Silver vs Ink

[Bill Pierce]

How do you match the look of black and white prints from film negative printed on silver paper to digital black-and-white printed on inkjet? For most of us the answer is you don’t. The tonal range of film images is expressed by a curve that shows loss of contrast in the shadows and, to a lesser extent, the highlights. And the light sensitive printing paper has a curve too that increases this effect. Although it may be altered by the imaging programs that we use to print it, the digital image is linear often showing more seperated lower values and unreclaimable blown out highlights.

The problem is that we have been exposed to a long history of black and white images, and sometimes the digital equivalent just doesn’t look right. What do you do? For openers, you don’t overexpose. Much like exposing color transparency film, you make sure you have highlight detail even if it sometimes means shortchanging shadow detail. (Sadly, there is no digital equivalent to the black-and-white film practice of increasing exposure and reducing development to keep the highlights printable.)

There are any number of programs such as those from Silver Efex Pro, Tonality Pro and DxO Filmpack that will apply curves to digital images that emulate the tonality of black-and-white films. Programs from providers like Mastin Labs use a variety of adjustments to emulate film and many processing programs have black-and-white setting that make slight adjustments to the tonality in addition to converting the image to monochrome.

I do something simpler. I start with a setting in Lightroom that produces a low contrast image. Then I build contrast with the clarity slider, an adjustment available in many image processing programs, and add a touch of the dehaze filter, something not available in a lot of programs.

I suspect there are a lot of us that currently shoot digital who love the look of old black-and-white prints from the wet darkroom. If anybody else has some thoughts on how to lean our digital images in that direction, I’m sure the rest of us would appreciate hearing about it.

 

[filmtwit]

These days I shoot on a Monochrom 246, I then print a digital negative to 1 to 1 transparency, then print to silver paper.

 

[Calzone]

These days I shoot on a Monochrom 246, I then print a digital negative to 1 to 1 transparency, then print to silver paper.

Contact printing from a digital negative on silver is a great way to print limited editions.

Pretty much the ultimate.

Cal

 

[charjohncarter]

As everyone on TV says these days; that's a good question. I still love the of a wet print on true B&W paper created by optically exposing through a negative. But that supreme pleasure has been taken away from me: no space for a dark room.

Secondly, I like a B&W negative that has been scanned and the file is used to wet print on true B&W paper. Mpix and Fomex are a couple on places that will do this service.

Thirdly, I like a B&W negative scanned and printed on a color paper that is wet printed. For this I now use Costco but they maybe closing down this service in the next two years.

Forth, is a negative file that is used to print on printer paper. This is improving with better and better papers.

Fifth, is a digital camera file that is printed as above.

This is completely subjective and just my preferences.

 

[Mcary]

Another option is to use a lab that prints on Ilford Digital Silver Paper which is a RC photo paper that is process in B&W chemical just like traditional B&W papers.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I gave myself an assignment. Print a series of eight black and white images on silver gelatin and then scan and print those same negatives on inkjet paper. I was able to make prints that students could not tell apart. Maybe they were too unsophisticated, but I thought they were very close. Printing on baryta paper was key. Then I made inkjet prints which I thought were better than their silver gelatin counterparts. Perhaps that just means that after 45 years I am not an accomplished enough darkroom printer, but there simply are things I can do in LR that I cannot do in the darkroom. I now make mostly platinum/palladium prints from digital negatives, both from film and digital files.

 

[Takkun]

Printing on my own, I've never gotten results I even remotely liked, and wasted a lot of paper in the process.

I am lucky to have a local lab that still does C-prints or various equivalents from digital files onto chemistry-based paper. And the folks there know a hell of a lot more than I do about ICC profiling and all that jazz. Even back when drugstores and local shops still had digital minilabs for a hot second, i was happier with that output than inkjet. Maybe I'm just picky.

On the other hand i hear a lot of photographers saying one should always print one's own work even digitally, much was the maxim in the darkroom days. It certainly has the potential to be more cost-effective, but I simply don't have the room for a printer or patience for fiddling with it.

All that said: I did get my favorite results printing on Moab fibre-based paper with blacks pushed a little lower in post-processing. The FB papers seem to minimize the halftone look (which somehow really bothers me, even though its not visible at a normal viewing distance) and give a luminousness to the print despite lower contrast. Best part was how much less work they were than silver halide FB papers.

 

[filmtwit]

Though going "Big" is pain in the ass to do. Right now, the largest I can do is a 16x11 as that's the largest of the contact print frames that I currently have.
Most of the time I'm just making 5x7's

Contact printing from a digital negative on silver is a great way to print limited editions.

Pretty much the ultimate.

Cal

 

[Dogman]

I make no attempt to simulate the look of silver prints. I like the look of a digital print on matte surface rag watercolor paper. To my eyes the look is cleaner with better detail, the image is sharper and the use of software to process is more precise. When I printed in the chemical darkroom I never had the control I now have with Lightroom and my results were never as good.

When it comes to adjusting the image to print, I muddle through. Every image is different and each needs individual massaging. Usually my first efforts are low contrast with a wide range of gray tones. From there I build contrast with the clarity slider and the color channels. Eventually I get it right...or at least right to my eyes. Like I said, I muddle through the process. To quote a favorite quip of one of my friends, "Even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn."

 

[Dan]

I gave myself an assignment. Print a series of eight black and white images on silver gelatin and then scan and print those same negatives on inkjet paper. I was able to make prints that students could not tell apart. Maybe they were too unsophisticated, but I thought they were very close. Printing on baryta paper was key. Then I made inkjet prints which I thought were better than their silver gelatin counterparts. Perhaps that just means that after 45 years I am not an accomplished enough darkroom printer, but there simply are things I can do in LR that I cannot do in the darkroom. I now make mostly platinum/palladium prints from digital negatives, both from film and digital files.

This echoes my experience, too. In the old days I'd say I was a competent but not especially skilled b/w printer. I just didn't have the patience to execute the workflow necessary to up my game.

But the current level of evolution regarding printers, ink and paper has enabled me to become such a better printer printing digital because my eye knows what it wants to see in the results and the digital workflow and media enables me to work effectively -- almost too easily?? -- to get it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

One of the few remaining local camera stores have very skilled person for bw negatives inkjet prints. Halton Camera Exchange. Feels as good as darkroom prints, if they are framed and under glass. They are using some Ilford paper...

For digital bw I was able to get what I like only few times.

 

[Freakscene]

These days I shoot on a Monochrom 246, I then print a digital negative to 1 to 1 transparency, then print to silver paper.

I do the same, and print onto Azo, Lodima or Lupex.

Pretty much the ultimate.

It is a good approach, but the ultimate is platinum or platinum-palladium on rag, which I have done on a limited scale, but that way madness, and poverty, lie.

Marty

 

[filmtwit]

I'm still using an enlarger as light source and then using contact frames and generally ilford MC paper. I did a workshop last year and got to play with platnum/paladium printing for a weekend, we even learned to add color. It was great, but the buy in on equipment/chemicals was just kind of killer for me in the end.

I do the same, and print onto Azo, Lodima or Lupex.



It is a good approach, but the ultimate is platinum or platinum-palladium on rag, which I have done on a limited scale, but that way madness, and poverty, lie.

Marty

 

[Calzone]

Though going "Big" is pain in the ass to do. Right now, the largest I can do is a 16x11 as that's the largest of the contact print frames that I currently have.
Most of the time I'm just making 5x7's

FT,

I understand. Larger negatives than 8x10 should use a vacuum frame for best results.

Definitely great for fine art printing for limited editions.

The IQ possible is crazy-good. Pretty much we can do a "Salgado" without the best labs in Paris.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I do the same, and print onto Azo, Lodima or Lupex.



It is a good approach, but the ultimate is platinum or platinum-palladium on rag, which I have done on a limited scale, but that way madness, and poverty, lie.

Marty

Marty,

Trying not to poison myself. I agree that platinum-palladium has the better blacks and shadow depth.

The advantage of silver is scale, and able to print larger.

AZO for me has the tonality and detail. 20x24 sheet size limit I believe. Single ply.

How big can you print?

BTW I'm without the space and darkroom living currently in Madhattan.

Cal

 

[KenR]

Silver print

Silver print

I still do silver B&W printing on Ilford FB Multigrade paper. I enjoy the process of retreating into the darkroom, putting on some music and spending the day printing. I am saddened by the fact that I as I age, I am finding it hard to go on long (5-10 mile) hikes with my MF (=heavy)equipment and may end up carrying only a digital camera in the future. My wife generally takes a Fuji X100 with us and the files are nice to turn into photos around our home or make into a photo book or calendar. But somehow, to me anyway, they are not "real" prints. They seem plastic and artificial. But as I seem to be heading that way, I better learn to like them. Ugh.

 

[Corran]

AZO for me has the tonality and detail. 20x24 sheet size limit I believe. Single ply.

I finally tried AZO, making contact prints from 8x10 negatives. Made other prints using Ilford Galerie and Ilford Warmtone, and finally someone else made a few contact prints on Lodima using a variety of techniques (he was well-versed in using Lodima is the point). All developed w/ Ansco 130.

I found the AZO to have an ever so slight bit of "glow" in the lower midtones after staring at all the prints over several sessions and under different lighting condition. This was nice and all, but not nearly the "revelation" many espouse wrt AZO.

While I am by no means a master printer, I am confident that Ilford Galerie is more than good enough for contact printing, and is much cheaper than AZO or Lodima alternative. No longer am I wondering about the supposed "silver bullet" that AZO seems to be in many peoples' minds. My 8x10 contact prints on Galerie, IMO, look fantastic.

Just my opinion.

 

[Ronald M]

The secret to film is Leica, Zeiss, and to a certain extent I have not fully explored Nikon Ai or AiS lenses. Years of trying prove Pentax is a total failure for monochrome.

I love my darkroom and recently started teaching my son.
When I said not full explored, I bought a Nice Nikon F2 AS.
Keep in mind I tried split grade years ago. I was not impressed. However I found Ilford tutorial on You Tube by an ex employee. I tried it with a roll used to test the nikon F2.
I made four prints in an hour and they are among the best I ever made. I can control the density of highlights and shadows and the contrast within the plus the contrast in zones 3 to 8. That part you do not get from tutorial.

Now digital . Luminosity masks for darks, lights, & midtones.
Adjust them for match to wet prints or anyway you want.

Now it comes down to archival quality.

 

[filmtwit]

Here's the thing, if you create your own negative and print to silver g paper, you will get that all that digital workflow plus you'll have archive quality from your prints.

This echoes my experience, too. In the old days I'd say I was a competent but not especially skilled b/w printer. I just didn't have the patience to execute the workflow necessary to up my game.

But the current level of evolution regarding printers, ink and paper has enabled me to become such a better printer printing digital because my eye knows what it wants to see in the results and the digital workflow and media enables me to work effectively -- almost too easily?? -- to get it.

 

[Freakscene]

Trying not to poison myself. I agree that platinum-palladium has the better blacks and shadow depth.

There is nothing about platinum printing that is more poisonous than silver printing or the aerialised solvents that are produced from inkjets. I'm experienced with working with chemicals; when I was a student I made some income by synthesising amidol for a local camera group and QAing batches imported into Australia. I also work with chemicals much more hazardous, so neither silver nor platinum printing worries me.

I also think the risks associated with inkjet printing, like a lot of things we do in modern life where we have been told it is safe and exposure if hard to estimate (you can't smell or see inkjet solvents) are vastly underestimated.

The advantage of silver is scale, and able to print larger.

This: http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html shows that silver contact prints have a similar length of scale to platinum. The advantages of platinum are better DMax (deeper blacks), local contrast and image permanence.

AZO for me has the tonality and detail.

The advantages of silver chloride are cost, convenience (someone else coats it for you), surface finish (I like air dried glass FB paper) image tone consistency (not influenced by ambient temperature and humidity) and speed.

My guess is roughly that both are about as archival as each other. Rag paper and better metal stability probably favours platinum prints, but that's far enough into the future that natural disaster and social stability are probably more likely to be real issues.

How big can you print?

I have a 24x36 inch vacuum frame.

I'm not saying anyone else should do what I'm doing, and my shed which doubles as a darkroom is fairly large. It has advantages and disadvantages. My prints look very nice, but if someone asked me to make 20 in a night I'd either be forgoing sleep or saying no.

I finally tried AZO, making contact prints from 8x10 negatives. Made other prints using Ilford Galerie and Ilford Warmtone, and finally someone else made a few contact prints on Lodima using a variety of techniques (he was well-versed in using Lodima is the point). All developed w/ Ansco 130.

I found the AZO to have an ever so slight bit of "glow" in the lower midtones after staring at all the prints over several sessions and under different lighting condition. This was nice and all, but not nearly the "revelation" many espouse wrt AZO.

While I am by no means a master printer, I am confident that Ilford Galerie is more than good enough for contact printing, and is much cheaper than AZO or Lodima alternative. No longer am I wondering about the supposed "silver bullet" that AZO seems to be in many peoples' minds. My 8x10 contact prints on Galerie, IMO, look fantastic.

By the time it gets here (Australia), Lupex costs about the same as Galerie. Foma FB papers are less expensive.

The main differences between chloride contact prints and prints on normal chloro-bromide papers (these days they are often chloro-bromo-iodo papers) are length of tonal scale, local contrast and image colour. But to get the first two you need to make very high contrast negatives (like you would for platinum) and print through them. It takes a lot of getting used to.

Ansco 130 produces an odd image tone on chloride papers, it wouldn't be my choice.

BUT There are no magic recipes. All processes have advantages and disadvantages. I'm just explaining what I do and why. Frankly, it's a lot of work, if I wasn't experienced with silver printing and if I didn't have a kilogram of amidol that was going to go off if I didn't use it, I would never have even thought of taking this approach. Lots of beautiful work is done all sorts of ways.

Marty