Difference between digital and analog negatives in alternative processes

[radiant]

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.

I liked this.

The fact is alternative processes makes difference to viewers and typically gives extra "wow" effect. It brings some unreality to this super reality life. I'm not pointing at pixel peeped digital files at all, oh no!

 

[Vaughn]

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

Missed this questions earlier. By scene selection/composition...working with the available light to create images that need no further dodging or burning when printed.

My exposure times when I was learning carbon printing were ending up in to 90 to 120 minute range. Not practical to burn, and dodging is not too much easier, so I started looking for images that did not need any. I found I much enjoyed working that way and I gained a great deal from in visually. This was after many years of enlarging 4x5 to 16x20 and having a great creative time burning and otherwise working with an image.

There are many things that give a sense of volume and space in an image. Atmospheric distance is an obvious one -- and one usually destroyed at least once or twice by most beginning film students by burning in the sky and far mountains too much...or perhaps over-use of a graduated filter. Local contrast also reduces visually with distance. Distance blacks are not so black as near ones. Sharpness also gets reduced visually over distance.

So when a digital printer start dialing up the local contrast, move black points around, globally sharpens the image -- without care or with too heavy of a hand -- all the clues our brains use to visually determine volume, depth...space...have been radically altered. It may just not look right.

Ossagon Creek, 2020
5x7, 180mm lens
Platinum/palladium print

 

[MattKing]

For those unable to justify a large format camera, digital negatives do create a practical path for accessing many of the traditional and alternative contact printing processes.
In-camera large format negatives are not, however, the only purely analog method of creating a traditional/alternative contact print. There do remain, a few materials that allow you to work in a darkroom and enlarge from a smaller original negative and create a larger negative for contact printing purposes.
Photo Warehouse used to be a good source for those materials, but there are other alternatives.

 

[radiant]

There do remain, a few materials that allow you to work in a darkroom and enlarge from a smaller original negative and create a larger negative for contact printing purposes.
Photo Warehouse used to be a good source for those materials, but there are other alternatives.

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.

 

[radiant]

.. what about enlarging on 8x10" glass, using liquid emulsion and reverse develop process (Adox Scala for example)?

 

[MattKing]

Do you mean lith film?

There also used to be materials that gave you an enlarged negative in one step - a direct positive approach.
They were used for duplicating X-rays.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Full disclosure, I'm biased towards film and I've made digital negatives. I print with both. You might find this article from The Light Farm interesting.
http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/DigitalNegatives/DigitalNegativesPart1.htm

 

[DMJ]

Full disclosure, I'm biased towards film and I've made digital negatives. I print with both. You might find this article from The Light Farm interesting.
http://www.thelightfarm.com/Map/DigitalNegatives/DigitalNegativesPart1.htm

Thank you for this source, very interesting indeed. I think it gives a good answer to my original question. The only problem with the "apples and apples" comparison is that the works were illuminated differently. The paper looks the same and there seems to be better resolution on the analog negative and increased sharpness on the digital. The resulting images are very different, not one being better or worse.

 

[ProfessorC1983]

I really wish that there would be easier way.

As always, depends on the meaning of "easier". I've modified my enlarger with a UV LED head to be able to make some alt prints directly from 6x6 negatives, but it's not perfect... difficult to even out the light, exposures are 30-40 minutes at least, requires significant modifications to dissipate the heat and avoid melting the negative, oh and the longer wavelengths (390-400nm) that are passed by the enlarging lens aren't compatible with all processes -- carbon in particular seems to need a much shorter wavelength than any of the lenses I've tried will transmit. Still, it's a start. My longer-term goal is to design an alt-process enlarging lens made from elements sold by Edmund Optics that are transparent down to 220nm, but seeing as I'm starting from zero knowledge of optical design that will likely take years to get right.

 

[grat]

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.

I love it when people claim one artificial facsimile is superior to another. Regardless of medium, you're not capturing photons-- you're capturing the effect of photons, and in the case of film, running it through a destructive chemical process, and then projecting it, usually through filters, onto another emulsion which is then processed through a second chemical process to alter it into an image-- a paper print is always at least three steps removed from the original image you captured.

With digital, you can, if you wish, produce a final viewable image in one analog -> digital translation step.

But neither is composed of the photons you saw when you took the original exposure.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Thank you for this source, very interesting indeed. I think it gives a good answer to my original question. The only problem with the "apples and apples" comparison is that the works were illuminated differently. The paper looks the same and there seems to be better resolution on the analog negative and increased sharpness on the digital. The resulting images are very different, not one being better or worse.

Digital negs at best are contact printed. They won't hold up when they're enlarged. I might be wrong on this, but the resolution of an analog negative is way higher than ink jet printed transparency film.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

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.

With any process, film, digital or otherwise, there is a learning curve to getting ones basics under control. Once you have those basics under control, it is easy to troubleshoot problems that while learning seemed insurmountable. Digital negatives, once you have the basics down, are equally dependable as film negatives. They do look different, but not better or worse, just different. I prefer the look of a print from a film negative, but I'm not unhappy with digital negatives now that I understand the basics and have the process basically under control. And as fgorga said, there are a lot of good reasons to make digital negatives, not the least of which is that if you screw it up by printing while your emulsion is still wet, or you drop it on the floor and step on it, or you trim into the image area while trying to remove excess "paper" from around the image, well, a replacement is just a few mouse clicks away.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I’m sure there is a learning curve. The problem with dng’s is that their curve is 90 degrees vertical and I’m not trying to climb that tower.

 

[Vaughn]

For alt photography workshops, digital negatives are heaven-sent (as long as the printer holds up during the workshop). Students submit their files, the instructor does his/her magic with them and outputs a set of negatives that will all print exactly the same time on the exact same materials -- and in theory, all the images will look like they did on the computer screens. Students do not even need to know how to make the negatives...and it certainly can not be fully taught in a day or two during an alt process workshop.

As an instructor, one can concentrate on just teaching the steps of the alt process, everyone gets prints to take home and is quite pleased, and then one drops out of heaven and the horror begins...troubleshooting computer/printer/software issues across different platforms, operating systems, and printers...with people with no advanced computer skills (like me).

I teach carbon printing using film negatives. I show what the process is, what it can do do and how to do the basics...including everything one would need to know to begin doing the testing required to produce digital negatives.

 

[FotoD]

Can't you just make an inkjet print on paper right away, if you have an inkjet printer and already have the image on the computer? I'm sure there's a platinum/cyanotype etc. plugin to download?

 

[radiant]

Can't you just make an inkjet print on paper right away, if you have an inkjet printer and already have the image on the computer? I'm sure there's a platinum/cyanotype etc. plugin to download?

You new here?

(..let me get my popcorns..)

 

[JWMster]

If the OP will allow, for those of us in a hybrid place without an enlarger but shooting film because we like shooting that way and the control it gives, I've thought of the scan-to-photoshop-to-digital-negative as essentially a digital enlarger that may (emphasis on "may") afford more control for those of us more familiar with digital editing (me). I shoot 4X5 and don't see switching to 10X14 or similar ULF film sizes in my lifetime (read this as very dangerous because every "never" I've ever said has always always always turned into something I do today), and so I wonder whether besides digital capture to digital negative - how many are actually following this path versus what sounds like a rare path... the one I'm on... where film remains the original but the digital negative just affords a flexible output size? And is it worth it to stick with film in my case, or is that just ridiculous?

 

[Andrew Patteson]

...shooting film because we like shooting that way and the control it gives [...] is it worth it to stick with film in my case, or is that just ridiculous?

This doesn't seem ridiculous to me, at all. I'm not working that way at the moment but I could see it making great sense at some point in the future, for a lot of reasons. Photograph with the equipment that makes you happy + print the way that makes you happy. Seems like a good thing to me.

 

[cliveh]

I love it when people claim one artificial facsimile is superior to another. Regardless of medium, you're not capturing photons-- you're capturing the effect of photons, and in the case of film, running it through a destructive chemical process, and then projecting it, usually through filters, onto another emulsion which is then processed through a second chemical process to alter it into an image-- a paper print is always at least three steps removed from the original image you captured.

With digital, you can, if you wish, produce a final viewable image in one analog -> digital translation step.

But neither is composed of the photons you saw when you took the original exposure.

I beg to differ, as digital has no physical integrity.

 

[radiant]

For alt photography workshops, digital negatives are heaven-sent (as long as the printer holds up during the workshop). Students submit their files, the instructor does his/her magic with them and outputs a set of negatives that will all print exactly the same time on the exact same materials ..

I think this is smart. If the purpose is to show how to make alternative prints, the course shouldn't begin with making negatives. That can be taught & learnt later. So many courses & lectures fail in this part. If making own negatives is so imporant that it should be learnt first, then arrange a pre-course only for that.

And what comes to learning alternative prints maybe a good way is to start with digital negatives. That way you learn what good negative should look like. It doesn't have to be a super perfect digital negative first at all.

If you are doing gallery prints I understand you need to have everthing dialed in. If you are doing this for fun, then most important thing is to have fun. Evertyhing else follows, if ever ..

 

[DMJ]

If the OP will allow, for those of us in a hybrid place without an enlarger but shooting film because we like shooting that way and the control it gives, I've thought of the scan-to-photoshop-to-digital-negative as essentially a digital enlarger that may (emphasis on "may") afford more control for those of us more familiar with digital editing (me). I shoot 4X5 and don't see switching to 10X14 or similar ULF film sizes in my lifetime (read this as very dangerous because every "never" I've ever said has always always always turned into something I do today), and so I wonder whether besides digital capture to digital negative - how many are actually following this path versus what sounds like a rare path... the one I'm on... where film remains the original but the digital negative just affords a flexible output size? And is it worth it to stick with film in my case, or is that just ridiculous?

Not ridiculous at all. I think it is a great way to work, at least it works for me. Moreover, for me it isn't about the capture, it is about creating an image. I shoot MF, 35mm, FF digital, APS-C and also with my phone. When I shoot film, if needed, I use photoshop to remove things that do not belong to my image or even add what is missing, then the digital negative becomes the original; the film and the camera are part of the apparatus. It doesn't matter if the image was created using electricity or not. I would like to see many of the "purists" work without the aid of any modern technology...

 

[cliveh]

I love it when people claim one artificial facsimile is superior to another. Regardless of medium, you're not capturing photons-- you're capturing the effect of photons, and in the case of film, running it through a destructive chemical process, and then projecting it, usually through filters, onto another emulsion which is then processed through a second chemical process to alter it into an image-- a paper print is always at least three steps removed from the original image you captured.

With digital, you can, if you wish, produce a final viewable image in one analog -> digital translation step.

But neither is composed of the photons you saw when you took the original exposure.

I beg to differ, with film you are allowing a physical/chemical reaction with those photons, not changing it to a series of ones and zeros.

 

[radiant]

Maybe we should always remember that film doesn't really have "tones". It is just less grain or more grain..

 

[FotoD]

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.

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?

I don't really think a digital photo, inkjet printed from a cyanotype-plugin for Lightroom would look much different than the real thing to most people. And the final result is definitely a non digital image.

I would like to see many of the "purists" work without the aid of any modern technology...

Me too!

 

[VinceInMT]

Regarding keeping in touch with the past, I've been mentoring/teaching my 16-year old neighbor film photography. Initially it was to get him through his badge for Eagle scout but lately with a project he is doing for his high school chemistry class. One day when he was leaving he turned and said "Thanks for passing on the tradition."