Difference between digital and analog negatives in alternative processes

Vaughn said:

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.

Click to expand...

I intend to. Lets see: sugar, possibly honey and gelatin. Add some good bourbon and like I say, Always room for Jello!

Seriously, got enough on my plate with matrix film.

Bob

MurrayMinchin said:

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.

Click to expand...

not but much finer than inkjet print resolution.

Chan Tran said:

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.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but the discussion here is about alternative process prints. Would there be a noticeable difference on hand coated watercolour papers, or papers made for Pt/Pd, as long as the alternative process prints were done to a high standard?

MurrayMinchin said:

Maybe, but the discussion here is about alternative process prints. Would there be a noticeable difference on hand coated watercolour papers, or papers made for Pt/Pd, as long as the alternative process prints were done to a high standard?

Click to expand...

I would say no, not at all. Especially since many of those processes are lower resolution than silver gelatin emulsions anyway. You are NOT going to notice a loss with gum bichromate, for example, which has not only a compressed contrast range but also very low resolution due to the size of pigment grains vs silver or other metal salt grains. Poorly executed, you might see a difference with a collodio-chloride print or an albumen print, but again, it would require a poorly prepared digital negative from a bad original (scan, lo-res digital file, etc). I've been doing a major project going back through my archives and making digital negatives for palladium prints and they're every bit as good as film originals.

TheFlyingCamera said:

I would say no, not at all. Especially since many of those processes are lower resolution than silver gelatin emulsions anyway. You are NOT going to notice a loss with gum bichromate, for example, which has not only a compressed contrast range but also very low resolution due to the size of pigment grains vs silver or other metal salt grains. Poorly executed, you might see a difference with a collodio-chloride print or an albumen print, but again, it would require a poorly prepared digital negative from a bad original (scan, lo-res digital file, etc). I've been doing a major project going back through my archives and making digital negatives for palladium prints and they're every bit as good as film originals.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's my point.

My suspicions are that there is not much of a difference (when done well on capable printers) and that's why photographers with multiple decades of experience in Pt/Pd like Arentz have started using digital cameras in addition to LF cameras.

MurrayMinchin said:

Yes, that's my point.

My suspicions are that there is not much of a difference (when done well on capable printers) and that's why photographers with multiple decades of experience in Pt/Pd like Arentz have started using digital cameras in addition to LF cameras.

Click to expand...

SOME of that is due to the fact that folks like Dick Arentz and Sandy King are in their 80s and can't haul around a view camera any more. But some of it is definitely due to the possibilities of the technique. When Sandy was still shooting medium format film he would aim for a low-contrast negative, scan, and tweak as required for the process. Now he's using a digital camera and skipping that step. I'm sure he would not be doing it if he were dissatisfied with the results he gets.

TheFlyingCamera said:

SOME of that is due to the fact that folks like Dick Arentz and Sandy King are in their 80s and can't haul around a view camera any more. But some of it is definitely due to the possibilities of the technique. When Sandy was still shooting medium format film he would aim for a low-contrast negative, scan, and tweak as required for the process. Now he's using a digital camera and skipping that step. I'm sure he would not be doing it if he were dissatisfied with the results he gets.

Click to expand...

I'm 60 now, so get your point regarding weight...especially while hiking in winter when the pack is heavy enough before adding camera gear!

TheFlyingCamera said:

... I'm sure he would not be doing it if he were dissatisfied with the results he gets.

Click to expand...

His degree of control over the inkjet negative is such that the native response curve of film and films' other 'unique' qualities are no longer relavent in his carbon work. A massive amount of hours and testing...and sharing the results. The prints will look the way he wants them to. I have handled many of them...large prints with no noticeable digital artifacts from software nor from the printing of the inkjet -- from a nose-to-the glass distance (with proper vision, of course.). Some of his images do have that 'digital' look -- in other words, non-film qualities that might be able to be done with film with excellent printing and masking skills, but usually never taken that far. For example, increased contrast in the shadows, sharpness that exceeds one's expectations a little and so forth. But what he wants.

My workshop-teaching partner and I work with in-camera negatives directly to make carbon prints. We, though, are limited by the characteristics of the camera/lens/film and the carbon process...which still create a broad world of possibilities with no limit to creativity. Sharpness is controlled at the lens-film end of things.

I've probably developed over 10,000 rolls of film in my life and feel I have nothing to prove in that regard. I get better pictures shooting digitally, though I also like and use the 4x5. In my younger years I turned up my nose at auto focus, auto exposure, and motorized film advance, I'm much less of a purist now.
As for film vs digital negatives, 1) I want to print bigger than 4x5, which is the largest film size I have, and 2) at least for kallitypes, a correct curve looks nothing like a film negative's toe and shoulder. Here's what I mean: