Printing digital negatives on Ilford VC paper?

[eebers]

Hello everyone -- I notice that most hybrid discussions revolve around applying sensitizer to plain paper. Is there a forum for using good old silver halide paper like Ilford VC??

 

[fgorga]

Hmm... why would you want to do this?

Alternative processes require contact printing under UV light An enlarger is not possible. Or maybe practical is more accurate as there are some folks experimenting with LEDs to make a UV enlarger.

With silver halides, just use an enlarger.

That said, one should be able to make a digital negative suitable for contact printing. Placing a digital negative in an enlarger won't work as you will be magnifying the dots of ink which are used to simulate continuous tones by an ink jet printer.

 

[koraks]

Is there a forum for using good old silver halide paper like Ilford VC??

Not a forum as such, but @Carnie Bob does contact prints from (large) inkjet negatives onto silver halide VC paper.

 

[eebers]

Thanks. Yes, I am thinking of making contact prints with 8x10 digital negatives. The reason to do it is to avoid working with film, as Photoshop gives much more control.

 

[koraks]

Yes, that'll work. Bob Carnie does it for the same reason you mention.

 

[eebers]

Which material do you recommend for printing the digital negative using a Canon 300 with its dye inks?

 

[koraks]

I'd start with any inkjet film intended for e.g. screen printing. These materials look and behave similar to Fixxons and Pictorico OHP, but generally only cost a fraction of those well-known brands. If for some reason the screen printing film doesn't work well for you, try either Fixxons or Pictorico.
Edit: I mean something like this: There are many suppliers of the same stuff; just shop around. The link I gave is just the first example that popped up. I buy it here in Europe so sources that work for me don't make sense for you...

Btw, Bob Carnie has written fairly recently about this topic here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diy-31-megapixel-enlarger.197305/page-6#post-2751790
and here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lver-gelatin-paper.202855/page-2#post-2741747
I don't think he mentions the inkjet film he's using. Maybe he'll chime in on this thread when he comes along.

 

[eebers]

I've heard good things about Pictorico. Thanks for your help!

 

[koraks]

You're welcome. Pictorico is the bees knees, but it's overkill for what you're going to do. You don't need all that much density for silver gelatin. If there's going to be a limitation, it'll be in the opacity of the dyes of the printer, not the screen printing film.

 

[eebers]

A little overkill can be a good thing. Using Pictorico for silver work will get me comfortable if I want to branch out later. I sent a message to bob caine regarding adapting the Easy Digital Negative method. You have any thoughts on that?

 

[koraks]

Alright, hopefully Bob will chime in one of these days. He drops by from time to time, but not all that often.

I've not tried Easy Digital Negative. I've done manual linearizations in (back then) Photoshop and more recently I used QTR in combination with a photospectrometer, but QTR only works with Epson printers. It doesn't matter in the end, though. Any method that allows you to print a step wedge, take density measurements on the print and then apply a linearization curve will work. I do hear good things about EDN, also from Sandy King, so there's that. It should work.

 

[eebers]

Many thanks!

 

[MattKing]

While possible, you may find the resolution offered by most printers to be much less than the resolution available from a film negative.
Most Alternative processes tend to mask that difference.

 

[eebers]

I'd like to challenge that. I've found that the canon pro300 gives me excellent definition for regular printing. Wouldn't it be the same for printing digital negatives? I'm shooting with a nikon z6..

 

[MattKing]

I'd like to challenge that. I've found that the canon pro300 gives me excellent definition for regular printing. Wouldn't it be the same for printing digital negatives? I'm shooting with a nikon z6..

Try a side by side comparison of a contact print from a film negative and a contact print from a digital negative. Smaller format film should suffice for the comparison. You can determine from that whether the difference matters to you.

 

[koraks]

Wouldn't it be the same for printing digital negatives?

No, not necessarily. The way inkjet works is that there's dot gain designed into the printing system. In simple terms, this means the ink is supposed to bleed out a little from the place where it hits the paper, so that the dots merge nicely. This works great on inkjet papers, both matte and glossy. But it doesn't work so well on screen film, because they don't allow as much dot bleed (I think this is by design, to ensure optimal resolution). The net result is that a contact print made with an inkjet negative may end up looking much more gritty and "inkjet-like" than an inkjet print made directly on inkjet paper with the exact same printer and inks.

On the other hand, you can 'help' matters a little by using a non-collimated light source for making your contact prints (e.g. UV tubes instead of LEDs). This will make the dots a tiny bit fuzzier in the final print. However, since the emulsion on VC papers is pretty darn thin, I doubt it's going to make much difference. You could go overboard and place something like a thin sheet of transparent material (e.g. the kind of foil they sometimes wrap flowers in, at least around here) between the printing paper and the digital negative. The additional space will make the dots even more fuzzy and result in a more natural-looking print - but it'll come at the cost of rendering of fine detail. YMMV.

I'd just give it a go and see what happens, and then solve whatever problems you run into. As said, Bob Carnie prints this way a lot and if it's good enough for him, I bet it's good enough for anyone. But I do think he mostly prints pretty large, so that means viewing distance will help.

 

[Derek Lofgreen]

Here is a pretty good video on how to "bare bones" a digital neg for silver printing. Let us know how your results turn out. I am curious.



D.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I do this all the time, We use the same profile for our digital negatives as we do for platinum or cyanotype or gum. Currently I am using a Epson P7000 and will be outsourcing to my friend on his Larger Printers
to make 30 x 40 digital negs for printing on silver.
I use to make enlarge digital silver negs on the lambda I use to own as well.
We use both glossy and matt paper and if required use a ruby to make sure there is no transmission of light on the white border.

Results: I like enlarger printing and I like contacting digitat, - I am adapt at PS so doing both is good
Digital inkjet negs are only for contacting and not for putting in the enlarger

Which one is Better?? both are good and I tend to prefer the digital way as it gives me much more control , but with that said I still have
clients that insist on enlarger prints.

They are different but IMO both good- I am a big fan of matt paper which when used either way is impossible to see the difference. A lot
of people pound their chests and say. they can see the difference , but after showing thousands of these prints to very good eyes I think they are both
excellent ways of producing silver prints.

I believe this method of printing will save silver gelatin paper. in the long run

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've done it and taught my students, too. Side by side though, they look different. It is nice that one can build in the dodges and burns in the digi neg, though but... I prefer the look/feel of contact printing an in-camera 8x10 negative, though. Just a personal taste. I use cheap OH material sold at my local screen printing shop, and use an Epson printer with QTR. No experience with Canon printers.