Hybrid process: Leica monochrome digital to film negative to print

Image recorders used to be common in pro labs. I scanned several of my images that were really hard to print from the original neg and prepared retouched, dodged and burned files that I had made into 4x5 silver gelatin negs. The process was a bit expensive but made it where you could easily print really good silver gelatin prints from the toughest negs.

Now folks are making even better inkjet negs and contact printing them in the darkroom. Also I think you'd have a had time finding a functioning image recorder.
 
Labs with film recorders are easier to find than you might think, but getting negs written from files is still expensive.

I've printed a lot of files directly to FB paper with a digital enlarger (Durst used to make them, now DeVere is the only supplier I know of) and prefer the process - the more steps there are the more chances to have something go wrong.

Marty
 
And the point is? I wonder why people go to such effort with digital when they could just start with film in the first place?

I sold my 5x7 recently because I'm getting to that age that's it's just too much effort. But very few prints compare to a 5x7 (or larger) negative contact printer on fiber paper.
 
Yeesh, I think we used to call images like that a little over-cooked. He must be either very frightened of his subjects or have a great deal of disdain for them if that's how he wants to portray them. I guess subtlety is a thing of the past.
 
Beemermark said:
And the point is? I wonder why people go to such effort with digital when they could just start with film in the first place?
Click to expand...

Shooting at ISO5000+ without grain, avoiding availability/x-ray/water quality problems, multi-use images also needed for other purposes, I could go on.

I am not a fan of his style, but the ability to mix capture media and produce comparable prints on the same paper is a great advantage.

Marty
 
Beemermark said:
And the point is? I wonder why people go to such effort with digital when they could just start with film in the first place?

I sold my 5x7 recently because I'm getting to that age that's it's just too much effort. But very few prints compare to a 5x7 (or larger) negative contact printer on fiber paper.
Click to expand...

Darkroom prints without hassle with film.

Yes, film is hassle after hundreds of meters and thousands of frames. Darkroom is another hassle, so contact printing from digital negative is twice less hassle. ;)
8x10 lith contact print from digital negative printed on regular printer paper.




BTW, I sold my 4x5, 135 film is much less hassle.
 
Beemermark said:
And the point is? I wonder why people go to such effort with digital when they could just start with film in the first place?
Click to expand...

B,

Part of your thinking is right: contact printing.

Kinda makes sense for using printing a digital negative for enlargment. Using digital tools to make a perfect negative for contact printing makes sense, especially in a fine art sense where one might make/create limited editions. Analog printing individual prints to create a limited edition is certainly a different work flow than contact printing a limited edition where most of the work to get the finished print is performed digitally.

I see it as extra work too, and requires new skills, but for limited editions or for enlarging it has its place.

The more steps involved though the more possibility to over do things, and it gets complicated fast where things can go wrong.

Even shooters doing a hybrid film and scanning is basically recreating the same image twice by either scanning or photographing a negative or slide. Perhaps it is just the scale here that we can't get our heads around.

I shoot film for hopefully wet printing one day. I also shoot digitally and then print digitally. To me any hybrid work flow is extra work.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom