Film negative from Digital file for enlarging not contact printing

Hi,
Recently I've heard of two famous photographer who are have high quality film negatives made from their digital files. These negatives are for enlarging onto regular silver paper, not for contact printing.
This involves some type of "film recorder" for writing to film. In my efforts to learn more about this I have found there are two types of recorders - CRT and LVT. My understanding is the LVT is the better quality. The LVT recorders apparently require a large file size, 180mb or greater to come close to filling up a 4x5 sheet of film. None of my files from 35mm digital are even close to this and my older modest medium format back makes 100mb files.
I can find places online that do seem to offer enlarged negs from digital files but only for contact printing.
So does anyone know how this is done or where I might get it done - turn my digital file into a film negative that I can enlarge onto silver paper. The lab dr5 online that is based in Colorado did not have much belief in this path, saying that digital is digital and film is film so don't try and mix the two.
Any thoughts?

Thanks!!

Robert

RKNewcomb said:

Hi, The lab dr5 online that is based in Colorado did not have much belief in this path, saying that digital is digital and film is film so don't try and mix the two.
Any thoughts?

Thanks!!

Robert

Click to expand...

|That's BS. They must have a business reason(fear of competition) to discredit this path.atleast digital negatives for contact printing work extremelywell.

If you can find someone with a highend film recorder (crt based solitaire 16 or laser based LVT system) you can produce a digital negative that can be used for enlarging/projection. The best of them will produce an image that has a resolution of ~4k samples per inch. The resulting image will be about 1/2 as good as what would have been produced on the given format under traditional methods. 35mm comes out very 'grainy' because the devices are limited in resolution at that size (Solitaire is ~2k @ 35mm, but there could be others) or unavailable (I am not familiar with an LVT that outputs to 35mm), MF (generally imaged unto 70mm) is fairly smooth and probably the optimal size for projection/enlargement, but IMHO effective enlargement capabilities are about half what you'd expect. If you need to use a traditional process from a digital file find someone with a film recorder -- to my knowledge they have not been made since about 2000 (or earlier).

I am curious about this process and the need for it -why not just shoot film instead? (even those accomplished photogs?)
To me, it seems that if you are going to take the trouble to shoot digitally then have a negative made for prints, why not just shoot film -slide or negative?
I dont understand the need for duplication

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

analoguey said:

I am curious about this process and the need for it -why not just shoot film instead? (even those accomplished photogs?)
To me, it seems that if you are going to take the trouble to shoot digitally then have a negative made for prints, why not just shoot film -slide or negative?
I dont understand the need for duplication

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Advantages I see are:
- ability to correct the image digitally, yet still print on analog materials
- no film to manage while traveling
- no need to change film every 1, 12 or 36 shots
- higher resolution from a smaller camera - the D800E is approximately the equal to a 6x9 camera in resolution, and the high end digital backs are approaching 4x5 quality.
- better low light performance

Plus if you are having someone else do the printing work for you, getting a negative made isn't that expensive compared to the total cost of a large print run. And for the photographer it's not any harder, and may give them more control since they can tweak the images on the computer, where as they may not have darkroom skills.

Out put to film gives you a human readable, physical artifact.

L Gebhardt said:

Advantages I see are:
- ability to correct the image digitally, yet still print on analog materials
- no film to manage while traveling
- no need to change film every 1, 12 or 36 shots
- higher resolution from a smaller camera - the D800E is approximately the equal to a 6x9 camera in resolution, and the high end digital backs are approaching 4x5 quality.
- better low light performance

Plus if you are having someone else do the printing work for you, getting a negative made isn't that expensive compared to the total cost of a large print run. And for the photographer it's not any harder, and may give them more control since they can tweak the images on the computer, where as they may not have darkroom skills.

Click to expand...

So if I make a digital negative and then a chemical negative, I have to

1. Archive the chemical negative
2. Be aware of what loss in quality OR change in characteristic the film negative has
3. Know enough darkroom skills to be actually able to make corrections on a monitor for print.

I honestly dont see the advantage here? I can understand when one does the film to scan to print, ones getting or trying to get film like print quality, but what's really happening in this digital to analog process - it boggles me. Is it trying to achieve a digitally shot kind of look on print?

The advantages you list above make me feel that it's better to just go out n print digitally too, really?

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

jd callow said:

Out put to film gives you a human readable, physical artifact.

Click to expand...

So you're saying it's a backup medium? Archival?

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

analoguey said:

I honestly dont see the advantage here? I can understand when one does the film to scan to print, ones getting or trying to get film like print quality, but what's really happening in this digital to analog process - it boggles me. Is it trying to achieve a digitally shot kind of look on print?

Click to expand...

Whatever reasons you may have to create an enlargement on photosensitive paper and the ability to shoot without the burden of carrying film are reasons for creating a neg from a digital file. In addition to those reasons you are left with a human readable, physical artifact that has greater archival value than a digital file. It could be that the shooter has very good darkroom skills, likes each print to be different than the last, enjoys the darkroom process. The advantages are probably more qualitative than quantitative. The image will suffer generational loss (may be less sharp, have a more limited gamut, and other issues), but the resulting image and process may have advantages.

To shoot digital, convert to neg and print traditionally is something that would be idiosyncratic, not demonstratively better.

jd callow said:

To shoot digital, convert to neg and print traditionally is something that would be idiosyncratic, not demonstratively better.

Click to expand...

Aye! That was what I was thinking and hence probably the lengthy questionnaire!

I guess I kinda was going on like the commercial scanners here asking me what size I'll print my photo when asked for scanning resolution


Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

BTW, the only reason I mentioned the "two famous photographers" above was to point out that this can be done. To explain why or anyone else would want to do this instead of just shooting film is a very long and complicated personal answer.
What I have found is that these film recorders do seem to be older and run by now obsolete computers.
If the results are "The resulting image will be about 1/2 as good as what would have been produced on the given format under traditional methods. 35mm comes out very 'grainy' because the devices are limited in resolution at that size (Solitaire is ~2k @ 35mm," then is may not be worth trying to do.
We'll see...
Thanks for the help!!
Robert

analoguey said:

I am curious about this process and the need for it -why not just shoot film instead? (even those accomplished photogs?)
To me, it seems that if you are going to take the trouble to shoot digitally then have a negative made for prints, why not just shoot film -slide or negative?
I dont understand the need for duplication

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

because you cannot get a better print than a wet FB silver print.the digital bottle neck is the output quality.

small images onto transparencies to enlarge in darkroom? Thank you!!!

Hi!
I took photo 1 class last year at my school, and I loved using the darkroom! I don't have that many skills, but I wanted to experiment by trying to use transparencies instead of normal negatives. Would this plan work?
1) make the colored digital image negative
2) re-size the digital image to the same size that a normal negative would be, and line them up into rows of 4
3) print them out onto a transparency (the kind used for a school/work overhead)
4) cut the groups of 4 out into a strip like how normal negatives usually are
5) enlarge them in the darkroom like you would a normal negative
*I believe my school uses Ilford silver gelatin paper, not sure if that changes anything, but just an FYI

Do you suggest I do something else? My budget is kinda tight right now so please nothing too pricey if possible. I'm still learning about all this stuff, so I'm sorry if somebody already explained this earlier (my photography lingo is still pretty bad), but I really appreciate the help, thank you!