Silver/Ink Jet

[Bill Pierce]

I constantly hear folks say that black-and-white digital images just aren’t as good as those shot on silver film. The truth, of course, is that they are different. And, for those of us who grew up on silver, the prints may not look as good. The biggest difference is in the darker tones of the print or even the screen image. The non linear rendition of film combined with the non linear rendition of the enlarging papers of the wet darkroom compressed and, to some extent lost, detail in the dark values. To match the values of a silver print with digital inkjet you are going to have to throw away some of those darker values in the image. And that’s hard. Photo folks just don’t like to throw away that hard to come by shadow detail. Whatever program you use, be it with bottom end sliders or curves, compress those dark grays, live with the pain. Add mid range contrast even to the point that you may have to reduce the overall contrast. Yes, it’s beginning to look a lot like silver. Do this enough and you can even lose more shadow detail with only minimal pain.

I know this hardly is the kind of post that stimulates a discussion, but it’s an issue that has been much discussed by a lot of my friends. I thought it would interest some of you. And any thoughts you have in this arena are much appreciated.

 

[mrmeadows]

Bill,

The effect of too much shadow detail would seem to be related to the linear gamma that digital sensors produce. I wonder if an alternative method of suppressing that detail to get a more traditional b/w image would be to intentionally underexpose in camera and then boost the exposure in post (LR, for example). I've done this a little and it certainly produces a different look, but I haven't made any silver prints for years so can't make any comparisons. Any thoughts about this method?

--- Mike

 

[Bill Pierce]

Bill,

The effect of too much shadow detail would seem to be related to the linear gamma that digital sensors produce. I wonder if an alternative method of suppressing that detail to get a more traditional b/w image would be to intentionally underexpose in camera and then boost the exposure in post (LR, for example). I've done this a little and it certainly produces a different look, but I haven't made any silver prints for years so can't make any comparisons. Any thoughts about this method?

--- Mike

I think that the "silver look" is a slight clipping of the darkest values and the compression of the tones above it; so, for me it's a little bit of clipping at the bottom and changing the curve to darken and lower the contrast of the dark values above the black.

 

[RichC]

How do traditional B&W prints compare with digital C-type* prints? I'm a colour photographer, and much prefer colour C types to inkjet prints, as the former look more like how I expect a photograph to appear,** but I've never compared the two media for B&W images.

I've also never compared a colour darkroom print with a C-type print, so I've no idea if there are appreciable differences - assuming that the C-type print is from a high-resolution, carefully scanned negative, my feeling is that there won't be…


Notes:
* For those unaware of digital C type printing, it uses the traditional analogue chromogenic colour process with light-sensitive paper and chemical development but instead of using an enlarger to create the image, a digital file is sent to a laser.

** Compared with inkjet prints, C types to my eye are slightly softer (details less crisp) with gentler and greater tonality (esp. in shadows), and more naturalness (because the image is below the surface rather than sitting on the surface. As Bill says, this difference doesn't make inkjet prints worse - just different.

 

[robert blu]

Since years I only print digital my negs (I'm on hybrid workflow) most of them B&W.
It's different than a silver print, in my opinion even better. Selection of many different papers with different structures is possible.
But, as it was in the darkroom when I was young it took me a lot if time to get the results I was looking for. Preparing the file in appropriate way is an essential step, i use with LR or PS with the same or the similar procedure I would use in a darkroom. And again as in the darkroom I throw away many unsatisfying prints, the waste basket is the most important accessory!
robert

 

[sevo]

How do traditional B&W prints compare with digital C-type* prints? I'm a colour photographer, and much prefer colour C types to inkjet prints as the former look more like how I expect a photograph to appear,** but I've never compared the two media for B&W images.

It really is a matter of size. Inkjet is not the best medium for postcard sized prints. But at viewing distances greater than arms length, textural differences (noise in inkjet vs. blur in C-prints) grow invisible, and the much greater colour gamut of inkjet wins out.

 

[mfogiel]

I think that the shadow difference is a minor matter. The main difference, is the highlight rendition, where digital simply does not look "natural" and is unable to reproduce small nuances, very important for example in portraiture. On top of that, digital images typically look "too sharp" - something particularly unpleasant in people photography. A minor thing still in favour of silver prints, is the uniform surface and feeling of depth given by the gelatine.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I think what we all have to remember is that a digital raw file run through digital imaging programs can look almost any way that you want it to. You can change the contrast, the brightness range, the colors, the sharpness, make local corrections, e.t.c.. About the only thing you can’t do is bring back detail in totally overexposed areas, similar to shooting slide film, This was pretty obvious in the early digital days when relatively simple processing programs asked that you set even the basic parameters. Different photographers had different ideas about what was “sharp” or what was the correct tonality or color - the same cameras and processing programs and very different final results. Today, you open a digital image with a variety of programs and it looks pretty good. There is an understandable tendency to say, “OK, that’s the picture.” It’s not. It’s one possibility.

 

[John Bragg]

I shoot film (HP5+) and scan and print inkjet. I am more than happy with the results compared to a darkroom print. I apply the same rules in creating a negative to scan as one for darkroom. Expose well enough to record the shadows you need and develop just enough to retain the highlights. I have no problems in making credible prints with minimal post processing using this hybrid workflow, but I wouldnt have a clue about doing the same from a raw file. It seems to be a royal pain in the butt compared to using a film original.

 

[Calzone]

How do traditional B&W prints compare with digital C-type* prints?

Notes:
* For those unaware of digital C type printing, it uses the traditional analogue chromogenic colour process with light-sensitive paper and chemical development but instead of using an enlarger to create the image, a digital file is sent to a laser.

** Compared with inkjet prints, C types to my eye are slightly softer (details less crisp) with gentler and greater tonality (esp. in shadows), and more naturalness (because the image is below the surface rather than sitting on the surface. As Bill says, this difference doesn't make inkjet prints worse - just different.

Rich,

I shoot a Leica Monochrom and I have used Digital Silver Imaging to print 24x36 on 30x40 paper to make B&W fiber wet prints. Even though the file is printed with a laser I see the same softness you speak of. This painting with light is partially due to projection, but also despite being a cohearent light source (laser) the beam spreads a little because it is not perfectly collumated.

With inkjet I use Piezography where I use 7 shades of black in an Epson printer along with a Quadtone RIP which does away with the dither that leaves an airbrush like artifact on B&W inkjet prints that use color inksets. The amount of resolution I'm getting via Monochrom and Piezography easily resembles medium format results in both tonality and IQ. Sometimes I even get 4x5 like results if everything is perfect (focus, high shutter speed, highly detailed image, great lighting...)

For me B&W digital printing can still look like film photography but it crosses over to the look of a larger format and at times like even large format that has been contact printed. I saw the Salgado Genesis show at ICP. It took a very careful eye to distinguish the digital image capture from the 645 film images (I don't consider 645 medium format) in the massive wet prints that were made from 4x5 digital negatives. One had to look for the slight more detail in the shadows (digital) or the smoother highlights (analog) with a careful trained eye to distinguish any difference in the wet prints.

I have spent a year printing on a 3880, but almost imediately I discovered that this is way too small a printer, and now I also own a 7800 that is more appropriately sized. While I still have a stockpile understand that I initially spent $5K for paper and ink to run the 3880, and recently I spent $3.2K on paper and ink to load the 7800 that currently is in storage loaded with Piezoflush.

By changing out two carts I can adapt my two existing printers to make digital negatives on overhead projection film for contact printing. Understand that this would require a vacuum frame and a large studio space, but Salgado quality is already available and Jon Cone of Piezography has done all the heavy lifting. On a consumer level, while not cheap, I can make a silver wet print (editions) like a large format photographer, via contact printing while exploiting making a perfect negative via digital processing. This is the state of silver/ink...

BTW I shoot with a 2X yellow Heliopan filter marked "Digital" on my Monochrom. The "Digital" filters from Heliopan feature both IR and UV filters that remove signal that is basically noise. I tend to shoot like a large format shooter trying to make a perfect negative at image capture, I expose to the right for low signal to noise, and I minimize post processing as much as possible to basically minor tweaking in LR5.

Cal

 

[kbb]

For the style of silver-halide monochrome I like, the blocked-up blacks and consequent lost shadow detail of prints featuring "rich blacks" was something for people that never progressed beyond high school photography class.
If you couldn't get the "right amount' of shadow detail, then you were probably exposing and developing the film wrong.

 

[willie_901]

...

...

Notes:
* For those unaware of digital C type printing, it uses the traditional analogue chromogenic colour process with light-sensitive paper and chemical development but instead of using an enlarger to create the image, a digital file is sent to a laser.

** Compared with inkjet prints, C types to my eye are slightly softer (details less crisp) with gentler and greater tonality (esp. in shadows), and more naturalness (because the image is below the surface rather than sitting on the surface. As Bill says, this difference doesn't make inkjet prints worse - just different.

C-types come in all different flavors. The variables are printer technologies, monitor calibration/soft proofing and especially the paper media. This is similar to analog print production where negative exposure, development techniques and printing papers can significantly affect the outcome.

I only use pro labs for printing. They seem to produce excellent C-type monochrome prints. I also use consumer on-line labs (MPIX in my case) that offer economical C-type monochrome prints.

Once you enter the digital realm via raw rendering or via negative scans, well, you are in the digital realm. I don't think it's important to create a virtual/pseudo analog print from a digital files. Instead it's important to create an print that helps the photographer meet their goals.

 

[Calzone]

Once you enter the digital realm via raw rendering or via negative scans, well, you are in the digital realm. I don't think it's important to create a virtual/pseudo analog print from a digital files. Instead it's important to create an print that helps the photographer meet their goals.

Willie,

I agree, but it is nice that if I use Epson Exhibition Fiber with my Piezography splitone inkset that a print could easily be mistakened for a silver wet print on fiber.

Cal

 

[Dektol Dan]

Why?

Why?

Bill, I'm probably almost as old as you (is that possible?) and was in the old man's darkroom by the age of 8.

I got into film scanning in the 90's and never went back to the dark room. In '96 the family got together and bought the old man an outfitted Mac and film scanner and he left the dark room too. That was hard to take. When I was in high school I had built dad a giant sink big enough to accommodate a turning tub washer for another Xmas. I made that sink from plywood and fiberglass. It was a big darkroom!

Within a year from the Mac's purchase, it was filled with family junk the way the family's prize pool table was.

Here's my take. There is NO laser or ink jet that can match a B&W silver print. Don't bother trying. I believe that the glory of digital is that it can be viewed from a monitor, and images shared electronically. Color prints can be very convincing from some inkjets, but then I thought that color prints made chemically where always s_h_i_t too back in the day. My dad invested big in color printing, but the inconvenience and cost was way too much and he gave it up.

Digital made color possible for me, and I didn't shoot B&W for years.

If you want digital B&W go a happy half way and buy a Leica Monochrom,
but still shoot film as I do, and scan.

However, in the end if want to make art, THE CRAFT, stay with silver and don't waste anytime trying to make apples from oranges. Life and opportunity is too short!

 

[willie_901]

Willie,

I agree, but it is nice that if I use Epson Exhibition Fiber with my Piezography splitone inkset that a print could easily be mistakened for a silver wet print on fiber.

Cal

Cal,

Yes, that is very nice. I am pleased with digital B&W prints myself. As far as I can tell, the paper is a very important component of the final result.

 

[calebarchie]

Digital Negatives? Best of both..

 

[esearing]

It would be nice if we could get some C-Type printers for desktop/darkroom so then perhaps traditional photographers could learn to enhance the output from their files.

I would also like to see a laser type etching machine that would put an image on metal plates for photogravure printing.

 

[RichC]

Rich,

I shoot a Leica Monochrom and I have used Digital Silver Imaging to print 24x36 on 30x40 paper to make B&W fiber wet prints. Even though the file is printed with a laser I see the same softness you speak of. This painting with light is partially due to projection, but also despite being a cohearent light source (laser) the beam spreads a little because it is not perfectly collumated.

With inkjet I use Piezography where I use 7 shades of black in an Epson printer along with a Quadtone RIP which does away with the dither that leaves an airbrush like artifact on B&W inkjet prints that use color inksets. The amount of resolution I'm getting via Monochrom and Piezography easily resembles medium format results in both tonality and IQ. Sometimes I even get 4x5 like results if everything is perfect (focus, high shutter speed, highly detailed image, great lighting...)

For me B&W digital printing can still look like film photography but it crosses over to the look of a larger format and at times like even large format that has been contact printed. I saw the Salgado Genesis show at ICP. It took a very careful eye to distinguish the digital image capture from the 645 film images (I don't consider 645 medium format) in the massive wet prints that were made from 4x5 digital negatives. One had to look for the slight more detail in the shadows (digital) or the smoother highlights (analog) with a careful trained eye to distinguish any difference in the wet prints.

I have spent a year printing on a 3880, but almost imediately I discovered that this is way too small a printer, and now I also own a 7800 that is more appropriately sized. While I still have a stockpile understand that I initially spent $5K for paper and ink to run the 3880, and recently I spent $3.2K on paper and ink to load the 7800 that currently is in storage loaded with Piezoflush.

By changing out two carts I can adapt my two existing printers to make digital negatives on overhead projection film for contact printing. Understand that this would require a vacuum frame and a large studio space, but Salgado quality is already available and Jon Cone of Piezography has done all the heavy lifting. On a consumer level, while not cheap, I can make a silver wet print (editions) like a large format photographer, via contact printing while exploiting making a perfect negative via digital processing. This is the state of silver/ink...

BTW I shoot with a 2X yellow Heliopan filter marked "Digital" on my Monochrom. The "Digital" filters from Heliopan feature both IR and UV filters that remove signal that is basically noise. I tend to shoot like a large format shooter trying to make a perfect negative at image capture, I expose to the right for low signal to noise, and I minimize post processing as much as possible to basically minor tweaking in LR5.

Cal

Thanks - that was very illuminating...