print came out well, with nice gradation and great sharpness. However: When I print the same picture using the p800 and a my own custom QTR profile which is spot on linear for a high quality inkjet paper (Canson Baryta Prestige), I have the same sharpness and nice gradation but the dynamic range of the inkjet paper is greater (DMAX 2.56 instead of 2.11).

Now: I have printed in the darkroom for some time, and recently started doing high quality inkjet printing. This is the first time I have actually compared an inkjet print with a darkroom print in a way that is controllable in that there are few variables (the transfer function is as linear in both flows as possible). I would have expected to like the darkroom print a lot more due to it actually being printed with silver. However, I am not seeing it. It has a different look (especially due to the use of warm tone paper) but I can't say that it is better per se. There also is the issue of a slightly smaller dynamic range for the same picture. The latter I can probably adjust for by using a custom ICC profile for the silver flow in soft proofing and doing some flow specific adjustment but I still find it interesting that in an apples to apples there is not a ton of difference.

At this point I am curious to other practicioners experiences. Certainly there can be some issues in my process, it is after all my first stab at it. However, my fiber stepwedges shows that I cover the range from 0.06 denity to 2.11 density and that the transfer are close to linear. Moreover, the print shows great sharpness and gradation that looks as good as the inkjet print. Certainly the darkroom print has a different look with the picture "inside" the paper instead of on top of it. But is that as good as I can expect this to be? I can of course do things like tone the darkroom prints, but again my thoughts are how different things really will be. I would like to tune my silver process to give something that really is markedly different and superior in at least some respect, or offer something unique.

Any input into how to improve the process or thoughts are most welcome. And it would be great to have this be a pragmatic discussion rather than an analog vs digital flame war. I love the wet darkroom but I am ultimately interested in doing the best prints and photography I can possibly do (which includes being able to generate prints with the best look for the picture at hand), not tie myself to a particular technique exclusively.

Regards,
-Per

 

[Bob Carnie]

One thing to consider.... to get Dmax you would require a higher filter and more exposure, Unfortunately the digital negative is not blocking in the highlight region well enough and there fore you are reducing your exposure to compensate... Basically the inkjet neg is allowing flare to come through and causing this loss. Direct inkjet is applying the ink directly and giving you more Dmax

If you can find a way to control the bleed through of the inkjet negative , (possibly using PDN ) which uses colours for blocking power, (btw Mark Nelson would be better to talk to about this than me)
My experience is that when I make a Otho silver digital neg, and compare it to a Pictorico inkjet neg, the difference in quality is not noticed in PT Pt, or Matt paper silver, but when you use a glossy paper in silver you will indeed see some lack of quality which you are obviously seeing.

i will watch this with interest as it is a problem that only good silver printers will see or acknowledge.

 

[slackercrurster]

OP...where is the photos? Always post your results to see.

 

[Per Bjesse]

One thing to consider.... to get Dmax you would require a higher filter and more exposure, Unfortunately the digital negative is not blocking in the highlight region well enough and there fore you are reducing your exposure to compensate... Basically the inkjet neg is allowing flare to come through and causing this loss. Direct inkjet is applying the ink directly and giving you more Dmax

If you can find a way to control the bleed through of the inkjet negative , (possibly using PDN ) which uses colours for blocking power, (btw Mark Nelson would be better to talk to about this than me)
My experience is that when I make a Otho silver digital neg, and compare it to a Pictorico inkjet neg, the difference in quality is not noticed in PT Pt, or Matt paper silver, but when you use a glossy paper in silver you will indeed see some lack of quality which you are obviously seeing.

i will watch this with interest as it is a problem that only good silver printers will see or acknowledge.

Hi Bob,
The DMax of this silver paper is not higher than this. I have confirmed that what I get is maximum paper black. As for the highlights, for silver it is not hard to block enough to get to paper white (0.06 density for my 0% step on a warmtone paper) with ink limits below 30%. So what am I missing in your argument?

As for the idea of flare, that is an interesting thought although I am not sure how to proceed fixing this issue. Michael Rosenberg advocates the use of glossy paper for negatives instead of white film. It may be that this would be better (but I don"t know why off the top of my head).

 

[Per Bjesse]

OP...where is the photos? Always post your results to see.

I could certainly scan the prints but I think to actually compare them you would have to see the physical objects unfortunately.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have no argument rather observations of what I am use to seeing here in my darkroom..

I believe you are seeing a compromise from what is possible in a perfect world.

I believe the inkjet negative is weak and causes flare.... Imagine a 11 x14 in camera negative fP4 as one source negative , and then make a scan of this negative or same scene digital capture and make a inkjet negative , now lay both negatives on a light table and compare, you will quickly see that you the inkjet negative blacks are weak which relates to highlight control and this IMO allows a lot of stray light to come through whereas the In Camera negative will be stronger and block the light better which in tune will give a less flared image.

This is why Mark Nelsons method of colourizing his inkjet negs has merit to look at..

Paper negatives are an option but I would then think mush may be the order rather than bold crisp prints, kind of like doing pinhole.

 

[faberryman]

This is why Mark Nelsons method of colourizing his inkjet negs has merit to look at

Help me out here Bob. I thought the use of color inks, in particular yellow, was that they blocked UV light for alternative processes, not that they provided better density to ordinary light than black inks.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Do your inkjet and silver papers have the same surface gloss? Typically, front surface reflection issues limit the dMax to about 2.3

 

[nmp]

Might be a heresy here on Photrio, but the Dmax train left some time ago when it comes to inkjet printing with papers utlizing PK inks:

The blackest black in print is achieved with today’s inkjet materials. Epson Exhibition Fiber printed on Ultrachrome K3 or UltraChrome HDR produces a 2.65 dmax; silver gelatin selenium toned produces a 2.35 dmax. You get this extraordinary black when printing through the printer driver’s Advanced Black & White mode; print the same image through a standard color color management route and you’ll only get a 2.4 dmax. Also, matte papers yield weaker blacks, roughly 1.85 dmax.

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/269/achieving-the-blackest-black/

The new P800 inks have even greater Dmax that the earlier versions. So I am not surprised at OP's observations. Perhaps selenium toning could bump up the silver gelatin Dmax from 2.11 if not already done so.

 

[Eric Rose]

When I have the time to perfect producing digital negs that is the way I will be going for fine prints. I will still play around in the darkroom with traditional printing, not because it's better (it's not), but because I enjoy it.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Help me out here Bob. I thought the use of color inks, in particular yellow, was that they blocked UV light for alternative processes, not that they provided better density to ordinary light than black inks.

Hi Frank you are right but remember red is a blocking colour and was used in old school retouch to lighten areas, with the same thing in mind I suspect that magenta and red may indeed help, I know that when I first went down this wormhole I considered silver as my final source and was looking at many different ways... for example on Face Book group I have found a couple of real options for my Lambda so I may be able to afford the film that has same characteristics of Ortho Ilford but at a third of the price.

In split contrast printing full magenta will indeed add contrast and so will full blue so maybe Mark Nelsons ideas can be transposed to the OP's results... I just know that a straight BW inkjet neg does not compare to an In Camera or Lambda neg when laid on silver paper.
Bob

 

[Bob Carnie]

Might be a heresy here on Photrio, but the Dmax train left some time ago when it comes to inkjet printing with papers utlizing PK inks:

The blackest black in print is achieved with today’s inkjet materials. Epson Exhibition Fiber printed on Ultrachrome K3 or UltraChrome HDR produces a 2.65 dmax; silver gelatin selenium toned produces a 2.35 dmax. You get this extraordinary black when printing through the printer driver’s Advanced Black & White mode; print the same image through a standard color color management route and you’ll only get a 2.4 dmax. Also, matte papers yield weaker blacks, roughly 1.85 dmax.

http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/blog/269/achieving-the-blackest-black/

The new P800 inks have even greater Dmax that the earlier versions. So I am not surprised at OP's observations. Perhaps selenium toning could bump up the silver gelatin Dmax from 2.11 if not already done so.

Black is Black , Visually we see the same whether its inkjet bayrta, silver enlarged or lambda silver, I have all three and I cannot see a deeper black with one over the other,possibly one can note on a densitometer but it does not show itself on paper except I see an issue with a lower Dmax on watercolour paper , and have noticed the issue due to what the OP seems to be talking about.

 

[Per Bjesse]

I have no argument rather observations of what I am use to seeing here in my darkroom..

I believe you are seeing a compromise from what is possible in a perfect world.

I believe the inkjet negative is weak and causes flare.... Imagine a 11 x14 in camera negative fP4 as one source negative , and then make a scan of this negative or same scene digital capture and make a inkjet negative , now lay both negatives on a light table and compare, you will quickly see that you the inkjet negative blacks are weak which relates to highlight control and this IMO allows a lot of stray light to come through whereas the In Camera negative will be stronger and block the light better which in tune will give a less flared image.

This is why Mark Nelsons method of colourizing his inkjet negs has merit to look at..

Paper negatives are an option but I would then think mush may be the order rather than bold crisp prints, kind of like doing pinhole.

Well, you can't really visually compare my inkjet negative to a real negative because one is on a transparent medium (a real negative), and the other is on a medium that is opaque (the inkjet negative). That said: With a properly calibrated inkjet negative the blackest step will be sufficient to generate paper white. This is true for a properly calibrated analog negative as well. So neither should be weaker than the other. Indeed, the stepwedge test for my inkjet negatives shows full use of the paper tones from paper white to paper black. Given this, I am not sure that more stray light will come through the inkjet negative than a normal negative----both has been tuned to give a full range from paper white to paper black.

Now, for UV sensitive processes, older printers may not be able to lay down enough blocker with just black, and other colors may be needed. But my contention is that if you can generate a step wedge from paper white to paper black, you have a sufficiently dense negative.

 

[calebarchie]

Hi Per,

You are on the right track using Rosenburg's process. I have found it the best specifically for silver printing, however it does have some minor caveats which you are probably aware. You cannot achieve a pure paper white due to using a paper negative however the control it allows you re ink levels. If you have linearized ink curves correctly in QTR also allows manipulating contrast in a logical manner by varying the overall magenta and yellow ink used. Perhaps you are seeing the pitfalls regarding this?

I do believe inkjet has a better DR especially with monochrome inks, but that is not why we still use silver.
C

 

[faberryman]

I just know that a straight BW inkjet neg does not compare to an In Camera or Lambda neg when laid on silver paper.

Digital negatives for gelatin silver prints seems like a curious way to approach things. If I want gelatin silver prints, film would be my first choice.

 

[nmp]

Hi all,

I have just made my first digital negative and contact print with a p800 and stock inks and Pictorico white film on Ilford Warmtone multigrade fiber using a QTR

-Per

By the way, any particular reason you are using the Pictorico white film and not the transparency for the diginegs....

 

[Per Bjesse]

Do your inkjet and silver papers have the same surface gloss? Typically, front surface reflection issues limit the dMax to about 2.3

The inkjet paper is Canson Baryta Prestige, so a high quality medium glossy paper. The silver paper is Ilford warmtone multigrade fiber, which certainly is has a glossy finish. I think it is clear that the inkjet intrinsically has a larger dynamic range. 2.57 density is well within inkjet standard maximum density. And I don't think that 2.11ish for the ilford paper is wrong. I think this is just what it is.

The question I am interested in is if other people that has gone through a similar controlled process see a big difference in the silver print vs the inkjet print when using linear profiles to print them both. I had honestly hoped for being wowed by the analog print when viewed side by side with the inkjet print due to silver forming the image instead of ink. If not, then what do people see as advantages of silver prints on fiber aestethically, and what are recommended ways of getting a look that is significantly different than a straight high quality inkjet print? I view this approach as another tool in the tool belt when printing and want to find the best way to do something unique with it.

In related thoughts: What do people see as advantages of platinum prints or carbon prints using digital negatives? The dmax is significantly lower, but I often hear people talk about the luminosity of prints........ I would love if there was side by side physical sample prints you could get from the different processes to compare and contrast. I love the craft of the different approaches and certainly want to experiment with a bunch of alt processes for historical reasons, but my thoughts here are more about end results divorced from how you get there. Thoughts from experienced alt printers would be very welcome.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Well, you can't really visually compare my inkjet negative to a real negative because one is on a transparent medium (a real negative), and the other is on a medium that is opaque (the inkjet negative). That said: With a properly calibrated inkjet negative the blackest step will be sufficient to generate paper white. This is true for a properly calibrated analog negative as well. So neither should be weaker than the other. Indeed, the stepwedge test for my inkjet negatives shows full use of the paper tones from paper white to paper black. Given this, I am not sure that more stray light will come through the inkjet negative than a normal negative----both has been tuned to give a full range from paper white to paper black.

Now, for UV sensitive processes, older printers may not be able to lay down enough blocker with just black, and other colors may be needed. But my contention is that if you can generate a step wedge from paper white to paper black, you have a sufficiently dense negative.

They both do the same job, they both look the same except one seems more solid(silver neg) I find one just allows much more exposure to pass (inkjet neg) in areas of black (highlight) - I am only commenting on what I have been seeing for the last 8 years and quite a few negs done both ways. But is your question in original post, why does a print from my inkjet printer look better than the same scene except you have used an inkjet negative of said scene and then made a silver print.? If this is the question then you have found out what I and others have found. my suspicion is flare and bleed through is reducing contrast and sharpness and I have found this to be true in my darkroom, take that for what its worth just my opinion.

edit see note below I thought you were using transparency film

 

[Bob Carnie]

By the way, any particular reason you are using the Pictorico white film and not the transparency for the diginegs....

good question- I did not notice this and may explain alot

 

[Per Bjesse]

By the way, any particular reason you are using the Pictorico white film and not the transparency for the diginegs....

This seems to be the preferred medium for silver for reducing grain, at least when I was doing my research. OHP is the default choice for all other processes as far as I found.

 

[Bob Carnie]

The inkjet paper is Canson Baryta Prestige, so a high quality medium glossy paper. The silver paper is Ilford warmtone multigrade fiber, which certainly is has a glossy finish. I think it is clear that the inkjet intrinsically has a larger dynamic range. 2.57 density is well within inkjet standard maximum density. And I don't think that 2.11ish for the ilford paper is wrong. I think this is just what it is.

The question I am interested in is if other people that has gone through a similar controlled process see a big difference in the silver print vs the inkjet print when using linear profiles to print them both. I had honestly hoped for being wowed by the analog print when viewed side by side with the inkjet print due to silver forming the image instead of ink. If not, then what do people see as advantages of silver prints on fiber aestethically, and what are recommended ways of getting a look that is significantly different than a straight high quality inkjet print? I view this approach as another tool in the tool belt when printing and want to find the best way to do something unique with it.

In related thoughts: What do people see as advantages of platinum prints or carbon prints using digital negatives? The dmax is significantly lower, but I often hear people talk about the luminosity of prints........ I would love if there was side by side physical sample prints you could get from the different processes to compare and contrast. I love the craft of the different approaches and certainly want to experiment with a bunch of alt processes for historical reasons, but my thoughts here are more about end results divorced from how you get there. Thoughts from experienced alt printers would be very welcome.

I do silver, inkjet , gum tri colours and pt pd, all different and all have their inherent plus and minus. I do not favour one over the other but enjoy them all, any serious printer would never say one is better than the other, they are unique and all serve their purpose for the photographers using them.

 

[Per Bjesse]

Digital negatives for gelatin silver prints seems like a curious way to approach things. If I want gelatin silver prints, film would be my first choice.

Sure, and I love traditional darkroom enlarging. But at least for me, there are things such as removing an irritating object in the corner of a picture that I can do in digital post processing that I can not achieve by dodging and burning in the traditional dark room. So provided the quality of the digital negative process provides as good results, there is definitely a place for this in my flow. Sometimes I do photography stuff to enjoy the process, and sometimes my goal is just to provide the best picture possible regardless of technique. In the end, other than my fellow photographers, few people will like my pictures more just because they admire the process I went through to get the print.

The questions to me are: 1) can one get as good results with a digital negative flow, 2) is a well executed silver print inherently prettier than an equally well executed good inkjet print. I have no idea what the answer is to question 1), but for 2) up to know I thought the answer was yes. Now I want to hear what other experts think.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Digital negatives for gelatin silver prints seems like a curious way to approach things. If I want gelatin silver prints, film would be my first choice.

A lot of my clients use Phase One and high end digital capture, some of them want silver prints like the lith prints you saw of Brendan Meadows, and of course others want Azo, Lodoma and other silver papers but they only use digital capture, therefore the quest for the best negative system... I am now gathering that the OP is making negs on a not so transparent substrate and then making a contact exposure, it kind of sounds like a paper negative which will have its own paticular set of workarounds.
Personally I have found the best negatives are Ilford Ortho 25 off my Lambda for printing on Ilford Warmtone , but many workers are using inkjet for silver gloss prints which I have found to be less than satisfactory and this is where I think some work needs to be done to get better results.

 

[Bob Carnie]

is a well executed silver print inherently prettier than an equally well executed good inkjet print.


The answer is NO in my world , others will disagree but I happen to do all three ways of making a BW print, enlarger silver, lambda silver and Ink jet and for sure the results are their saying that they are equal.

 

[Per Bjesse]

I do silver, inkjet , gum tri colours and pt pd, all different and all have their inherent plus and minus. I do not favour one over the other but enjoy them all, any serious printer would never say one is better than the other, they are unique and all serve their purpose for the photographers using them.

That makes sense. But if a silver print is not inherently any better than a good inkjet print then where does it shine and where should it be applied? And for that matter, for the other processes, when do they shine and for what type of pictures?