dave lackey
Veteran
Okay, about the time I was feeling that large format may be the way to go I have been studying platinum prints.
Yikes! That almost certainly requires large format gear!
So much to learn...where do I start besides reading and self-teaching? :bang:
Yikes! That almost certainly requires large format gear!
So much to learn...where do I start besides reading and self-teaching? :bang:
Last edited:
pesphoto
Veteran
Check out Apug.org there is lots of info there.
kmack
do your job, then let go
In addition to the excellent suggestion of APUG you may also want to look at Unblinking Eye and Alternative Photography for some quick tips and technical info.
You may also want to look at the Van Dyke process (if you haven't already), and Ziatypes (see Bostick and Sullivan)
You may also want to look at the Van Dyke process (if you haven't already), and Ziatypes (see Bostick and Sullivan)
venchka
Veteran
Large Format Forum also. A search will yield many suggestions. GOOGLE "digital negative" as well. It's a way to combine less than ULF negatives, scanner, ink jet printer and platimum/paladium contact prints. In a nutshell: You print an enlarged negative on film with an inkjet printer and then make a normal contact print. Or you could just spring for a 7x17 camera, lens, massive tripod & head, holders, contact frame and UV light source.
Last edited:
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
LF is a diff way of seeing, deliberate. [Interestingly enough, even the LF guys carry 35mm for spontaneous work.]
I am presently working with Linhof MT Classic & Schneider 110mm/5.6 SS Aspheric (approx 28mm in 135 format) and various longer "portrait" lenses. Nothing like composing thru the fresnel.
The kicker is the exceptional range of glass that can be had for little investment, contrary to Leica or MF aquisitions. good luck - P
I am presently working with Linhof MT Classic & Schneider 110mm/5.6 SS Aspheric (approx 28mm in 135 format) and various longer "portrait" lenses. Nothing like composing thru the fresnel.
The kicker is the exceptional range of glass that can be had for little investment, contrary to Leica or MF aquisitions. good luck - P
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
I am using Gimp now and dumped PS. GIMP can do it all so why waste money on PS? I know PS is the standard but I don't care.
The great aspect of GIMP is that I can be on any computer, anywhere, and download the prgram for FREE.
UV lite source?.....I just use the sun
The great aspect of GIMP is that I can be on any computer, anywhere, and download the prgram for FREE.
UV lite source?.....I just use the sun
Bryce
Well-known
I've tried the digital negative technique, several years ago. The results were VERY limited in terms of image quality, as I commented here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51317&highlight=Ken+Rockwell
Platinum prints are extremely expensive to make and offer greater depth of tone than traditional B+W papers as well as even greater archival stability. To make good use of that material you'd need very good negatives with a large tonal range and extremely fine gradation of tones. Sadly these areas are where the inkjet printed contact negative is very poor.
As for Photoshop vs. Gimp, I've used both and like the Gimpshop version to use almost as well as Photoshop, but for this sort of purpose the Gimp has one killer shortcoming- it is limited to 8 bit color rendition. Unfortunately, 8 bits just doesn't cut the cheese for prints. You can see in the image where two slightly different shades meet, and there is no hiding the digital nature of the flaw. It shows up in areas where there a large space of nearly the same tone like sky.
Sorry if I sound negative, but from my experience you're not going to get near the image quality you want for platinum prints with this technique- or even silver gelatin prints.
I'm sure things have gotten better in the last couple of years, but not the light years better it would have to be to use the process for the very most sensitive of printing methods.
Consider the amount of time, effort and expense that go towards making platinum prints. Surely making a negative at the final size is the least of the trouble involved.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51317&highlight=Ken+Rockwell
Platinum prints are extremely expensive to make and offer greater depth of tone than traditional B+W papers as well as even greater archival stability. To make good use of that material you'd need very good negatives with a large tonal range and extremely fine gradation of tones. Sadly these areas are where the inkjet printed contact negative is very poor.
As for Photoshop vs. Gimp, I've used both and like the Gimpshop version to use almost as well as Photoshop, but for this sort of purpose the Gimp has one killer shortcoming- it is limited to 8 bit color rendition. Unfortunately, 8 bits just doesn't cut the cheese for prints. You can see in the image where two slightly different shades meet, and there is no hiding the digital nature of the flaw. It shows up in areas where there a large space of nearly the same tone like sky.
Sorry if I sound negative, but from my experience you're not going to get near the image quality you want for platinum prints with this technique- or even silver gelatin prints.
I'm sure things have gotten better in the last couple of years, but not the light years better it would have to be to use the process for the very most sensitive of printing methods.
Consider the amount of time, effort and expense that go towards making platinum prints. Surely making a negative at the final size is the least of the trouble involved.
jayjee
smile
I have made Plat/Pall prints with digital negatives recently and they came out brilliant.
I shot some pictures with a Diana camera on Ilford Hp5+, scanned the negs, printed digital negs on pictorico with an epson, then made final prints on Berger Cot-320 and some Japanese rice paper (Which is amazing! Kevin from Bostick&Sullivan recommended). I also printed some older live music pictures shot with a Canon 30D. And they came out great as well.
Here are some of my test prints from the Diana...
I shot some pictures with a Diana camera on Ilford Hp5+, scanned the negs, printed digital negs on pictorico with an epson, then made final prints on Berger Cot-320 and some Japanese rice paper (Which is amazing! Kevin from Bostick&Sullivan recommended). I also printed some older live music pictures shot with a Canon 30D. And they came out great as well.
Here are some of my test prints from the Diana...
venchka
Veteran
Thanks for all of the real world experience and advice. Keep them coming!
Bryce
Well-known
JayJee-
Tell me more, I'm excited to see your results!
For instance, it appears you were able to get a full range of tones out of the paper with your negative. Did you use color inks as well as black, or no?
Looking at the print closely, can you see dithering or scan lines from the printer? I was never able to get that to go away, but my printer is an older and inexpensive model.
I also had trouble getting the ink to dry on the OHP material before it ran at least a little. Seems like that would hide the dithering and scanline problem, but it didn't- just cost sharpness and made handling the negative a little difficult before it dried.
Anyway, great to see results like that. Maybe it is time for me to take another look at this process.
Tell me more, I'm excited to see your results!
For instance, it appears you were able to get a full range of tones out of the paper with your negative. Did you use color inks as well as black, or no?
Looking at the print closely, can you see dithering or scan lines from the printer? I was never able to get that to go away, but my printer is an older and inexpensive model.
I also had trouble getting the ink to dry on the OHP material before it ran at least a little. Seems like that would hide the dithering and scanline problem, but it didn't- just cost sharpness and made handling the negative a little difficult before it dried.
Anyway, great to see results like that. Maybe it is time for me to take another look at this process.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
For Platinum/Palladium one really needs a 8x10 neg original or larger. Sooner or later I will probably get an 8x10 cam to augment my Linhof 4x5. Good thing is that my 4x5 lenses have enough IC to cover 8x10.
My ultimate goal is to print 8x10 platinum images on 11x14 or 16x20 fibre. Until today only printed 4x5 palladium.
My ultimate goal is to print 8x10 platinum images on 11x14 or 16x20 fibre. Until today only printed 4x5 palladium.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Bryce said:
good call, thanks. P
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I have made some very passable negatives using inkjet printers and various kinds of clear substrates, which I have used for cyanotypes and regular silver gelatin contact prints; I see no reason why they wouldn't work for platinum/palladium printing. My experience with platinum/palladium is very limited, due to the high and rising cost of materials, but the general practice of taking images made with smaller formats and/or digital cameras and producing large negatives for contact print processes is sound. The trick is getting the densities and the tonal gradations right. This does require working in 16 bits or larger, in my experience. One interesting point is that you can use very cheap materials. I have made some very good prints from negatives printed on very cheap clear plastic mylar from an office supply store. The negatives don't have to last long, as you can keep the "original" digitally.
This is a technique I've been using for eight years; I started doing this as a way to teach workshops in cyanotype to people who didn't neccesarily have LF negatives. After some experimentation, I found it to work very well.
As for where to learn about platinum printing, the photographer George Tice claims (probably somewhat dubiously) to be responsible for bringing platinum/palladium printing back from the edge of extinction in the 1960's or 70's. He did publish a how-to article in a photo magazine back then, and he has since had at least one article on the subject published in View Camera Magazine, in May of 1989. Dick Arentz has published a fine book, "Platinum and Palladium Printing: A Complete Guide" which you should be able to find. If you are lucky, you might be able to find a workshop or course on the subject at Maine or Santa Fe or one of the other usual workshop suspects, but don't hold your breath. Most likely your best bet is to read as much as you can. Maybe you could write or call some of the folks working with the medium and try to pick their brains if you are serious enough about it to make a pain of yourself. The point is that you are going to have to work for this one, but you might come up with some amazing results. I can tell you that my unexpected forays into cheap digitally enlarged negatives have yeilded some wonderful and fun results. Good luck!
This is a technique I've been using for eight years; I started doing this as a way to teach workshops in cyanotype to people who didn't neccesarily have LF negatives. After some experimentation, I found it to work very well.
As for where to learn about platinum printing, the photographer George Tice claims (probably somewhat dubiously) to be responsible for bringing platinum/palladium printing back from the edge of extinction in the 1960's or 70's. He did publish a how-to article in a photo magazine back then, and he has since had at least one article on the subject published in View Camera Magazine, in May of 1989. Dick Arentz has published a fine book, "Platinum and Palladium Printing: A Complete Guide" which you should be able to find. If you are lucky, you might be able to find a workshop or course on the subject at Maine or Santa Fe or one of the other usual workshop suspects, but don't hold your breath. Most likely your best bet is to read as much as you can. Maybe you could write or call some of the folks working with the medium and try to pick their brains if you are serious enough about it to make a pain of yourself. The point is that you are going to have to work for this one, but you might come up with some amazing results. I can tell you that my unexpected forays into cheap digitally enlarged negatives have yeilded some wonderful and fun results. Good luck!
Last edited:
Mateo
Newbie
Hi there,
I'm a large format guy that just started having fun with 35mm cameras. Here's a few ideas for you:
1. I don't do digital negs but I've seen some great stuff made that way. I think Bostick and Sullivan is offering a digital negative service. Call Kevin, he'll help you out a bunch.
2. Check out Tom Millea's stuff. He works with a leica and makes (well he used to...he just quit pt printing) enlarged negatives the oldschool way. It isn't really that hard.
3. Platinum printing is really not expensive. If you print on the fancy inkjet papers you won't be spending much more than that. For me pt is cheeper than silver printing.
4. 4x5 can be gorgeous in Pt, I've even seen medium format prints that were great. I print mostly 8x10 and 7x17 but still make little prints because it's just so fun.
5. Nothing can compare to seeing a print instantly appear in the developer. It's got to be the most magic thing in all of photography.
I'm a large format guy that just started having fun with 35mm cameras. Here's a few ideas for you:
1. I don't do digital negs but I've seen some great stuff made that way. I think Bostick and Sullivan is offering a digital negative service. Call Kevin, he'll help you out a bunch.
2. Check out Tom Millea's stuff. He works with a leica and makes (well he used to...he just quit pt printing) enlarged negatives the oldschool way. It isn't really that hard.
3. Platinum printing is really not expensive. If you print on the fancy inkjet papers you won't be spending much more than that. For me pt is cheeper than silver printing.
4. 4x5 can be gorgeous in Pt, I've even seen medium format prints that were great. I print mostly 8x10 and 7x17 but still make little prints because it's just so fun.
5. Nothing can compare to seeing a print instantly appear in the developer. It's got to be the most magic thing in all of photography.
jayjee
smile
drewbarb & Mateo have some good points..
Bryce: I printed the digital negs on OHP and had absolutely no problem with drying or printing. Used an Epson with like 8 diff ink cartridges but I don't remember what the model is. I adjusted curves to control the density in photoshop cs3 and printed RGB. Although, I don't remember the specific printer preferences. (It's been about 4 months since I've done this.)
Scanning the Diana cam negatives with an Imacon scanner was easy and had no problem scaling them to 10.5x10.5 inches. You can see the grain from the film but that's only natural...
The final prints from my Canon 30D came out ttttack sharp, I almost wet myself. Scanning really doesn't do the print justice. If you're in the So Cal area let me know. haha
I experimented with regular tap water and distilled water and saw no difference in the results. Maybe in 50 years I'll be able to notice something.
I still have all my chemicals to print but no more darkroom
Bryce: I printed the digital negs on OHP and had absolutely no problem with drying or printing. Used an Epson with like 8 diff ink cartridges but I don't remember what the model is. I adjusted curves to control the density in photoshop cs3 and printed RGB. Although, I don't remember the specific printer preferences. (It's been about 4 months since I've done this.)
Scanning the Diana cam negatives with an Imacon scanner was easy and had no problem scaling them to 10.5x10.5 inches. You can see the grain from the film but that's only natural...
The final prints from my Canon 30D came out ttttack sharp, I almost wet myself. Scanning really doesn't do the print justice. If you're in the So Cal area let me know. haha
I experimented with regular tap water and distilled water and saw no difference in the results. Maybe in 50 years I'll be able to notice something.
I still have all my chemicals to print but no more darkroom
EmilGil
Well-known
You'll find loads of information on Pt/Pd printing over at APUG but not so much on digital negatives, they have been transferred to the Hybridphoto forum instead.
I'm about to order a set of cyanotype and Van Dyke chemistry from B&S but I haven't decided yet whether to use traditionally enlarged negatives or digital ones. I'll probably give both a try.
I'm about to order a set of cyanotype and Van Dyke chemistry from B&S but I haven't decided yet whether to use traditionally enlarged negatives or digital ones. I'll probably give both a try.
venchka
Veteran
The book & 1 week class
The book & 1 week class
A link to Dick Arentz's book and class.
http://www.dickarentz.com/
If you get to the point where you've made a passable digital negative but feel that the original deserves the very best, there are services available to produce the digital negative to the highest standards. No doubt pricey but less expensive than buying the hardware yourself. Precision Digital Negatives is one such source. Link provided in my earlier post.
The book & 1 week class
A link to Dick Arentz's book and class.
http://www.dickarentz.com/
If you get to the point where you've made a passable digital negative but feel that the original deserves the very best, there are services available to produce the digital negative to the highest standards. No doubt pricey but less expensive than buying the hardware yourself. Precision Digital Negatives is one such source. Link provided in my earlier post.
katcons
Established
I've been looking at 5x7s recently, and I would like to acquire one soon. However, I was told that perhaps I would be better off with 4x5s as I just want larger negatives for posterity, and not really that interested yet in doing alternative processes.
Should I take heed? In the meantime, I just want to print traditional photographs with the 5x7.
Should I take heed? In the meantime, I just want to print traditional photographs with the 5x7.
besk
Well-known
I feel the same way re: posterity. I use both 4X5 and 5X7 (plus a 8X10 packed away.) 4X5 can do it all and (of course) takes half the space for storage.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
For most alternative processes, you'll want either ultra large format or have to enlarge to an internegative, as they usually require contact printing - while a 5x7" contact print is a bit more presentable than a 24x36mm, it is still too friggin' small.
That is, whenever you get into alternative printing processes you'll have to set up a large format darkroom, but at the taking side, you can use whatever format you like.