Yeah, I would probably laugh, too. But hear me out. I am either onto something or, despite 68 years of photography and much of that darkroom experience, missing something big that would negate my whole idea.
I sold my enlarger before my big move three years ago. At the time, I had started thinking about digital negatives. The idea of being able to perfect a negative sounded better than always adjusting paper contrast and experimenting with exposure times. But just reading about it sounded WAY more complex that going straight traditional.
So recently I was staring at my computer (as I do way too much) and I realized that it is a perfectly illuminated flat light source! And then......................I realized I don't need a digital negative, I can use the image straight out of a photo program.
I've long loved how I can take scanned prints or negatives and in a few slider moments, make them contrast perfect, full range. And adjust the levels curve, even, make the midrange pop. Can't do that with conventional print making.
My thinking is, lay a monitor on its back, devise whatever paper holding device that would be helpful, expose and develop. No production of a negative, no worrying about printers, inks, substrates. No need to store the negatives. Tweaking done in seconds, re-expose, print again.
I notice that the typical image on screen is way too bright compared to an enlarger source, or even an old fashioned contact printer. (I'm thinking conventional paper, no alternative processes. Yet.) The too bright image is easily corrected by darkening the entire "negative." In fact, using the computer I can adjust and manipulate any source image as I wish, using black/white points, gamma, or curves! Would also be good for Rockland emulsions, of course. (BTW, I see Foma has one much, much cheaper.)
My 23"? 4:3 monitor can easily handle 11x14, the size of my trays. The old, unfashionable 4:3 monitors are better, I think. More like a typical photo format. Wide screen is for movies, not photography! My not so humble opinion.
I included a ten sheet package of Ilford MG 11x14 paper in my last Freestyle order. Although I hope to eventually print on more interesting papers, MG RC ones are the cheapest. Regardless of the spectrum of my monitor, I can adjust to fit the raw paper easily. No filters needed.
Will be a few weeks before I can test my theory. In the meantime, any thoughts? What have I missed that blows this up? Will the LED pixels be apparent? Can't be any worse than looking at the monitor, and if one isn't looking for this potential flaw, would most even see it? My mantra is "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
"What a beautiful print! But, I notice that if I put my loupe on it,........."
Of course, one could spend a boodle on a high pixel count monitor if this turns out to be an issue.
I sold my enlarger before my big move three years ago. At the time, I had started thinking about digital negatives. The idea of being able to perfect a negative sounded better than always adjusting paper contrast and experimenting with exposure times. But just reading about it sounded WAY more complex that going straight traditional.
So recently I was staring at my computer (as I do way too much) and I realized that it is a perfectly illuminated flat light source! And then......................I realized I don't need a digital negative, I can use the image straight out of a photo program.
I've long loved how I can take scanned prints or negatives and in a few slider moments, make them contrast perfect, full range. And adjust the levels curve, even, make the midrange pop. Can't do that with conventional print making.
My thinking is, lay a monitor on its back, devise whatever paper holding device that would be helpful, expose and develop. No production of a negative, no worrying about printers, inks, substrates. No need to store the negatives. Tweaking done in seconds, re-expose, print again.
I notice that the typical image on screen is way too bright compared to an enlarger source, or even an old fashioned contact printer. (I'm thinking conventional paper, no alternative processes. Yet.) The too bright image is easily corrected by darkening the entire "negative." In fact, using the computer I can adjust and manipulate any source image as I wish, using black/white points, gamma, or curves! Would also be good for Rockland emulsions, of course. (BTW, I see Foma has one much, much cheaper.)
My 23"? 4:3 monitor can easily handle 11x14, the size of my trays. The old, unfashionable 4:3 monitors are better, I think. More like a typical photo format. Wide screen is for movies, not photography! My not so humble opinion.
I included a ten sheet package of Ilford MG 11x14 paper in my last Freestyle order. Although I hope to eventually print on more interesting papers, MG RC ones are the cheapest. Regardless of the spectrum of my monitor, I can adjust to fit the raw paper easily. No filters needed.
Will be a few weeks before I can test my theory. In the meantime, any thoughts? What have I missed that blows this up? Will the LED pixels be apparent? Can't be any worse than looking at the monitor, and if one isn't looking for this potential flaw, would most even see it? My mantra is "Perfection is the enemy of good enough."
"What a beautiful print! But, I notice that if I put my loupe on it,........."
Of course, one could spend a boodle on a high pixel count monitor if this turns out to be an issue.
