f8&go
Established
Just curious, and 'cause I've got the time:
Anyone here have experience with making
digital negatives for contact printing?
Quick searches here show no references to
Dan Burkholder, Mark Nelson, his 'Precision
Digital Negatives', or 'digital negative for
contact printing.'
Thanks
Anyone here have experience with making
digital negatives for contact printing?
Quick searches here show no references to
Dan Burkholder, Mark Nelson, his 'Precision
Digital Negatives', or 'digital negative for
contact printing.'
Thanks
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
I have the book from Dan Burkholder and have done a few digi neg contacts (8x10), though I used some cheap transparency sheets they came out pretty nice. I gave it up because of the un-availability of OHP in my area but have seen a few places recently carrying it so I'm having thoughts of getting back into it.
Todd
Todd
f8&go
Established
Thanks for the reply.
Interested to see what this thread shakes out.
Interested to see what this thread shakes out.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I've only just done my first digital negatives for contact printing (cyanotypes). I used the 'wing and a prayer' method. With my nasty cheap desktop printer and the tonal limitations of cyanotypes, I suspect the higher order processes would be wasted anyway.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Clay Harmon (aka ClayH) is a member here on the RFF. He has alot of experience with the process and is a great guy to talk to, here is an article he wrote concerning making Digital Negs:
http://www.alternativephotography.com/articles/art056.html
Good Luck,
Todd
http://www.alternativephotography.com/articles/art056.html
Good Luck,
Todd
f8&go
Established
Todd.Hanz,
Thanks for the link. I'd never turned that up in my searches.
Could be invaluable if I ever get the chance to have a go at it.
dazed,
Never been involved with anything that could
be described as "higher order processes" but
"nasty cheap" is comfortably familiar.
Guys, I'm a long way from trying this out myself
but keep us posted please if you go at it again.
Thanks
Thanks for the link. I'd never turned that up in my searches.
Could be invaluable if I ever get the chance to have a go at it.
dazed,
Never been involved with anything that could
be described as "higher order processes" but
"nasty cheap" is comfortably familiar.
Guys, I'm a long way from trying this out myself
but keep us posted please if you go at it again.
Thanks
dazedgonebye
Veteran
f8,
What are you going to use the negs for?
What are you going to use the negs for?
f8&go
Established
daze,
"Honestly mister, my intentions are purely honorable."
Seems like the best of all possible (B&W) worlds.
Shoot with a small camera using real film. Soup the film
for the contrast range (typically long) you've shot.
Up-res and sharpen little if you wish, then enhance local & overall
contrast. Then burn a contact print that's just what you want,
prints the same every time and gives you the wet process look
that ink-jet printers reputedly still fall just short of.
Wet good, enlarger bad (at least difficult) & minimal darkroom.
I'm not personally into big prints but I'd love to be able to
produce small jewels that look like perfect 8 X 10 contacts,
without the Deardorff, of course. Maybe a Mamiya 7II though.
All just blue sky now, but pretty blue sky, gotta admit.
I've probably misunderstood your question.
"Honestly mister, my intentions are purely honorable."
Seems like the best of all possible (B&W) worlds.
Shoot with a small camera using real film. Soup the film
for the contrast range (typically long) you've shot.
Up-res and sharpen little if you wish, then enhance local & overall
contrast. Then burn a contact print that's just what you want,
prints the same every time and gives you the wet process look
that ink-jet printers reputedly still fall just short of.
Wet good, enlarger bad (at least difficult) & minimal darkroom.
I'm not personally into big prints but I'd love to be able to
produce small jewels that look like perfect 8 X 10 contacts,
without the Deardorff, of course. Maybe a Mamiya 7II though.
All just blue sky now, but pretty blue sky, gotta admit.
I've probably misunderstood your question.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm taking that as a normal photographic paper type contact print...as opposed to one of the 'alternative processes,' such as those found here: www.alternativephotography.com
f8&go
Established
Correct, conventional silver store-bought.
If I got that far it would be a major triumph.
Platinum, palladium, etc. seems like brain surgery
to me. Not that I don't love its subtle beauty.
If I got that far it would be a major triumph.
Platinum, palladium, etc. seems like brain surgery
to me. Not that I don't love its subtle beauty.
rncamero
Established
f8&go,
Couple of years ago a good buddy of mine did something similar: went from 4x5 negative into PS. After that went to a local shop (Santa Barbara, CA) where they made a negative out of the digital file. I'm sure they could do a large negative for you...
I'll try and pick his brain for the details.
Raymond
Couple of years ago a good buddy of mine did something similar: went from 4x5 negative into PS. After that went to a local shop (Santa Barbara, CA) where they made a negative out of the digital file. I'm sure they could do a large negative for you...
I'll try and pick his brain for the details.
Raymond
f8&go
Established
rncamero,
Thanks!
In spite of the probable expense, the pro-lab route might
actually be more efficient considering the few pix I can
make that are worth the trouble (time & talent impairments.)
I can buy a lot of lab services for the price of all the digital equip.
I don't yet own. Thanks for reminding me of this.
Thanks!
In spite of the probable expense, the pro-lab route might
actually be more efficient considering the few pix I can
make that are worth the trouble (time & talent impairments.)
I can buy a lot of lab services for the price of all the digital equip.
I don't yet own. Thanks for reminding me of this.
rncamero
Established
f8&go,
Ok, an update, and unfortunately I remembered the events differently - after editing in PS, a high quality print was made. The next step was a bit old school - 6x6 negative was made of the print using an MF camera on copy stand.
Sorry to let you down with this info - the real expense back then was getting a high quality print made. He also ended up having 20 x 20 prints made from the negative, also not cheap.
I'm hoping you do find a way, as I would love to do the same thing sometime in the future
-Raymond
Ok, an update, and unfortunately I remembered the events differently - after editing in PS, a high quality print was made. The next step was a bit old school - 6x6 negative was made of the print using an MF camera on copy stand.
Sorry to let you down with this info - the real expense back then was getting a high quality print made. He also ended up having 20 x 20 prints made from the negative, also not cheap.
I'm hoping you do find a way, as I would love to do the same thing sometime in the future
-Raymond
f8&go
Established
rncamero,
Thanks for going to the trouble, it's all
good info to me. Besides, this is long distance
speculation for me at this point.
Remember reading long ago that Ralph Gibson
uses a similar method. Makes a 4 X 5 copy of
his final 'master' print (typically a Leica neg. as we know)
and the stuff you buy comes from that 4 X 5 (possibly from
the hand of his assistant, which I don't intend as a criticism.)
This is also an old airbrushing technique: blow up your original
to a large, easier to airbrush print, make a 4 X 5 copy neg and
print your final product.
All of this is really just thinking out loud for me cause I don't
know enough yet and a final method may be a different blend
of digital-optical-chemical than I originally conceived.
Appreciate it.
Thanks for going to the trouble, it's all
good info to me. Besides, this is long distance
speculation for me at this point.
Remember reading long ago that Ralph Gibson
uses a similar method. Makes a 4 X 5 copy of
his final 'master' print (typically a Leica neg. as we know)
and the stuff you buy comes from that 4 X 5 (possibly from
the hand of his assistant, which I don't intend as a criticism.)
This is also an old airbrushing technique: blow up your original
to a large, easier to airbrush print, make a 4 X 5 copy neg and
print your final product.
All of this is really just thinking out loud for me cause I don't
know enough yet and a final method may be a different blend
of digital-optical-chemical than I originally conceived.
Appreciate it.