Forgive me if this sounds 'newbie' since I am one to this place...

Hello all,

I am new here, though I have been shooting a looooong time. I am going to give a brief description of what I currently do and what I want to do, and I would love some feedback as to its feasability...

I shoot 35mm black and white film, process it myself and scan my negs. Put them in PS and do some basic manipulations: brightness/contrast, crop, resize, etc. I have been printing on Epson printers for a couple of years. The appearance of the prints are fine, most are done on Hahnemuhle bamboo paper.

However, I am concerned about the archivability factor and the collectability factor. All my work is done for artistic reasons, meaning that I don't do work for others and I only seek to please myself, so serendipity and 'the accident' are fine, although I want my works to LAST.

So I want to try printing on transparency film and contact printing onto traditional photo papers.

I should say that I was a pretty experienced darkroom guy, so I know my way around that, but can no longer use an enlarger. I also admit loving the idea of tweaking a pic in PS.

My concerns are mostly technical. Will I be able to produce a decent looking digital neg and make a nice print? I am scared by all the stuff I read regarding calibrating, differences in exposure between the neg and what I need to print, etc.

At this point I am just looking for some thoughts and I guess I should apologize, I said I would keep this short... ha

Also, I will post an image or 2 as soon as I can so y'all can see what my style is, and how 'precise' doesn't always enter into my vocabulary...

I think your premise that gelatin silver prints have a longer life than inkjet prints is up for debate -- current pigment inks on quality paper might equal or surpass traditionally processed silver prints, especially if you don't take great care in the wet darkroom to process archivally. Of course, if it's archival you are after, you could choose make carbon transfer or platinum/palladium prints in which case digital negatives are the way to go.

Learning to make quality digital negatives is not a simple task. Unless you are prepared to make the significant investment in time and energy, you may not be satisfied with the results. And you might discover that more hardware is required -- a densitometer, a dedicated film scanner and a vacuum frame if you are making large prints, and maybe even a printer upgrade. By all means, give it a try. You will know right away if this is a path you want to follow.

If you let us know what kind of printer you've been using, we can let you know whether a printer upgrade might be advisable or necessary. A single-black-ink printer will not likely produce images you are happy with. But a 3-black printer, like any of the Ultrachrome K3 printers, should do very well.

I disagree with Phil that "Learning to make quality digital negatives is not a simple task." It's not trivial, but if you're using ABW mode on an Epson printer you don't have to learn something like QTR, and if you have a reflection densitometer, then calculating the photoshop adjustment curve is pretty straightforward. There's a lot you don't have to learn...it sounds like you're familiar with B&W processing, and comfortable with basic photoshop manipulations.

I suggest you do some reading and try some things on your own, so you have a better idea of what questions to ask. There are plenty of people here who are willing to help. But keep in mind that "happy accidents" and "serendipity" don't really go with digital negatives. Without at least rudimentary calibration and measuring, you're more likely to find frustration than good prints.

Good luck...

--Greg

I do appreciate what I have read thus far. To 'summarize' my intentions, here they are...

I want to have my final prints on traditional photo paper. That is non-negotiable. I realize that a well made digital print is better than a poorly made wet print, but that isn't even an apples to oranges comparison, it's more like apples to volkswagens...

I grew up using a wet darkroom and I find it easier to 'sell' my work (and myself) to a collector when I tell them that their print is on traditional paper. Don't mean to offend anyone with that, it's just why I am here.

Now, my work is pretty artsy. And no, I don't want the serendipity and accidents in the creation of the digi neg, I use then when I shoot and when I print. I remember many a time something happening in the wet darkroom that produced a different and unusual print.

Also, I am not sure how much I want to learn about densimeters, etc and lots of techie information and settings. I actually shoot one type of film, want to print 8x10 images on 11x14 paper (the same kind of paper for all work) so I try to eliminate a lot of the variables right there.

Also, I am not nearly as concerned with a lot of the details as one might think, or hope for. Trust me, I am not comparing me to the following photographers, I am using them for comparison purposes to each other. If you look at a print from Jock Sturges, you will see an exquisitely printed photograph from an 8x10 neg. Perfect tonal range, etc, etc. If you look at a print by Ralph Gibson, you will see strong contrasts, blown out areas and dense blacks. I am not discussing the aesthetic qualities of either print, just saying that I think the Gibson print 'look' would be easier to achieve and there would be more latitude in the printing.

I hope I am getting across that I don't mind playing around with the contact printing part, as long as it's not too difficult to create a halfway decent digital neg. Again, I think that my consistency of workflow from film choice forward may make it a bit easier to get the 'feel' for what I need to do.

I may be wrong.... For the record, I print with an Epson Artisan 50 which has 6 ink tanks. It actually makes nice 8x10 prints, and I have used some good art papers in it. If the process of creating these contact prints requires an investment in a lot of new and sophisticated equipment, I will most likely not do it.

I guess I am wary of that mentality, thinking that an artist needs the latest tools just to make art when some ingenuity works just as well. However, I do realize that if I was doing this stuff for clients and/or commercial purposes, I would certainly need to be more exact.

But since I am interpreting the work for a fine art purpose, I may be able to fudge things a little more.

Thanks and sorry for all the words....ha

jimsphotoart said:

I may be wrong.... For the record, I print with an Epson Artisan 50 which has 6 ink tanks. It actually makes nice 8x10 prints, and I have used some good art papers in it. If the process of creating these contact prints requires an investment in a lot of new and sophisticated equipment, I will most likely not do it.
a

Click to expand...

That printer has a small droplet size, 1.5 pico-liter so it probably could make good quality negatives. Get some inexpensive glossy RC inkjet paper such as Kirkland in jet glossy RC from Costco and you can print on an inexpensive media which you can use to make silver gelatin contact prints.

But know this, you will have to struggle a bit learning how to create high quality digital ink jet negatives. And for excellent prints, which you seem to want, your work flow needs to be tight. If you have a white light integrator timer (such as the Metrolux) that will be a plus and a processing timer that will adjust the paper development time based on the developer temperature such as the old Zone VI timer or use the software developed by Curt Palm and endorsed by Alan Ross.

Or you could just send your digital files to these guys and have a real silver gelatin print made from your digital file:

Digital Silver Imaging - Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files . They can make RC or Fiber based prints. I'm planning on using them to make some large silver gelatin prints from drum scans of my sheet film. Considering what they charge their prices aren't too bad. They have forced me to rethink printing silver gelatin prints from digital files. I wish they offered a greater selection of papers such as Ilford Warm tone but I understand their limitations.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

The Epson Artisan 50 uses Claria (dye) ink. Just FYI -- the Epson 1400 also uses Claria, and I found it to be a poor UV blocker, eitther printing composite B&W negatives, or colorized negatives. It might be possible to coax it to print good negatives, but I think it would need some special handling. I actually bought the 1400 so I could dedicate it to B&W using third-party inks, so I didn't do any more testing for negatives.

Don Bryant said:

That printer has a small droplet size, 1.5 pico-liter so it probably could make good quality negatives. Get some inexpensive glossy RC inkjet paper such as Kirkland in jet glossy RC from Costco and you can print on an inexpensive media which you can use to make silver gelatin contact prints.

But know this, you will have to struggle a bit learning how to create high quality digital ink jet negatives. And for excellent prints, which you seem to want, your work flow needs to be tight. If you have a white light integrator timer (such as the Metrolux) that will be a plus and a processing timer that will adjust the paper development time based on the developer temperature such as the old Zone VI timer or use the software developed by Curt Palm and endorsed by Alan Ross.

Or you could just send your digital files to these guys and have a real silver gelatin print made from your digital file:

Digital Silver Imaging - Digital Silver Imaging - Museum-quality black and white prints made from your digital files . They can make RC or Fiber based prints. I'm planning on using them to make some large silver gelatin prints from drum scans of my sheet film. Considering what they charge their prices aren't too bad. They have forced me to rethink printing silver gelatin prints from digital files. I wish they offered a greater selection of papers such as Ilford Warm tone but I understand their limitations.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

pschwart said:

The Epson Artisan 50 uses Claria (dye) ink.

Click to expand...

That's why I only mentioned "white light" printing not UV. I think most if not all dye printers will make negs with sufficient DR to print silver gelatin.

Don

I needed 95%-100% PK on my 3880 for use with Arista Private Reserve (RC). I didn't measure that with a densitometer, but it's probably the flip of a coin as to whether Claria dye black can match up.

--Greg

I think a few words of background is needed before my reply: I am 51 years old. BA in Art and Media. Raised a son, built a home with my own hands. Have done some good art in my life. GREAT problem solver and can take on any challenge if it makes sense to.

Having said that, if the replies to my questions haven't been enough to make me feel like a complete idiot, then nothing will ...

Seriously, I appreciate the passion and knowledge that has been shared. However, things are going off the deep end for me when we start looking at things that are so technical. Hell, I am still shooting with a 35 year old Pentax 35mm camera with a manual focus 50mm lens...

So I will pose the question this way. Hopefully, y'all can pull up my little album of images I posted here. These are 3 images that I shot with b/w film, scanned the negs, worked on in PS. The prints I made digitally from these look pretty darn close to what you see on the monitor.

If you can't see them, feel free to look at my work here:
ModelMayhem.com - Jim LaLota - Photographer - State College, Pennsylvania, US

Here's the question: I want to make contact prints on traditional fiber paper (and yes, I printed many photos on fiber paper back in the 'wet' days).

Can I print the files onto transparency film using my Epson Artisan 50 printer, and with a little tweaking and experimenting (which I am glad to do), use a contact print frame and a simple set of trays and chemicals, make a contact print that will be reasonably close to a traditional print?

That's really all I want to do. To end up with a print on fiber paper, not digital output.

ADDENDUM: I realize there are lots of factors that can be discussed and many have been brought up here. This is not an argument about ink vs. traditional, and I don't have the interest in setting up a high tech digital lab. I just wanna make archival traditional prints. Again, precision is not a big factor in my work flow, if you look at my prints, you will see that there is a wide 'artistic latitude.'

Thanks again, I'm gonna have some more coffee, I think...

Jim, if you can build a house.... then you can make digital negatives & fiber contact prints. This ain't rocket science.

I would suggest that you just do it!!

Maybe your printer won't be up to it, you may need to try different materials for your negative. White Film, transparency film or plain Kirkland glossy photo paper ( like Don suggested ).

You'll know after a couple weekends efforts whether or not it is working for you.

PS: Try the Kirkland paper 1st as the typical transparency film is difficult with silver gelatin.

I would suggest that you just do it!!

This is my advice, as well. It is the only way to know if you will enjoy the process or be satisfied with the results.

R Shaffer said:

Jim, if you can build a house.... then you can make digital negatives & fiber contact prints. This ain't rocket science.

I would suggest that you just do it!!

Maybe your printer won't be up to it, you may need to try different materials for your negative. White Film, transparency film or plain Kirkland glossy photo paper ( like Don suggested ).

You'll know after a couple weekends efforts whether or not it is working for you.

PS: Try the Kirkland paper 1st as the typical transparency film is difficult with silver gelatin.

Click to expand...

R Shaffer said:

Try the Kirkland paper 1st as the typical transparency film is difficult with silver gelatin.

Click to expand...

Why do you think this is the case? I didn't notice any issues in my brief experiments with Pictorico and silver gelatin papers.

--Greg

Silver is fast so it can be tough to get sufficient blocking for reasonable exposure times. I used to use Pictorico "Photo Gallery Hi-Gloss White Film" which blocks UV but works fine for silver. It's still available, but it's *expensive*.

gmikol said:

Why do you think this is the case? I didn't notice any issues in my brief experiments with Pictorico and silver gelatin papers.

--Greg

Click to expand...

Wow, I must say that these replies make me feel better (no disrespect to any of the more technical responses).

I will make some tries and see where I end up. I just didn't want to try it to find out it was a waste of time unless I spent a butt-load of cash buying different stuff.

And while we're at it... No comments on my Model Mayhem pics. Hell, they're all beautiful girls with very little clothing on! Come on guys, look up from those developer trays once in a while....haha!

I don't have a densitometer and am using my aging Epson 2200 with Epson inks and have made highly successful digital enlarged negatives for platinum/palladium prints. I still prefer film but some original negatives require manipulation that is more easily done with a computer and PS. I have been using scans from 2 1/4 and 4x5 negatives and first print as positives to be sure that I have what I want. Then convert to a negative using Dan Burkholder's PS plug-in. It usually takes some minor tweeking before printing (flip horizontal) on Pictorico OHP up to 11x14. The plug-in accommodates a setting for silver prints as well but I haven't used it.

I admire those of you who are well versed and more technically inclined than me but that just isn't my persuasion. What I do works well in my hands and regardless it's the final product that counts. I like to keep the process as simple as I can and still have fun doing it.

HOME PAGE

So the OP raised a pretty good question that I think I can respond too.

I am making contact Lith silver prints from digital negatives I produce on my lambda, I would also be comfortable making traditional silver wet prints by contact from these negatives, but I can make direct silver prints from digital files on my Lambda so I only make negs for alt printing, lith printing and solarization .

A good observation was brought up by pschwart about the blocking power of inkjet negs.... I have never made inkjet negs so I cannot comment ,,, but Ron Reeder will be in town next month and I will pass this test by him for my own education.
As some point out just give it a try.
Another option is if in your neck of the woods you can find a lab using duraclear, or fuji clear on their digital device then you can send a file to them for output and it should be able to have enough blocking power to do what you want.
I have not tried it here , as I have been working with silver film from digital files and I know they work so I am not so interested in the RA4 or inkjet option YET.

This question by the original poster is IMHO probably one of the best questions I have seen in a long time,, what it speaks to me , is the fact that there are people out there willing to set up a simple contact darkroom , due to space, budget or technical issues and making simple negatives is the answer.
Not only this but by being able to make digital negatives, we are opening up the whole young crowd of digital capture only kids who have not used film in a camera and probably never will. I am now working with a group here in Toronto where we are going after the digital camera geeks and showing them how to convert their files to inkjet negs and then with a simple sink setup and contact frame make wonderful lith prints and solarizations.
If there ever was a call to DEFEND THE DARKROOM , this OP and his/her question is it. The more people that can see the beauty of a alt, or silver print made from some sort of intermediate negative the better it is for all of us wanting materials from our suppliers to be still available.

I think this question/thread is the reason I joined Hybrid> Dpug and it certainly is the reason why I am still here.


It is not a stretch to think that within this forum , there are not workers who could make digital negatives with inkjet that will have the blocking power to make great contact silver prints.:munch:

This sentence has resisted my attempts to parse it My attempt to summarize the thread:
- It is certainly possible to make fine gelatin silver prints by contact from digital
negatives. There are many who do this (but gelatin silver hasn't been much
discussed on this forum).
- The OP asked: "Will I be able to produce a decent looking digital neg
and make a nice print?" The answer to that question has to be "maybe, try it
and see."

bob carnie said:

It is not a stretch to think that within this forum , there are not workers who could make digital negatives with inkjet that will have the blocking power to make great contact silver prints.:munch:

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that Dan had a Photoshop plugin. Are you referring to the template
on his Negative Companion CD?

jeffreyg said:

Then convert to a negative using Dan Burkholder's PS plug-in.
HOME PAGE

Click to expand...