Oil Prints and Color Carbro without digital and computers

[rknewcomb]

How did Robert Demachy make oil prints and Paul Outerbridge make color carbo before digital computer camera along?
I will admit I am a very old analog silver guy and finding it hard to belly up to the gotta make enlarged digital negatives bar..

When I start reading about applying special curves and the making of digital negs it does all seem very complicated and my eyes start to roll up in my head - even has its own forum. I did shoot digital for the last 16 years of my career so I'm familiar with photoshop but I also shot silver for the 30 years before that.

My point if there really is one is, if those guys could do it back then can it be done today.
Sorry for the ramble.
Robert

 

[fgorga]

My history is similar to yours... fifty years of making photograms, the last twenty or so digital and about twenty years of alt process experience.

Thus, although I am no expert as all of my alt process experience is with digital negatives but I'll attempt a response...

Alt process printing is certainly possible with analog negatives, as you point out. My understanding is that the fully analog process is actually, in its essence, the same as with digital negatives... one has to make negative that is tailored to fit the printing process.

In the analog realm, that means knowing from before you make the exposure that the negative you are about to make will be used from process X. You then make the exposure and develop film so that the contrast of the negative matches the requirements of process "X". This also means that a negative optimized for "X" will not work well with process "Y" or "Z".

The idea of curves in the making digital negatives is more-or-less the same... you are matching the properties of the negative to the characteristics of the printing process you wish to use.

Both methods of making negatives have learning curves associated with them I would hazard a guess that most folks (even seasoned darkroom denizens, would find the learning curve for analog negative much steeper than that for digital negatives.

My best advice for beginners with digital negatives (I teach occasional alt process workshops.) is "don't start from scratch". Rather "beg, borrow, or steal" a curve for the process you are interested in and use that as a starting point. You can find curves online (Bostick & Sullivan has a small library as doe alternativephotography.com), you can find them in alt process books (Chris Anderson's books often have curves in them) and you can ask folks directly (many folks will send you their curve if you ask). Often a generic curve is is "good enough". If it is not, you have data that can be tweaked rather than building from the "ground up". Have I used enough clichés in this paragraph!

The bottom line for me is that the advantages of digital negatives are well worth the effort to scale the learning curve. The two big advantages are 1) the ability to print the same image in different processes or at different sizes and 2) the ability to make local adjustments with alt processes (i.e. you dodge and burn before you print the negative). The latter is simply not possible when contact printing. The former opens up all sorts of creative possibilities, the most obvious is a tryptic or diptych of the same image in different processes.

Hope that this response is useful.

 

[rknewcomb]

Hello Frank,
You bet that response was helpful!
I thought that my many years of film darkroom work would suffice in making enlarged negatives, I have no fear when working with film. But, as you so kindly point out, each process requires a specialized negative for that process. And then the local controls of dodge & burn need to be made when the film neg is being made as they can't be done during printing with the UV light.
I think I was/am just trying to get away with that which I already know and have experience.
But, I see the light now.
Thank you for your gentle leading and sharing. Your tone was very helpful.
Robert

 

[rknewcomb]

Another question if you don't mind.
1) in camera digital file>enlarged digital negative> alt print
vs
2) in camera film image>scan to digital file>enlarged digital negative> alt print
Does the nature of the digital starting point ie: digital camera, get subdued/lost by the time you reach a print ?
Does the nature of the film original image come through after doing the steps in number 2 above?
I'm not asking for a fight over film vs digital, just looking for help.
Thank you!
Robert

 

[fgorga]

Robert,

I have very little experience with your #2 process.

However, just this past week, I saw a very successful example of this.

I am currently teaching a multi-week (one evening a week) workshop on alt process with digital negatives. On week 2 (cyanotype) one of the participants decided to try a film negative. We discussed the issues, including that the film negative was not likely to be optimal, he made the print and he got the expected result... a print but not a great print. This past week (#3, on salted-paper prints) this fellow came with a digital negative made by scanning the analog negative, applying the 'proper' curve and printing the resulting file. The result was a very nice salted paper print. So the hybrid approach looks very viable in my limited experience. I'll have to try it with some of my old negatives at some point.

As for your question about seeing differences in the final prints made via the two processes... I don't really know, but my feeling is that if you did a rigorous double-blind test with some prints that it is unlikely that people could reliably distinguish between the processes.

To be a fair test, you would need images made with the same size sensor (e.g. a 'full frame' digital camera and a 35 mm negative). If you start mixing in medium format or large format negatives with digital files, some knowledge folks will likely pick up on the optical differences inherent to the larger formats.

Personally, I never understand the arguments/debates over issues such as film vs. digital. It would be pointless for painters to argue over oil painting vs. watercolor. They are simply two different means to the same end... a painting. The same is true for analog vs. digital photography. Two different means to the same end... a photograph.

In my view, the key is do you enjoy the process and does the final print please you (or your client, if you are a professional, which I am not!). So, I say make some prints and see if you like them!

 

[removed account4]

HI Robert

I've never dabbled in the 2 processes you asked about
but I have made digital negatives for a variety of other processes
some from film some from a digital file (even my phone) .. from my limited experience you really can't tell the difference between the two sources.
the end medium isn't sharp as nails like a silver print might be, sometimes the difference might be lost in the details

 

[nmp]

Click on the link for alt process prints below and tell me which ones were from analog originals and which ones from digital - all are made with digital negatives. These were made on glossy paper not unlike a fiber-based silver gelatin paper.

:Niranjan.

 

[DMJ]

Does the nature of the digital starting point ie: digital camera, get subdued/lost by the time you reach a print ?

There was a thread I started while ago about this. Here:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...og-negatives-in-alternative-processes.183371/

 

[rknewcomb]

DMJ
Thanks for posting that link, good read and great to see how other folks feel about this subject.
Robert