Difference between digital and analog negatives in alternative processes

[jeffreyg]

I've made pt/pd prints from 4x5 film, 2 1/4 film enlarged on to x-ray duplicating film, film scanned and digital negatives and digital to digital. All have worked very well for me , one is not better than another. While there may be subtle differences in the final prints, you can say that for any medium. For me the advantage of a digital negative is that while making a print you notice something to change, you can go back to the computer and make a new negative during the printing session.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

http://www.sculptureandphotography.com/

 

[Robert Maxey]

Until recently, I've avoided digital image making because film is/was demonstrably better. But that also forces one to ask what camera and film? What lenses? How many megapixels? What film developer? Is that 11 X 14 an enlargement or contact print? I am betting a 11 x 14 View Camera is vastly better than a digital approach.

One cant talk about final print quality without a careful discussion.

I am very much aware that digital has come a very long ways indeed and with each passing year, I see some amazing examples of digital images. They just keep getting better and better. I'll admit I must change my ideas about digital images. So I will always listen to the experts who can show me why I should not dismiss digital image making.

Now, to be very clear, my main priority is sharpness and no grain. This naturally assumes the image is a pleasing image. So whatever I say is based upon one idea: sharpness is the number one criteria, FOR ME.

There is/was a process called StereoJet. Basically, a full color Vectograph. Digital made this short lived process a reality. All because of the available digital tools. With film, you need a stereo pair and perhaps 3 or 4 masks per view. Photoshop eliminates these masks. PS makes contrast control far easier than film, trust me. With film, you required lots of things that make old school color Vectographs impossible.

Digital negatives are required to make the matrices; digital printers made this much easier. What was once a darkroom intensive process requiring true masters, became a simple inkjet process (for the most part). Some very fine Dye Transfer Printers work with digital negatives so I think I need to learn more. Occasionally, I'll as a whopper of a dumb question.

About all i can say is I remember a time when digital was useless. Not so much these days.

 

[faberryman]

I use digital negatives because I don’t want to lug around an 11x14 camera, which is about the size I like to print. I was in a portfolio review once and was told that my photography was inauthentic. I cried all the way home. Not really.

 

[removed account4]

I use digital negatives because I don’t want to lug around an 11x14 camera, which is about the size I like to print. I was in a portfolio review once and was told that my photography was inauthentic. I cried all the way home. Not really.

I find it amazing that people say that sort of thing. Its really sad that people who are paid reviewers, are paid to say that sort of thing. at least they didn't wag their finger at you and say "I take photographs like this, don't you EVER!"
but that's the world for you, people are cagey ( especially photographers ) and use slights like "inauthentic" or "fake" or whatever to describe things they might be threatened by.

I've made pt/pd prints from 4x5 film, 2 1/4 film enlarged on to x-ray duplicating film, film scanned and digital negatives and digital to digital. All have worked very well for me , one is not better than another. While there may be subtle differences in the final prints, you can say that for any medium. For me the advantage of a digital negative is that while making a print you notice something to change, you can go back to the computer and make a new negative during the printing session.

Hi Jeffrey
I find making digital negatives to be really useful because if your original negative was screwed up through contact with the sensitized medium all is not lost. I haven't made many alt process prints from film negatives just digital ones and xeroxographical ones so im not able to know any subtle differences.. I wish I had a better printer though, mine is a real piece of junk.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I think it's only fair to judge the viability of a process by the very best prints that can be done using said process. For a person to give it a halfhearted attempt, then claim the process sucks, is ludicrous.

It would be like seeing some prints with poor dodging and burning, then claiming that dodging and burning isn't a viable option. This is something I read once, where two photographers were discussing how sharp & unsharp masking techniques using pin registered masks while enlarging is way too obvious. Well, they must have seen some poor or very early attempts at the process by someone because it can be invisibly seamless if you want/know how.

I would love to see this palladium toned kallitype via Fujifilm X-T4 and digitally enlarged negative by tnp651 (Tom Nelson) in real life. Must be sumptuously amazing:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/phil.65401/

 

[gone]

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.

I've wanted to make digital negs, but the thoughts of dealing w/ inkjet printers, clogged ink, working endlessly w/ the images in PS before and during the printing process, and staring at a computer monitor for hours has squashed that idea. I used to do all that before going to a darkroom, and hated it. It's tedious, mind numbing work, and not at all fun. If I HAD to do it to get the image I might try it, but I don't.

Any way you can get the image is fine w/ me since photography is after all about the image and not the method, but I would never go this route because it means getting away from a handmade image and moving too close to a machine made one. Moving to a work process that involves non traditional image making and the use of computer technology is not what I want to do. There's too much of that around already.

 

[Robert Maxey]

So ... assuming the following criteria, give me your thoughts. Due to the specific nature of the process you are using, your goal is very, very sharp digital negatives. Fuzzy images will not give me what I want. The size limit is no larger than 10x14 inches.

Assuming this, any thoughts about printing materials or equipment? How about workflow and technique(s)

 

[Vaughn]

I have seen incredibly beautiful platinum prints and carbon prints made with digitally enlarged and printed inkjet negatives. They can easily be confused with prints made with the best in-camera negatives if a high level of knowledge, skill level and material are employed in their making.

Digital negs give one the opportunity to explore beyond the native characteristics and capabilities of the film/lens combination -- and that is what I find to be the biggest difference between the two.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

So ... assuming the following criteria, give me your thoughts. Due to the specific nature of the process you are using, your goal is very, very sharp digital negatives. Fuzzy images will not give me what I want. The size limit is no larger than 10x14 inches.

Assuming this, any thoughts about printing materials or equipment? How about workflow and technique(s)

Have you looked at the linked photo in post #55?

Here...I'll make it easy: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/phil.65401/

 

[Chan Tran]

I would like to do the entire process analog but if it's hybrid I would like to shoot on film and doing the scanning and printing digitally rather than taking the picture with the digital camera and make digital negatives.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Do you mean lith film?

I would like to do negatives by enlarging but eventually I would either need to develop the original to positive film or do double negatives. That would be interesting to try but it is quite time consuming, I think.. It is like making a darkroom print but 10x slower

I really wish that there would be easier way.

Check out bergger print film..its a first class product for making enlarged negatives!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

So ... assuming the following criteria, give me your thoughts. Due to the specific nature of the process you are using, your goal is very, very sharp digital negatives. Fuzzy images will not give me what I want. The size limit is no larger than 10x14 inches.

Assuming this, any thoughts about printing materials or equipment? How about workflow and technique(s)

Maybe you should have a peak at Dick Arentz's digital Pt/Pd work: https://www.dickarentz.com

While maybe not as sharp-sharp-sharp as you like (he allows a certain 'glow' in his work) you can't deny the quality/control.

As to the differences between analog and digital, Arentz hints at the differences here, but does not elaborate:

Those familiar with my work may notice a stylistic change in vision. I consider palladium prints made from film and those from digital techniques to be distinctly different media. Therefore, I adjusted my vision to accommodate those different characteristics. The print size is approximately 8 x 10.5 inches printed on 11 x 14-inch platinum rag paper.

Anybody know of where he might explain this further?

 

[nmp]

Wouldn't paper be the limiting factor in determining the sharpness of the print (except carbon prints) and not whether the negative was analog or digital?

:Niranjan.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Wouldn't paper be the limiting factor in determining the sharpness of the print (except carbon prints) and not whether the negative was analog or digital?

:Niranjan.

While I can't speak to how alternative process prints render on hot press vs cold press papers (will be dipping my toes in that pool soon) I can say there is a distinct difference when prints are made with our Epson P600 printer.

I use a photograph of a marina as one of my test photos. In the distance, up a long channel, there is a mountain ridge just barely discernible through a dark wall of rain. On cold press papers you can just barely see it, then the ridge line disappears into the papers texture. It is a weird effect, but must also have an effect on what I would call micro edges and subtle local contrast and/or textures.

On hot press papers you can see the just barely discernible ridge line through the rain, and when you look at it, it doesn't disappear into the papers texture because the paper is so much smoother than the cold pressed paper. You can also easily make out the lines (ropes/wires) from the masts of the furthest boats in the marina.

I would expect a similar difference with alternative prints...as long as they are well made with sufficient contact, proper coating, processing, etc...

 

[nmp]

While I can't speak to how alternative process prints render on hot press vs cold press papers (will be dipping my toes in that pool soon) I can say there is a distinct difference when prints are made with our Epson P600 printer.

I use a photograph of a marina as one of my test photos. In the distance, up a long channel, there is a mountain ridge just barely discernible through a dark wall of rain. On cold press papers you can just barely see it, then the ridge line disappears into the papers texture. It is a weird effect, but must also have an effect on what I would call micro edges and subtle local contrast and/or textures.

On hot press papers you can see the just barely discernible ridge line through the rain, and when you look at it, it doesn't disappear into the papers texture because the paper is so much smoother than the cold pressed paper. You can also easily make out the lines (ropes/wires) from the masts of the furthest boats in the marina.

I would expect a similar difference with alternative prints...as long as they are well made with sufficient contact, proper coating, processing, etc...

Interesting. That was what I was talking about.

Many years ago, when I was just starting out with pigment printing (HP B9180) I did a similar study with a resolution chart I created to see what the smallest lpm (lines per mm) I can print. I don't remember the exact numbers, but as would be expected glossy (RC style) paper > luster (Ilford Gold Silk Fiber) > Photo rag (Canson Rag Photographique.) Incidentally, Pictorico was pretty similar to the glossy paper. These are all coated so the un-coated watercolor papers, hot or cold press, would be expected be worse - both due to uneven distribution of the ink dots due to roughness (more so with the cold press) as well as spreading of the ink in absence of a receptor coating (presence or absence of sizing at the surface is a factor too.) While ink spreading is not a problem when you are contact printing a pt/pd or a salt print, there is diffusion of the light as it bounces around the peaks and valleys on the paper giving rise to loss of resolution. Then of course, you also have to contend with the contrast of the process itself (Dmax-Dmin) which will further reduce the apparent sharpness. Finally, there is heterogeneity in the sensitizer itself and less than ideal contact between the negative and the paper. Add them all together, I suspect you end up with substantial downgrade of the sharpness from the negative to the print.

:Niranjan.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Have you looked at the linked photo in post #55?

I saw the image. Quite nice.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Maybe you should have a peak at Dick Arentz's digital Pt/Pd work: https://www.dickarentz.com

I have seen his work some time ago. Thanks for the Remind-O-Link. I do see some of his images work for me. One of a cactus with great needle detail. Like I said, digital is getting better so I must learn more.

Bob

 

[Vaughn]

I would like to do the entire process analog but if it's hybrid I would like to shoot on film and doing the scanning and printing digitally rather than taking the picture with the digital camera and make digital negatives.

While I do keep my work film-to-print, many do find that going digital-to-alt.print to be a satisfying way to work...making something solid with one's hands. That is where an issue may arise in that the digital image capture itself may not (does not) record light the same way as film, and when making the file for the negative, taking that into consideration when generating the curve to match whatever process one is printing in. Does one want to the curve to mimic film...or go a different path?

I find the most difficult part to be judging an image on the screen as a transmitted light image...compared to the final print which will be a reflected light image.

Most likely one will not be able to see significant difference between the best inkjet and film negative made prints via a computer screen.

 

[Chan Tran]

While I do keep my work film-to-print, many do find that going digital-to-alt.print to be a satisfying way to work...making something solid with one's hands. That is where an issue may arise in that the digital image capture itself may not (does not) record light the same way as film, and when making the file for the negative, taking that into consideration when generating the curve to match whatever process one is printing in. Does one want to the curve to mimic film...or go a different path?

I find the most difficult part to be judging an image on the screen as a transmitted light image...compared to the final print which will be a reflected light image.

Most likely one will not be able to see significant difference between the best inkjet and film negative made prints via a computer screen.

If I want to print a digital image on real photographic paper I can without having to go the digital negative. Something like the DeVere enlarger would do or some of the Fuji or Noritsu printers that use laser to expose photographic paper.

 

[Vaughn]

If I want to print a digital image on real photographic paper I can without having to go the digital negative. Something like the DeVere enlarger would do or some of the Fuji or Noritsu printers that use laser to expose photographic paper.

In that case, one is creating a curve for the digital file that will match the response of the photopaper. No difference in approach. One is still creating a digital 'negative' of sorts...it is a virtual one instead of a physical one. And of course the design requirements are quite different between contact printing with UV light and enlarging onto standard silver gelatin paper using lasers.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Wouldn't paper be the limiting factor in determining the sharpness of the print (except carbon prints) and not whether the negative was analog or digital?

:Niranjan.

Yes, I think so. At least to some extent. I often used good old Kodabromide and ferrotyped it to produce the standard glossy print. Sharper than a matte surface.

 

[Chan Tran]

In that case, one is creating a curve for the digital file that will match the response of the photopaper. No difference in approach. One is still creating a digital 'negative' of sorts...it is a virtual one instead of a physical one. And of course the design requirements are quite different between contact printing with UV light and enlarging onto standard silver gelatin paper using lasers.

Yes I am not against the digital negative because of response curve different. I don't like the idea of printing the negative via inkjet printer. The inkjet printer really can't print continuous tone image it has to use a group of dots to simulate different density.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Yes I am not against the digital negative because of response curve different. I don't like the idea of printing the negative via inkjet printer. The inkjet printer really can't print continuous tone image it has to use a group of dots to simulate different density.

That doesn't make sense, does it? Film emulsion is not continuous either.

Recently bought the book, Digital Negatives with QuadToneRip by Ron Reeder and Christina Anderson where Epson print drivers are controlled, each nozzle independently, to achieve very fine negatives for alternative processes.

 

[Robert Maxey]

Yes I am not against the digital negative because of response curve different. I don't like the idea of printing the negative via inkjet printer. The inkjet printer really can't print continuous tone image it has to use a group of dots to simulate different density.

The more I look at alternative techniques, digital negatives and such, the more I realize that it will not be too long before I can make negatives of sufficient quality. What I want to do demands high resolution and sharpness. I can get it with film but that is problematic (no more required film).

Even looking at what the old folks did with certain techniques is changing my mind. I found a site about the Woodburytype that showed examples. All you need is a dichromate sensitizer, some gelatin a few pigments, a negative a big sheet of flat lead plate and a 5,000 pound press..

I am starting to feel better about this whole digital negative thing.

Bob

 

[Vaughn]

Skip the lead plate and the press and stick with just carbon prints. But don't forget the sugar (or honey) in the gelatin...or else the gelatin with crack when dry.