Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
Many thanks for your detailed information. You are further along than me.
I will add that in my printing I can print what I can't see on a calibrated 27 EIZO dimmed down to 80 Lux in a darkened room. In other words more detail comes out in a print than I can see on my monitor.
I dim down my monitor to reduce the contrast so I can see more shadow detail. I learned excessive contrast kills shadow detail.
I do this with a Leica Monochrom which is only an 18MP camera that is rather primitive. Clean files and optimized exposures yield the best results because of lowest noise by promoting the least amount of post processing.
Pretty much I shoot like a large format shooter even though I'm shooting small format and trying to maximize IQ at time of image capture. I use Heliopan 2X yellow filters for contrast so I don't have to add contrast in post. Also know that these Heliopan filters marked "Digital" have UV and IR filters included and these "Digital" filters remove signals that are not visual info that removes what I consider "noise" for cleaner/better histograms.
BTW you will also see reduced clipping so you can expose more to the right when using Heliopan filters marked "Digital" on any digital camera. On my SL, a color camera I use a UV marked "Digital" for lower "noise," better histograms, and less clipping.
"Garbage in: garbage out" becomes "clean in: clean out."
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
About two years ago I saw Salgado's "Genesis" at ICP, the last show before they closed down the space near Bryant Park.
Salgado started this project shooting 645 film, but because of airport security hassles about halfway though this decade long project he switched to small format DSLR.
The best lab in Paris was utilized to make silver wet prints that were large. The show was about 200 images and the print size about 4x5 feet. A digital 4x5 negative was made to create the prints.
The results shown in the prints transcended formats and the IQ and tonality were that of large format.
I viewed the show three times in three different ways: one I just took in the entire show; next I tried to cull out for me a folio of perhaps 20 images I thought were the best, which included the few shots I would call "iconic" because the images would persist in my memory; and lastly I viewed the show to see if I had the skill to determine analog or digital image capture.
Realize that it required a highly trained eye to distinguish the difference between analog and digital image capture. Pretty much the digital image capture was indicated by the enhanced shadow detail, and in the analog image capture the givaway was the smoother roll-off in the highlights.
If I were not a skilled printer who printed big I don't think I would have been able to distinguish reliably the difference because the printing made only the tiniest of difference.
So today there is Piezography DN, and the technology is so advanced that basically I could do a Salgado without the best lab in Paris. Granted that I would need the skill and experience to get to that level.
Digital artifacts get amplified when you print big, so printing big is harder, requires more skill, and of course is more costly, but big prints don't lie.
BTW Salgado used a color camera: a Canon DSLR.
Cal
Salgado started this project shooting 645 film, but because of airport security hassles about halfway though this decade long project he switched to small format DSLR.
The best lab in Paris was utilized to make silver wet prints that were large. The show was about 200 images and the print size about 4x5 feet. A digital 4x5 negative was made to create the prints.
The results shown in the prints transcended formats and the IQ and tonality were that of large format.
I viewed the show three times in three different ways: one I just took in the entire show; next I tried to cull out for me a folio of perhaps 20 images I thought were the best, which included the few shots I would call "iconic" because the images would persist in my memory; and lastly I viewed the show to see if I had the skill to determine analog or digital image capture.
Realize that it required a highly trained eye to distinguish the difference between analog and digital image capture. Pretty much the digital image capture was indicated by the enhanced shadow detail, and in the analog image capture the givaway was the smoother roll-off in the highlights.
If I were not a skilled printer who printed big I don't think I would have been able to distinguish reliably the difference because the printing made only the tiniest of difference.
So today there is Piezography DN, and the technology is so advanced that basically I could do a Salgado without the best lab in Paris. Granted that I would need the skill and experience to get to that level.
Digital artifacts get amplified when you print big, so printing big is harder, requires more skill, and of course is more costly, but big prints don't lie.
BTW Salgado used a color camera: a Canon DSLR.
Cal
Freakscene
Obscure member
I also saw this show, but at a different location. Not sure if the prints were the same. I thought several of the photos were overmanipulated and looked terrible. Some of the tonal transitions were appallingly unnatural looking.
There was nothing particularly new or overly special in the technique. Making claims about its specialness is just another part of the mystique raising. Any lab with a film recorder to write the digital files to film can do this. Really elite labs are more careful, tolerate fewer flaws and waste fewer materials getting to the final version (this is mostly due to experience) and, of course, cost more. Something like Piezo DN or other inkjet methods democratizes the approach somewhat, but although it’s fiddly at first, there is nothing particularly difficult about it.
Picto https://www.picto.fr/ if I recall correctly, used to offer silver prints from film recorder negs as a standard service, but I can’t find it currently. It could be because of my embryonic French, or maybe they decided they couldn’t charge enough to make the hassle worthwhile. It may, or may not, be the ‘top Paris lab’ used by Salgado.
To anyone who is interested, I would say just go for it. It is not as hard as it seems. And, to contextualise it, making negatives is easier, I think, than learning to use a large format camera. The prints, particularly on contact printing FB paper, can be really beautiful.
Marty
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Heres a video of the making of a platinum print from an MM file
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDsUv4qPt6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDsUv4qPt6o
Freakscene
Obscure member
It’s a nice demonstration. I am not sure what process he is using exactly, Pt/Pd prints usually form completely during exposure (ziatype) or not at all (other chemistries) rather than partially.
This video also shows the reason I tend to prefer silver chloride paper these days - in the close up of the print with the child in it at about 1:38 you can clearly see the paper texture. I don’t like that, although Adox makes a fibre base paper with no sensitizer on it for coating yourself, which I haven’t tried. It also shows the egregious amount of water that wet printing uses. The nice thing about inkjet negs and soft oroofing is that once you get used to it, you waste very little water because each print is very close to right first time.
Marty
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
I would agree that there were some prints at the Salgado Genesis show that were "over baked."
Also I find very interesting your comment at the end of your post comparing difficulties. This is very useful to me.
Thanks again.
Cal
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Marty,
Again this is useful information. I was wondering about how good, close and useful my inkjet prints are as soft proofs. Very illuminating. seems like I'm further along than I thought.
Cal