Urgent help needed: transition from analog to digital negs

I aplogize if my questions are redundant to other threads in thiis forum, but I would really appreciate some basic information:
I just noted that the Ortho litho negs from Freestyle are no more available. This alarmed me, because I used them so far and was very happy with them. I had been toying some time before with digital negs, but not seriously, and now seems the time for it. The snag: I live in a place of the world where not everything is available, and I leave in a few days for Germany (my home country) for a visit. I might need to buy some hardware there. This situation is for me an emergency. I am working on 2 portfolios, and I want to secure the continuacy of my output.
So my questions:
1) I am thinking of getting into Mark Nelson's system of precision negatives; getting his ebook, calculator and steb tablet. Is that advisable?
2) What scanner? I have 8x10", 4x5" and 6x7 rollfilm negs I need to scan, all in a quality to match analog. (the enlarged negs I made so far were mostly 20x24")
3) Which printer? I think I need a good Epson printer to produce negs of at least 20x24"; I would like to print negs of 24x30, possibly wider. (I will try to find a printer here in Lahore where I live, but I need to know for which model to shop.
Thanking you in advance,
Lukas

It would help to know what process you will be using to create your prints. Be forewarned: there is a significant learning curve to creating quality scans and digital negatives. There is going to be a significant hardware investment, too, if you are going to make 20x24" prints.

Ortho litho film can still be had from ultrafineonline.com:

Ultrafine High Contrast Ortho Litho Film - Ultrafine Photographic Specialty Films

Thank you, Philip,
I think I have seen this source somewhere. Well, I still have quite some film from Freestyle which should smooth over the transition, but frankly, staying dependent on lith film would make me feel like holding out on an ever shrinking islannd. And I will then be dependent on one source's prices, on the quality they offer... I might still buy from there, but as an alternative, I have to see.
As far as investment is concerned, I am willing to go as far as my ressources allow me. And yes, I am willing to learn, therefore my question whether Mark Nelson's system is a good way to start.
I print in different processes: gum and casein, cyanotypes (traditional and new), pt/pd (recently started again after a significant break), chrysotypes (the latter two processes I print over with casein or gum), kallitypes, salt prints .(prints of mine are on flickr: Flickr: Lukas Werth's Photostream).. recently I ventured into oil printing, a significant inspiration being that I might be able here in Pakistan to secure a press for transfer at a resoneable price.
Actually, I am hopeful to find a printer here, but I think I will have to bring in a scanner, so I really need some advice.
Lukas

Good luck, Lukas...I've always loved your work.

Learning to make digital negatives can be a long road to haul, but a good tool to have in your pack.

Has anyone used the Ultrafine film mentioned by Philip?

Nice work. You live in an interesting country for photography and anthropology. I spent 3 months in the north a number of years ago. One of my unlikely to be achieved ambitions in life is to go back with a 5x7 and make portraits of the very interesting people in mountain valleys (and city's) , they changed me but it took some time to understand that. One could get lost forever, like Kurtz in The Heart of Darkness. or Muhammad Assad.

I would be inclined to stick with the process you are familiar with in the short to medium term.

David

PDN is a good way to start and the manual alone is worth the price. Looks like you are going to need two scanners to get both large format and 6x7 to 24x30. A flatbed like the Epson V7xx may suffice for the sheet film, but you will want a dedicated film scanner for the roll film. The Nikon 9000 would probably suffice but I think it is has been discontinued. IA Hasselblad Flextight will scan up to 4x5 but it is USD $20,000 and you need to cover 8x10. Maybe you could find a used Creo flatbed, or purchase drum scans. The large print sizes are going to make this a particularly challenging exercise.

lukas werth said:

Thank you, Philip,
I think I have seen this source somewhere. Well, I still have quite some film from Freestyle which should smooth over the transition, but frankly, staying dependent on lith film would make me feel like holding out on an ever shrinking islannd. And I will then be dependent on one source's prices, on the quality they offer... I might still buy from there, but as an alternative, I have to see.
As far as investment is concerned, I am willing to go as far as my ressources allow me. And yes, I am willing to learn, therefore my question whether Mark Nelson's system is a good way to start.
I print in different processes: gum and casein, cyanotypes (traditional and new), pt/pd (recently started again after a significant break), chrysotypes (the latter two processes I print over with casein or gum), kallitypes, salt prints .(prints of mine are on flickr: Flickr: Lukas Werth's Photostream).. recently I ventured into oil printing, a significant inspiration being that I might be able here in Pakistan to secure a press for transfer at a resoneable price.
Actually, I am hopeful to find a printer here, but I think I will have to bring in a scanner, so I really need some advice.
Lukas

Click to expand...

20.000 is really a bit steep for me, far too steep in fact, considering I will also be needing a printer. What are other people on this forum using?

I use an Epson V700 (mostly for proofing) and a Nikon 9000 for scanning up to 6x9 medium format. Maybe you could find a used Nikon 9000 for the 6x7 scans. You can also find used or reconditioned drum scanners and Creo flatbeds, but then you have other challenges, like building a computer system to drive them. The Creos are monsters -- big and very heavy.
For large format, an Epson V700 is about $600 new and can be found reconditioned for less. Don't forget to budget for a Photoshop license

lukas werth said:

20.000 is really a bit steep for me, far too steep in fact, considering I will also be needing a printer. What are other people on this forum using?

Click to expand...

Order from Photo Warehouse. Ultrafine litho film. Not only is it still available, but it is a FAR superior product to the Arista. No pinholes, no rainbow-like "oil in water" effects, no Newton rings, richer blacks, it doesn't scratch as easily, and it feels like a more stable and higher quality base. That Arista was always crap IMO, but I put up with it because it was readily available and cheap. I don't know why I wasn't buying from Photo Warehouse years ago.

I'd hold out on your island as long as you can. There are others there with you. Without you buying the film, those others are more likely to have it discontinued out from underneath themselves. If you transition later, it will also likely be cheaper, as today's initially-expensive technology rapidly drops in value. Plus you can put off making a big investment now and save your cash, which may come in handy later, when you are truly forced to transition.

One big plus is that that sort of film keeps forever. You can stockpile a decade or more's worth of it, as long as you keep it cool and dry.

2F/2F said:

Order from Photo Warehouse. Ultrafine litho film. Not only is it still available, but it is a FAR superior product to the Arista. No pinholes, no rainbow-like "oil in water" effects, no Newton rings, richer blacks, it doesn't scratch as easily, and it feels like a more stable and higher quality base. That Arista was always crap IMO, but I put up with it because it was readily available and cheap. I don't know why I wasn't buying from Photo Warehouse years ago.

I'd hold out on your island as long as you can. There are others there with you. Without you buying the film, those others are more likely to have it discontinued out from underneath themselves. If you transition later, it will also likely be cheaper, as today's initially-expensive technology rapidly drops in value. Plus you can put off making a big investment now and save your cash, which may come in handy later, when you are truly forced to transition.

One big plus is that that sort of film keeps forever. You can stockpile a decade or more's worth of it, as long as you keep it cool and dry.

Click to expand...

Reasonable advice, and now that my initial panic subsides somewhat, I am thinking I might just continue side-by-side with litho film. Still, I want also to learn to do digital negs, if only at first for proper colour separations.

Again, forgive my ignorance concerning current product ranges, and let me ask about two devices I have just been offered here in Lahore:

a scanner: HP scanjet 8300; scans with 4800 d.p.i.; what use is this?
a printer: HP design jet 130r; I am told it prints to a width f 24"

Both products are a fraction of the sums mentioned in earlier posts; I just thought I ask what you think of them? How useful are they for the kind of work I intend?

a scanner: HP scanjet 8300; scans with 4800 d.p.i.; what use is this?
a printer: HP design jet 130r; I am told it prints to a width f 24"

You don't want a Designjet: its a dye printer with only 6 colors and a single black.
According to the specs, the Z2100 is much more appropriate. My guess is most are using Epson printers for digital negs,
but you should definitely check out the larger Canons.


You don't want the Scanjet, either: it can only scan up to 4 x 9-inch.
It's going to be hard to beat an Epson V700/750 for a consumer flatbed, and it scans the whole platen.
Two critical things to consider are software support and quality of film holders. If you can't hold the film flat specs won't matter.
You typically need to find third-party film holders for the consumer grade scanners (Custom film holders for Agfa, Microtek, Canon and Epson film scanners.),

Maybe all is not lost. Have you done any internet searching for ortho film? It's still made for the offset print trade. You just may have to switch suppliers from a photo store to a graphic arts supply house. Don't give up yet until you have exhausted all possible sources. When I first started playing with litho film decades ago, the only sources were the graphic arts supply houses.

Joe Lipka said:

Maybe all is not lost. Have you done any internet searching for ortho film? It's still made for the offset print trade. You just may have to switch suppliers from a photo store to a graphic arts supply house. Don't give up yet until you have exhausted all possible sources. When I first started playing with litho film decades ago, the only sources were the graphic arts supply houses.

Click to expand...

Well, now that my initial panic has somewhat subsided, I am thinking on similar lines, I will try to do both analog and digital. I just got Mark Nelson's book "precision digital negatives", looking forward to read it, and I must say, the financial investment required does indeed look impressive.
But at the rist that this is not the right forum, just one question reqarding analog: ultrafine offers LH4 line halftone film in very intersting formats, and cheaper and in larger packages than what it calls "ortho litho" ... what is the difference? I sent a question but didn't receive an answer. By the way, they also have a "direct copy" film in the program - any information about this?

I don't think any of the halftone films will work for making enlarged negatives. They are likely extremely high contrast...designed for imaging halftone (dot-screen) negatives. The ortho-litho, while high in contrast, is probably a lot more like a traditional continuous-tone film than the halftone film, especially when developed in a low-contrast developer.

The duplicating film is actually repackaged X-Ray duplicating film. It's coated on a pale blue base, which wouldn't cause a problem with UV- or blue-sensitive processes, but could mess up multi-grade B&W paper, though I've never tried it. It's *extremely* slow...like 15 minutes under the enlarger slow, but it seemed very sharp in the minimal testing I did with it, and had a very linear curve (ideal for duplicating). Some contrast control can be had by varying development time. B&W film developers will work, but are fairly slow. Paper developers or A+B graphic arts developers are recommended, if I remember correctly.

--Greg

lukas werth said:

Well, now that my initial panic has somewhat subsided, I am thinking on similar lines, I will try to do both analog and digital. I just got Mark Nelson's book "precision digital negatives", looking forward to read it, and I must say, the financial investment required does indeed look impressive.
But at the rist that this is not the right forum, just one question reqarding analog: ultrafine offers LH4 line halftone film in very intersting formats, and cheaper and in larger packages than what it calls "ortho litho" ... what is the difference? I sent a question but didn't receive an answer. By the way, they also have a "direct copy" film in the program - any information about this?

Click to expand...

IIRC, the ortho litho film is usually developed in a lithographic developer that gives black or white, no other tones. By varying the exposure you determine where the line between black and white is drawn. It is possible to develop that type of film in a continuous tone developer to get some form of continuous tone developer, but that is abusing the process.

Thank you, Greg ad Joe.
Perhaps I should clarify myself: I develop my enlarged negs in a direct reversal process, basically according to the instructions of Liam Lawless (described also on unblinking eye, essential to it is flashing the film), but substantially altered. An important change: the sheet of Ortho-Litho gets developed in Rodinal(-like). In this way, the film gives excellent continuous tones. I need about an hour to make one negative, two if I have to make a sandwich (sometimes necessary for long-scale in-camera negatives).
I normally get very good enlarged negs in this way whose tonality is, as far as I can see, just as good as the original neg.
I really want to find out about digital negs also, whether I will be able to make negs of a similar (perhaps in some ways even better??) quality, and also compare the time, effort, and cost.

gmikol said:

I don't think any of the halftone films will work for making enlarged negatives. They are likely extremely high contrast...designed for imaging halftone (dot-screen) negatives. The ortho-litho, while high in contrast, is probably a lot more like a traditional continuous-tone film than the halftone film, especially when developed in a low-contrast developer.

Click to expand...

Joe Lipka said:

IIRC, the ortho litho film is usually developed in a lithographic developer that gives black or white, no other tones. By varying the exposure you determine where the line between black and white is drawn. It is possible to develop that type of film in a continuous tone developer to get some form of continuous tone developer, but that is abusing the process.

Click to expand...

I don't understand these two comments at all. Are we thinking about the same thing here?

"Abusing the process" with halftone (AKA ortho litho or graphic arts) film is the main way that alt. process printers working with 100 percent analog materials print. There is nothing odd about it; it is the normal way of working to make enlarged contact negs for cyanotypes, VDBs, and the like. Instead of using the intended A+B (halftone) chemistry with the GA film, one uses all sorts of developers/dilutions, or a combination of different developers to get the contrast needed. You can also use ortho sheet film designed for in-camera use, or even panchromatic sheet film in the dark, though at a hugely increased cost, and for practically no benefit over the GA film. GA film in non-GA developers is, for the most part, just the way it is done. That is what the OP has been doing up till now: using GA film in non-GA chemistry. It obviously works; he is just looking at doing it digitally now, for reasons of product availability.

FWIW, I use Soemarko LC-1 for the most part, and I can also get good results with highly diluted HC-110 or D-76 (though at higher expense, as they wear out quickly). The LC-1 is a cheap and easy developer that gives a ton of control over contrast by varying the ratio of parts A to B to C (water), and also by using Zone-System-like exposure and development controls in the darkroom. I know others who just use diluted Dektol, and others still who use a convoluted mixture of A+B, Dektol, and HC-110.

X-ray duplicating film is a reversal film and can be processed with simple chemistry such as Kodak GBX. I have used it to enlarge negatives for pt/pd prints for many years. It is very slow but produces negatives of outstanding quality. The largest I've done is 11x14 and most often on 8x10 film. If you can find larger size film it would be an easier more cost effective (although the film is not cheap) way to go than large digital printers and high quality scanners and software.

HOME PAGE

jeffreyg said:

X-ray duplicating film is a reversal film and can be processed with simple chemistry such as Kodak GBX. I have used it to enlarge negatives for pt/pd prints for many years. It is very slow but produces negatives of outstanding quality. The largest I've done is 11x14 and most often on 8x10 film. If you can find larger size film it would be an easier more cost effective (although the film is not cheap) way to go than large digital printers and high quality scanners and software.

HOME PAGE

Click to expand...

This is very intersting, but I am afraid my enlarger would make problems from certain times onwards, say for than 90 seconds or so. I have an old Homberg 8x10 enlarger which I revy much value, but it works with four 300W hallogen bulbs, so its head gets quite hot after some time even though it has a cooling fan attached. 15 minutes exposure, as was mentioned in another post, is out for me.

Also, am I understanding correctly the comment before that halftone/line films are essentially the same as ortho litho? THis is important for me, because these halftone fgraphic art films are available in larger (roll) formats, and cheaper as well. But I should know properly before I place an order for 500-1000 $.

I have never had a 15 minute exposure for x-ray duplicating film. Usually the most is 3-3.5 min. sometimes with burning an area somewhat more . I am not enlarging to more than 11x14 though. I have an Omega D2 and an Aristo VC lamp and usually have the lens at f4 or 5.6. I'm not familiar with your enlarger and whether you can switch light sources for enlarging negatives. My main point was that the duplicating film was very easy to use and required simple chemistry yielding very high quality results some better than the original negative.

lukas werth said:

Also, am I understanding correctly the comment before that halftone/line films are essentially the same as ortho litho? THis is important for me, because these halftone fgraphic art films are available in larger (roll) formats, and cheaper as well. But I should know properly before I place an order for 500-1000 $.

Click to expand...

Graphic arts film, halftone film, litho film, and ortho litho film are all different names for the same type of material. They are films designed for producing halftone results (pure black or pure clear) for the printing industry, but they have been co-opted and adapted by alt process and pinhole photographers because of their low cost and wide variety of sizes.

The names that should raise your antennae are "copy film" and "duplicating film." Make sure you find out from the retailer exactly what those are before ordering. These are likely more continuous tone products, and also much more expensive.

You could really hurt yourself by ordering a $500 to $1000 batch without sampling the film first. Film and paper are generally non returnable products.

But I can guarantee you that Ultrafine is not only a decent replacement for Arista APHS, but is actually better in quality. You cannot go wrong by getting that. It's available from Photo Warehouse in Oxnard, CA, U.S.A.

Last year I was told by Freestyle that there were only two companies in the world making litho film. One was in China, and the other was in Japan (Fuji, I gathered). I was told that the Arista was the Chinese stuff, so I am assuming the Ultrafine is the Japanese (Fuji?) stuff. (And at a time, Arista had two lines; one was the cheaper MIC stuff, and one was the more expensive MIJ stuff.) When Arista discontinued the litho film, I was told that it was because the maker stopped producing it. Therefore there may only be one company left making it.

My two cents here: 1) I have made good enlarged negatives using panchromatic sheet film such as Plus-X and Bergger. I think ortho films gained popularity because you can use a safe light, and they have very low speed, but with very little practice you can get comfortable working in total darkness and using time and temperature, not inspection, to develop. You will need a very heavy neutral density filter. I use an ND 2.0, but one could get by with something a bit less dense. I've worked with students using graphic arts ortho lith films and they work nicely too. N.B., not all lith films are orthochromatic and not all ortho films are lith films (or more accurately line films.) I don't see them completely disappearing anytime soon.

2) Having said that, I now use Mark Nelson's PDN system. It took me about two or three days to calibrate and my first print was a keeper. It can be seen in my gallery here. Be aware that while Nelson's method is very clever and well thought out, his ability to explain it in book form leaves much to be desired. (I teach photography full time and think I can safely make that statement.) I recently picked up a copy of Ron Reeder's book on digital negatives. In a few weeks time I intend to try his method. This is due to the fact that Nelson places too many restrictions on teaching his method.

The rest is logical, eliminate variables, keep precise notes of every step, and try to fight back frustration if it starts to enter the process.

Good luck.

Doug Schwab
Brooklyn, NY

artonpaper said:

Be aware that while Nelson's method is very clever and well thought out, his ability to explain it in book form leaves much to be desired. (I teach photography full time and think I can safely make that statement.)

Click to expand...

A differing opinion: I find the PDN manual to be an excellent dissertation on digital negatives. I think it's well-organized and coherent, and I recommend it even to those who are not specifically interested in PDN.

lukas werth said:

Also, am I understanding correctly the comment before that halftone/line films are essentially the same as ortho litho? THis is important for me, because these halftone fgraphic art films are available in larger (roll) formats, and cheaper as well. But I should know properly before I place an order for 500-1000 $.

Click to expand...

I've been ordering 'Agfa CE film' regularly here in the UK from a printing suppliers known as Hunter Penrose Ltd.
My favorite format is 610mm wide roll by 61metres long! but they even do boxes of 100 A4+ sheets. Of course everytime I order now prices are going up but it is still the cheapest way I know to buy it. Get good results processing in Ilford PQ dev. between 1:25 (Van Dyke negs.) and 1:45 (cyanotype negs). Dreading the day I ring up to order and they tell me they can't get it anymore. Love the fact that even on a digital photography users group you are being pursuaded to stick with your analogue film!
I continue to use both lith and digital negs. in different cicumstances and am continually weighing up the pros and cons of both. Colour separating for gum printing is one obvious + for digital but controlling contrast with custom curves for cyanotype is also very useful.
One of my main concerns is not letting my final images become too sanitised when using digital negs.
By the way Lucas I was very impressed when I saw one of you're big Gum Prints in Brighton a couple of years ago
guy-paterson.co.uk