Digital negative quality

I know this is a loaded and open ended question, but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size? I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances. The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.

Thanks,
Tim

timbo10ca said:

I know this is a loaded and open ended question, but I was wondering if digital negs are approaching the quality found in in-camera negatives. Obviously neg quality increases with scan quality and printer quality, but is it reasonable to expect to enlarge a 4x5 or 5x7 in-camera neg to 8x10, 11x14, 16x20 using a consumer flatbed scanner (e.g. Epson V750) and printed on a consumer printer (e.g. Epson 3800) and get a print that is difficult to distinguish from one made with an in- camera neg of equal size? I know in-camera is better, and it depends on the process/paper nap as far as quality goes for grain and image sharpness, but I'm just wondering if today's technology is getting close for normal viewing distances. The reason I ask is that I'm at a point where I would consider an 8x10 camera for a larger contact print, but going the digital enlargement route would be of similar price and much more versatile for my photography in general. I currently have a 5x7 camera with an additional 4x5 reducing back and contact print on traditional silver and also am doing Ziatype.

Thanks,
Tim

Click to expand...

The simple answer IMO, is yes for alternative process prints. No for contact prints on gelatin silver.

Don Bryant

timbo10ca said:

I know this is a loaded and open ended question, but I was wondering -----

Thanks,
Tim

Click to expand...

Tim-- Hooo Boy! that really is a loaded and open ended question. I completely agree with Don that for the matte surface processes (platinum/palladium, cyanotype, etc) we have already arrived. For silver gelatin, you may end up having to trust your own eyeballs. The combination of optimal ink usage in QTR (we are still working on what exactly "optimal" usage might be) plus the remarkably smooth printing heads on printers like the Epson 3800 and its generation, are getting very close, even on silver gelatin.

On my website (www.ronreeder.com) I have posted a QTR profile (for the 3800) which makes negs which to my eye (and several experts I have shown them to) make prints that look just like normal silver gelatin contact prints -- except that there is some notioceable graininess in areas of smooth high tone. Pretty close, maybe not quite there yet.

I have also posted a QTR profile for AZO paper printing which guru Sandy King has pronounced looks like "16x20 enlargements from a Tmax 100 4x5 neg". Later posts suggest that he is now finding them a bit grainy, but there is hope of curing that with intelligent ink usage.

I frankly think that the future is in digital negs and you ought to just dive in and learn how to make the best possible ones and be part of helping work out how to make them perfect.

I also think you can achieve excellent results with a consumer scanner like the V700 if you develop your negs to a lower contrast range that fits what the scanner can handle.

But, then, I am clearly biased. Cheers, and good luck. Ron Reeder

Thanks to you both. I see that it makes most sense for me to go digital for this sort of thing, and color. I'll enjoy my 35mm and MF enlargements, and 5x7 contact prints in the wet darkroom.

Tim

Ron,

My comments about grain were meant to apply only to carbon, not AZO or other silver gelatin papers. The AZO prints have very fine grain, about as you describe, what one would expect from a 4X5 negative enlarged to 16X20. Not as fine as a in-camera negative that is contact printed, but about what one would expect from any LF film printed by projection in an enlarger.

Why more grain with carbon? I don't know, but hope to find out. The curious thing is that I am printing AZO with UV light, just as I print carbon?

Sandy

Ron-san said:

Tim--
I have also posted a QTR profile for AZO paper printing which guru Sandy King has pronounced looks like "16x20 enlargements from a Tmax 100 4x5 neg". Later posts suggest that he is now finding them a bit grainy, but there is hope of curing that with intelligent ink usage.

Click to expand...

To what Don said, yes for alternative process prints, no for contact prints on silver gelatin from original in-camera negatives, and maybe/probably if the comparison is enlarged silver gelatin prints of 2X - 4X from 4X5 or 5X7 negatives versus prints made from the same negatives, scanned and made to digital negatives of the same size.

Sandy King

Don Bryant said:

The simple answer IMO, is yes for alternative process prints. No for contact prints on gelatin silver.

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

sanking said:

Ron,

My comments about grain were meant to apply only to carbon, not AZO or other silver gelatin papers. The AZO prints have very fine grain, about as you describe, what one would expect from a 4X5 negative enlarged to 16X20. Not as fine as a in-camera negative that is contact printed, but about what one would expect from any LF film printed by projection in an enlarger.

Why more grain with carbon? I don't know, but hope to find out. The curious thing is that I am printing AZO with UV light, just as I print carbon?

Sandy

Click to expand...

Whoops! Sorry Sandy for the garbled quote. A case of irrational exuberance. Cheers, Ron Reeder

Sandy,

what one would expect from a 4X5 negative enlarged to 16X20.

Click to expand...

I would say that this hasn't been my experience with optically enlarged prints from a 4x5 negative. Using a diffusion enlarger will prooduce virtually grain free prints (even when viewed at close print sniffing distances) enlarged to 16x20.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

Don,

I said that the AZO prints from a digital negative made on the 3800 have very fine grain. How is that different from what you describe as "virtually grain free." I see the two descriptors as qualitatively about the same.

At this point I am not printing any more with LF negatives, but I would describe the grain from the TRI-X 320 and T-MAX 400 negatives that I printed in the past as "very fine."

Sandy

Don Bryant said:

Sandy,



I would say that this hasn't been my experience with optically enlarged prints from a 4x5 negative. Using a diffusion enlarger will prooduce virtually grain free prints (even when viewed at close print sniffing distances) enlarged to 16x20.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

Click to expand...