Digital Print onto film

Tim Stapp · Oct 10, 2016

I have a 16x20 digital print that I would like the ability to print optically. Any suggestions on how to photograph on 4x5?

My thought was to put the print on an easel and just shoot it, but am open to suggestions.

BTW, the print is a B&W print already, I'll want it to remain B&W.

Leigh B · Oct 10, 2016

Copying tends to increase contrast and turn the image into "chalk on a blackboard".

That's because the highlights and shadows of the subject were originally compressed to the film.
Then those were compressed further onto the print.

When you make a film copy, those areas are further compressed, then compressed again when you print.

This is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that photographic emulsions are not linear translators.

- Leigh

greg zinselmeier · Oct 10, 2016

I thought ( this is,. . .way back when. . . . . . 2000 circa) you would make a Lambda print from your file. I can not imagine, you should or could expect to get quality from photographing ( continuous tone) from a digital output print? But who knows . . . . . . Maybe I'm not qualified to answer this question. ??????????

Ian Grant · Oct 10, 2016

Do we assume this isn't one of your own images.

It's easy to copy without losing quailty, total control of contrast if you know what you're doing. You can rephotograph onto film or send the file of digital to a company who can output as a ngative dr%bfor instance.

Ian

Tim Stapp · Oct 10, 2016

Yes, this is one of my own images. I shot it many moons ago when I was starting out in digital. I have converted it to black and white and had it printed and mounted. I love the print and would like to reproduce it in my own darkroom as opposed to having it digitally printed perpetuity. Suffice it to say, I wish that I had been shooting film when I shot it originally.

I'm one of those rare individuals that has gone from primarily shooting digital to film.

When I shoot "for profit", I shoot digital. For me, I shoot film, primarily 4x5.

cowanw · Oct 10, 2016

Well one thing you can do is have Bob Carnie take your digital file and print a Lambda film negative from It.
If you are into alternative processes, you can take a digital image of your picture and print a digital negative, works very well for no silver gelatine processes.
You have bypassed the first two of Leigh's concerns. I expect a 4x5 negative exposed and developed to taste (with testing or multiple tries)can largely avoid the rest of the objections.
However I do think that the film print will never be quite the same as the digital print and vice versa.

Tim Stapp · Oct 10, 2016

Thank you for the responses all.

Bill, I agree that the film print would probably not be as good as the original digital print. Thank you as well for the suggestion re. contacting Bob Carnie for a Lambda negative. I'm not sure where I bypassed any of Leigh's concerns??? Care to elaborate? I'm only looking to duplicate this photo onto silver gelatin vs. keeping it digital...

Leigh, thank you for your comments. I may just play around with it before contacting Bob Carnie re. a Lamda negative.

ced · Oct 11, 2016

I think even & flat lighting and avoiding reflections will be the main issue.
The copy can be pretty good I guess via a few different exposures till you nail the correct gradations.

Bob Carnie · Oct 11, 2016

Tim Stapp said:
Thank you for the responses all.

Bill, I agree that the film print would probably not be as good as the original digital print. Thank you as well for the suggestion re. contacting Bob Carnie for a Lambda negative. I'm not sure where I bypassed any of Leigh's concerns??? Care to elaborate? I'm only looking to duplicate this photo onto silver gelatin vs. keeping it digital...

Leigh, thank you for your comments. I may just play around with it before contacting Bob Carnie re. a Lamda negative.

Hi Tim and others

I am starting this exact service for wet silver printers who are using digital capture, I have made many negatives from digital files, at this moment I am in the process
of securing film in large rolls and will then offer this for Alternative and Silver.

I have used an ortho film with my Lambda and can make up to 28 inches 40 inches silver film for contact printing.
My film is for size as contact and not for projection.
For projection you would make a LVT negative like Salgado does and then print on your paper.

I like my method as it gives a direct contact from the file data rather than a secondary magnification and optics..

But with that said I have seen some amazing prints done using the LVT process.

Ian Grant · Oct 11, 2016

Tim Stapp said:
Yes, this is one of my own images. I shot it many moons ago when I was starting out in digital. I have converted it to black and white and had it printed and mounted. I love the print and would like to reproduce it in my own darkroom as opposed to having it digitally printed perpetuity. Suffice it to say, I wish that I had been shooting film when I shot it originally.

I'm one of those rare individuals that has gone from primarily shooting digital to film.

When I shoot "for profit", I shoot digital. For me, I shoot film, primarily 4x5.

Dr5 can make a 5x4 negative for you. He's just moved I think, it would be better than re-photographing a print.

Ian

DREW WILEY · Oct 11, 2016

It's easy if you have a suitable copy station, or even if you have soft even light outdoors long enough. You want a sheet film with reasonably long
scale like TMax or FP4, then develop it slightly soft so that the extremes don't blow out. The limited reflective contrast range of most digital prints
shouldn't cause an issue, though actual shine of glossy inks needs to be tamed with cross-polarizing, which indeed throws a monkey wrench into
overall duplicate contrast. There are obviously scanning and film recorder options out there too. But I'd agree, that for the very highest quality work,
re-photographing a print always leaves a little something to be desired.

Andrew O'Neill · Oct 11, 2016

I shot a small photograph of my Grandmother onto 4x5 tmax 100, developed in pyrocat-hd. I was shocked at how the resulting print came out when compared to the original. Low contrast is the key.

Leigh B · Oct 11, 2016

Andrew O'Neill said:
I was shocked at how the resulting print came out when compared to the original.

You realize that statement can be interpreted two totally different ways, right???

Perhaps a bit longer description is in order.

- Leigh

M Carter · Oct 14, 2016

I've had good success photographing bromoil prints to reproduce them. You need a good copy setup (softboxes or diffuse light, like strobes though hanging ripstop nylon). The light needs to be even, so if it's a large print, you may need 2 lights on each side, or tall striplight softboxes. (I shoot a lot of paintings for artist websites).

To check for even illumination, meter with an incident meter all around the art work. To check for reflections, put something dark and shiny over the art, or a framed print with glass. Use a DSLR to dial it in if possible. I shoot with ilford Pan-F plus - if the neg is MF, I do two brackets back and forth til the end of the roll, cut off a few frames and develop those to check for contrast and highlight strength. Sometimes you need to pull or push a bit to dial it in. With sheet film, this is easier, and to save even more $$ I'll mask off half the rear standard with black cardboard, shoot, rotate the rear standard 180°, adjust bracketing and shoot again.

This is a standard copy setup for even lighting -

calebarchie · Oct 14, 2016

Bob Carnies process has additional unnecessary steps IMO. If only doing silver why not expose paper directly in the machine. More steps = further degrade in quality. It makes sense if doing alt process but there are other ways, maybe if you could dodge/burn but it is only contact printing. The only other thing I can think of is ra-4 contact printing but again said doing ortho film. Just not seeing the point of the extra steps and expense unfortunately.

Bob Carnie · Oct 14, 2016

calebarchie said:
Bob Carnies process has additional unnecessary steps IMO. If only doing silver why not expose paper directly in the machine. More steps = further degrade in quality. It makes sense if doing alt process but there are other ways, maybe if you could dodge/burn but it is only contact printing. The only other thing I can think of is ra-4 contact printing but again said doing ortho film. Just not seeing the point of the extra steps and expense unfortunately.

If all you have is a digital camera but want a silver print my method is pretty good, I also expose directly to silver paper. the digital negative allows for people to use any paper, any developers of choice.

calebarchie · Oct 14, 2016

Bob Carnie said:
If all you have is a digital camera but want a silver print my method is pretty good, I also expose directly to silver paper. the digital negative allows for people to use any paper, any developers of choice.

I tried that for a bit with a film recorder and found the extra steps a hassle but I suppose it it can give the artists more options for the sake of it.

Bob Carnie · Oct 14, 2016

Yes a film recorder is something many people have used, the difference from my process is my negs are SA and Contact printed, wheras the film recorder negatives have to go through optics on the enlarger to make the print. There is quite a visual difference. I have printed a lot
of film recorder negatives and positives n my time and the second generation thing bothers me as well.

Kirks518 · Oct 14, 2016

This is beyond my scope of knowledge, but wouldn't printing to a transparency be one good possible way to go, ie, a digital negative? Pictorico transparency paper is made for this application (and others) isn't it? You would print an inverted print on the transparency, then you can contact print that.

This may actually be what's being discussed above, but I don't know what an LVT is.

calebarchie · Oct 14, 2016

Kirks518 said:
This is beyond my scope of knowledge, but wouldn't printing to a transparency be one good possible way to go, ie, a digital negative? Pictorico transparency paper is made for this application (and others) isn't it? You would print an inverted print on the transparency, then you can contact print that.

This may actually be what's being discussed above, but I don't know what an LVT is.

Just different forms of internegatives. LVT (Light Valve Technology) film recorders are essentially drum scanners in reverse and expose film/paper in continuous tone. LVT is high-end whereas most others are CRT based in varying resolutions (4K, 8K, 16K etc) in mainly smaller formats. Bob is putting film through his lambda machine that is used for making c-prints, it operates in print size resolutions hence contact print only as opposed to LVT which can be either enlarged or contacted. Inkjet on transparency is yet another form of this being more accessible and used mostly for alt process.

Digital Print onto film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency