Digit. camera adequate for dig. negatives?

The Digital Negatives book by Reeder and Hinkel show many examples of negatives enlarged via 4 X 5 sheet film. Is the sheet film the preferred method for making negatives? I have a sony a100 that I had hoped to use for this process. I would like to make some decent 11 X14 prints starting mostly with silver, cyanotype and later try palladium. Any input is greatly appreciated.

- MichaelJoe

A digital camera is perfectly fine as a source for digital negatives.

Sheet film can create huge files when scanned, giving you high resolution at larger sizes which can be advantageous for those requiring it. Many original alternative printers in the past used large banquet cameras in ultra-large format style, and the large negative was perfect for alt methods using contact printing.

As you have probably seen, there is a large learning curve associated with digital negatives, let alone all the individual processes you can use them with, but with time and dedication you can achieve great results.

MichaelJoe said:

The Digital Negatives book by Reeder and Hinkel show many examples of negatives enlarged via 4 X 5 sheet film. Is the sheet film the preferred method for making negatives? I have a sony a100 that I had hoped to use for this process. I would like to make some decent 11 X14 prints starting mostly with silver, cyanotype and later try palladium. Any input is greatly appreciated.

- MichaelJoe

Click to expand...

Michael-- My rule of thumb is this: If your digital camera is capable of giving you prints from an inkjet printer that you like, then the same camera can be used to make digital negatives that will also make prints in cyanotype, palladium, etc, that you will like. I tend to shoot most things with 4x5 because I normally make digital negs that are about 16x20 inches in size. And I often crop heavily from the original neg. And I just like the discipline of composing images on the ground glass with a view camera. But for a print size of 11x14, using a 4x5 is probably overkill. Lately I have been using a medium format camera (Mamiya II) for image capture and to tell the truth, 16x20 digital negs made from that film size look just as good to me as ones made from a 4x5 neg. If I were you I would just start making images with whatever camera you happen to have. Eventually you will have to decide for yourself if you are getting the quality you require.

Cheers, Ron Reeder

I had a guy in my Yosemite workshop in November who made a couple of small digital negs and pt/pd prints from iPhone pix. I use a Canon 5D and have made digital negs up to 16x24 that work very well.

I get good result with my 2mb cell phone for small tricolor gum to my LX3 for 11x14

I think digital negs from digital capture has a huge potential. I love Kerik's story about iPhone negs. I can just see a gallery filled with small Pt/Pd prints of typical, spontaneous, ill conceived (from a photo club perspective) iPhone images. I don't say this derisively, I do think it would be cool.

Super help! I agree with PVia that I have a lot in front of me but your advice and previous posts will be a great compass.

Thanks to all! - MichaelJoe

I have a Nikon D100, 6 mp dslr, and have no problem at all with size.

The most important is the postprocessing in photoshop when you make the digital negative...

I have made fine fluid emulsion and cyanotype from small files too..

There is something joyfully inappropriate about making perfectly lovely palladium prints from a little digicam !

df cardwell said:

There is something joyfully inappropriate about making perfectly lovely palladium prints from a little digicam !

Click to expand...

Don,

How is that? The print has no knowledge of how the image came into existence.

Don Bryant

Don,
I think the point is that it would be somewhat ironic and or irreverent to make a palladium print from a little digicam or iPhone. There would also be an interesting disconnect -- our brains expect to see the digi snap in our email or on a blog not in palladium. There is also an aesthetic ethos that tends to permeate images done with traditional methods. As an example you don't see pop culture depicted on wetplate, but you see plenty of traditional subjects. This gets back to the irony/irreverence.

Does 2008 senior prom count as pop culture:

Dead Link Removed

Maybe, but I think this image counts as an excellent use of the tools and medium with out regard for anything extraneous to creating a good image. The image kicks ass. You and a few others tend to be the exception to the rule with regard to using traditional processes. Mark Osterman also does some 'fresh' stuff with wetplate.

I use the Canon 5D, one of the Full-Frame sensors from canon (nikon has a few out now too) and it is far and away better for this than most other DSLR's out there. If you are looking into a new camera for this, i would Highly recommend a Full-Frame Sensor camera! I am printing negs at 12x15 and they are crystal clear and beautiful. I haven't tried larger but i plan on testing 20x24 sometime this summer when i get access to a larger printer. But the 1/3 frame sensor cameras out there seem to just lack a bit if going larger than 8x10 in my mind. Hope that helps...

I am using an APS size sensor 50D and am very happy with prints up to 12X18" in size. After buying the 50D I had a chance to do some comparison testing of the 50D and 5D (the 12mp one) and find the results to be about equal. The 50D produced more resolution but the 5D has less noise.

Regardless, to make a really good 12X18" print from either camera requires a fair amount of post-capture processing in Photoshop, especially sharpening and image smoothing. Compared to film, raw digital capture from both of these cameras have a rough look that I find unpleasant compared to MF or LF film camera. I am talking about grayscale images, not color.

Sandy

clintwb said:

I use the Canon 5D, one of the Full-Frame sensors from canon (nikon has a few out now too) and it is far and away better for this than most other DSLR's out there. If you are looking into a new camera for this, i would Highly recommend a Full-Frame Sensor camera! I am printing negs at 12x15 and they are crystal clear and beautiful. I haven't tried larger but i plan on testing 20x24 sometime this summer when i get access to a larger printer. But the 1/3 frame sensor cameras out there seem to just lack a bit if going larger than 8x10 in my mind. Hope that helps...

Click to expand...

Don Bryant said:

Don,

How is that? The print has no knowledge of how the image came into existence.

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

After busting my butt, for 37 years, hauling around an 8x10 view camera to make a platinum print, today I can use a digicam - and DO - to make pleasing snaps - in platinum. And when I say 'pleasing snaps', what I really mean is 'thoroughly wonderful and pleasing prints'.

I still shoot the Deardorff - for fun - but when I want to make plats of a nice sunrise, I just have to step into the wellies and put the camera in my pocket. I like that.

Maybe we're on the same side of the issue: I've never been happy with the sanctimonious attitude about certain kinds of picture taking. I'm just having as much fun making plats as I had when I was 10 and running around with a Brownie.

Yuo know, it all depends on what you're looking for and what your style is. I have Canon's first dSLR, the D30, a 3mp pioneer. I use it with great glass whenever I want to use digital and it is great up to 11x14 in a lightjet print.

Lately I looked over a bunch of raw files taken in 2002, when it was my only camera, just before I went over to film for most of my work. I found a few I liked, converted in 16-bit and made negs on a 3800 to print in palladium in 9x11.5 image size. Absolutely beautiful and perfect for pt/pd...the "boathouse" image and "black bird" in the gallery are two examples...