Difference between digital and analog negatives in alternative processes

Is there a point on shooting analog for alternative processes if you don't contact print from large format negatives? I like the idea of shooting with an APS-C 16mp camera because of its size and portability, especially because I travel often and I see no difference in the final image, I feel like the hand coating, paper handling, the mixing of chemicals makes the process timeless and introducing a digital technology in the process does not really matter. Or does it? Does the scanned or contact printed analog negative "shows" in the final image?

The point is you are destroying the physical integrity of the original capture, even though the final image may look similar to that originated on film. If you can live with the concept of one's and zero's as your original creative image, then that's fine.

Unless you insist on 'analog purity', digital negatives are, to my mind, clearly preferred for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, by perfecting the curve used to print an inkjet negative one has much finer control over the final print compared to using film. One can also take the same image and experiment with making prints using different processes simply be reprinting the negative with a different curve.

Secondly, one can in effect dodge and burn one's prints by making local adjustments to the negative before printing it.

Lastly, one can easily make negatives of different sizes from the same image. I often work out the details in making a print by working with 4x5 inch prints on 5x7 inch paper. When I have everything worked out, I print a larger negative which prints essentially the same as the initial negative. This saves significantly on the cost of materials.

Personally, I'm very happy with digital negatives even though I use 4x5 film on rare occasion.

DMJ said:

...Does the scanned or contact printed analog negative "shows" in the final image?

Click to expand...

No, not with experience, quality materials, and the ability to tone down one's natural inclination to digitally 'out do' film. Then one can duplicate the look of film...at which point one should ask, "Why?"

Why must the hand-made print look like it was made using film? Especially if it was not. Is this a modern case of photography mimicking painting -- now we have digital art mimicking film? But actually I do not see this as a major issue. The draw to increase local contrast, sharpen here and there, and other light touches with the digital tools will always be strong -- and just about always be noticeable in the print. One might as well go all the way and not worry about duplicating the look of film, or not.

In addition to all the good reasons fgorga gives above, the digital negative also protects your original film negative.

For the record, as I learned carbon printing, I intertwined working on the exposure/development of the film as part of the process. I am loath to separate the two (film/process) and their interaction in creating a print. Later learning platinum printing, I used the same methodology. Fgorga makes excellent points, they just do not apply to the way I work.

Yes, I have lost non-replaceable negatives to the process. I accidentally ripped in half a very nice 11x14 negative in front of a workshop...not a happy moment, but an excellent teaching moment. But remember, it was the habit 'back in the day' to decide if a glass plate negative was good enough to print. If not, it was scrapped and the glass re-used. A negative might be judged as a 20-print negative...no more than that might sell. Twenty might be printed and the image scrapped off and the glass re-used. Negatives are not holy relics. Crush the Cult of the Negative...I can say only positive things about them...

I also do all my cropping, burning and dodging before I snap the shutter. That way I don't have to do any while making 1-hour contact prints under UV light. And making only contact prints from camera negatives keeps everything the same size, more or less.

Lastly, by using camera negatives, I make a lot more interesting mistakes. Now I could probably make as many mistakes with digital negatives, but something tells me they might not be as educational or hint at new ways to look at things. Or at least to my tastes...YMMD.

I'm currently battling with this issue.

I would prefer using 5x7" film negatives for salt print. But that means I need to succeed in shooting, exposing and developing 5x7" correctly. That is hard work and you definely miss opportunities with large format vs digital.

Then.. I could make digital negatives from digital, 35mm film, 120 film and print those. Cropping, adjusting, enlarging .. So much possibilities. Probably no-one notices difference. But digital negative feels soul-less and feels like I'm cheating. It is way too easy.

This is the question I have been thinking lately. I actually hope I'm true to myself and continue with film negatives.

Maybe the print isn't my actual goal; it is the process and the difficultiness of it. It is about the skills. It feels awesome when things work out. And it feels awful, depressing when you mess up things and then you start thinking of digital version, again ..

Vaughn said:

I also do all my cropping, burning and dodging before I snap the shutter. That way I don't have to do any while making 1-hour contact prints under UV light. And making only contact prints from camera negatives keeps everything the same size, more or less.

Lastly, by using camera negatives, I make a lot more interesting mistakes. Now I could probably make as many mistakes with digital negatives, but something tells me they might not be as educational or hint at new ways to look at things. Or at least to my tastes...YMMD.

Click to expand...

Great thoughts!

Maybe alt.printing from silver negatives is journey which constantly surprises in good and in bad. Or maybe it is the spirit of alt.printing in general. It is about the journey, not the destination. By using digital negatives you are taking car instead of hiking.

BTW Vaughn how do you burn & dodge when exposing the negative?

vedostuu said:

I'm currently battling with this issue.

I would prefer using 5x7" film negatives for salt print. But that means I need to succeed in shooting, exposing and developing 5x7" correctly. That is hard work and you definely miss opportunities with large format vs digital.
...

Click to expand...

From my first attempts at the carbon printing process to the point where I was getting prints I loved was two years. This was before internet forums, List-serves, etc. All I had was a magazine article. After a few months I was getting prints with images on them, but I was just starting to learn what the process could do. I never saw any other carbon prints so I did not know what a carbon print was 'suppose' to look like. I ended up taking a path rarely taken at the time, but is used more now in carbon printing (raised relief).

Missed opportunities are well-attended lessons.

It's a great pleasure to read all these thoughts!

I was thinking that if we interpret "digital" as the interlacing of two states (on/off, ones and zeros) that create a pattern that is translated or transform into something meaningful to us, then photography since its very beginnings is a digital process: a silver halide changing its state to reveal a black speck of metallic silver, but also a technological apparatus that is needed in order to create the image. Allow me to paraphrase Heidegger: "Technology is not equivalent to the essence of technology". There is always the fear of technology becoming out of human control, which is the case of "new" digital technology that for some, seems arcane. The hammer is an amazing piece of technology that we can understand and anyone can reproduce by just looking at it for a moment, the same goes for the first cameras: their mechanism and construction are self evident. Another feature of the digital era is lossless reproducibility but wasn't Talbot's vision to reproduce and perpetuate "natural images"?
In music, the use of technology has been accepted since the invention of the phonograph (without taking into account developments in instrument design throughout history) and with the invention of the microchip it is possible, to give an example, to perform a Fast Fourier Transform in real time; this specific technology is being used from pop music to modern classical music to transform the sound of the voice and instruments, to analyze their spectrum and to create virtual experiences.
So I'm trying to convince myself that the use of a digital camera to create a non digital image is actually the way to work. Today's digital tools facilitate the process and its reproducibility and they feel like a hammer in my hand.

Every digital negative contact print I have seen looks flat compared to a good film contact print. Maybe the digital negatives weren't as good as the makers could of done.
Film negatives can give that 3D look if done well when viewing the actual framed print.

awty said:

Every digital negative contact print I have seen looks flat compared to a good film contact print. Maybe the digital negatives weren't as good as the makers could of done.
Film negatives can give that 3D look if done well when viewing the actual framed print.

Click to expand...

Do you why is this? What makes 3D and what looses it?

vedostuu said:

Do you why is this? What makes 3D and what looses it?

Click to expand...

I have no idea, but I can see the difference. Not saying it cant be achieved digitally, just never seen it.

awty said:

I have no idea, but I can see the difference. Not saying it cant be achieved digitally, just never seen it.

Click to expand...

Could it be something to do with large format lenses / form factor? Digital negatives are usually made from small sensor images.

I tried alt processes and digital negatives last year. While I enjoyed the alt process, I absolutely HATED making digital negatives. I found them extremely difficult and highly undependable.

awty said:

Every digital negative contact print I have seen looks flat compared to a good film contact print. Maybe the digital negatives weren't as good as the makers could of done.
Film negatives can give that 3D look if done well when viewing the actual framed print.

Click to expand...

As with any media...it is easy to produce decent work -- much much harder to produce good work.

It takes even more time and effort to learn how to make good inkjet negatives than in-camera negatives. The machines are far more complex, touchy, expensive, and not as well standardized between platforms as analog cameras. Too much time can be spent thinking of micro-contrast, sharpness and other technical issues instead of the image and over-all tonality.

Vaughn said:

Too much time can be spent thinking of micro-contrast, sharpness and other technical issues instead of the image and over-all tonality.

Click to expand...

"base fog", ink color, ink opaqueness, curves adjustments, banding, and 50 million other things introduced by the scanner/computer/printer and all the extra tools needed.

At the end of the day what's important is if the final result pleases you and how much you enjoyed working on it. Nothing else should matter.

Dan Pavel said:

At the end of the day what's important is if the final result pleases you and how much you enjoyed working on it. Nothing else should matter.

Click to expand...

I agree the final goal and not the means should be the focus. How much you enjoy it or not depends if you are a professional printer or a hobbyist. To paraphrase Heidegger again:

Some people think of the process of creating digital negatives arcane, overly difficult and expensive; it does not have to be that way. It could be a simple as applying a generic curve and printing in a decent transparency film without a "professional" printer with a dedicated ink system.

DMJ said:

It could be a simple as applying a generic curve and printing in a decent transparency film without a "professional" printer with a dedicated ink system.

Click to expand...

Please show me that easy button. I couldn't seem to find it anywhere. And I tried every test, step wedge, color profile, and curve there was. *For me*, it just wasn't as easy as you make it out to be.

ChristopherCoy said:

Please show me that easy button. I couldn't seem to find it anywhere. And I tried every test, step wedge, color profile, and curve there was. *For me*, it just wasn't as easy as you make it out to be.

Click to expand...

And what happened after you tried every curve, test...etc ? Are you sure the problem are your negatives? Show your negatives and your prints. I'm sure many people here would be more than happy to help you assuming that you are still interested in the process, which I think you are given that you are replaying to this post which is actually about digital negatives created from different mediums .

Cheers.

I personally find in camera negatives much easier than digital. Making an in camera negative for alt processes follows the overall same workflow and logic than for a silver print. I use Pyrocat HD and often end up with dual use negatives, i.e. ones which can printed in silver or platinum. Also many alt processes have printing controls akin to paper grades. I have no doubt that excellent images can be made with digital negatives, I just enjoy it a lot less and you just fuss over different problems.

In my opinion, producing in-camera negatives for alt processes is easier than digital negatives... but once you've gotten over the hurdle of making good digital negatives, it's easier...and pretty darn convenient...What I find most frustrating about producing digital negatives though, is the printer can GLOG, which can be a nightmare! Like any tool, you have to learn how to use it.

For me, the entire reason I was drawn to learning alt-process printing, and photography in general a little over a year ago, was precisely to make images (hell, make anything) that were not mediated by tiny electrical signals inside a silicon honeycomb, governed by a maze of tech company patents that tell me I don't own the things I make. The chance to get away from a screen, learn new skills I could've never imagined (spreading gelatin onto canvas with a glass rod in complete darkness--check!), engage with the past, and create something physical in the world that will not go away if the power goes out, nor will anyone start charging me money to view it because some billionaire bought another billionaire's startup and changed the EULA.

There is amazing art being created with digital negatives -- but for me, the ability to say "no computers were involved in the creation of this thing" is a big part of the art I want to make.

There is amazing art being created with digital negatives -- but for me, the ability to say "no computers were involved in the creation of this thing" is a big part of the art I want to make.

Click to expand...

And there's that. I really need a hobby which gets me away from the screen...