mfogiel
Veteran
I have first come across the concept of a silver halide baryta fiber print from a digital file, in a David Bailey interview, which I cannot find anymore on the web. Bailey was being asked for silver prints by the collectors and museums, but he did not want to fiddle with the darkroom process anymore.
So, he came up with the help of Ilford, I believe, with the solution of digitizing his film images, doing all the burning dodging and spotting in PS, and then using these "master" files for printing on silver halide paper with the help of laser technology ( I think).
This for him was the best of both worlds: he would have total control over the final look of the print, would get the traditional and highly archival print that satisfied the collectors/museums, and would save countless hours of darkroom time in the process.
To me, this procedure makes a lot of sense, particularly for three reasons:
1 - the critical process of translating the "unbounded" range of tones present in nature to a "bounded" range present on film is being done through the analog process, that has an implicit logarithmic compression of tonal values, similar to how we process images in our brain, hence, the resulting tonal transitions look more natural to the eye. What's more, the silver negative is a fairly archival storage medium for images.
2 - All the work on the image can be done by the photographer, in order to interpret it the way he wants it to appear. This work needs only to be done once, including the spotting, etc. The laser printing ensures no further loss of quality caused by additional optical apparatus. (No MTF loss)
3 - The resulting print is highly archival, has a high Dmax and beautiful tonal transitions, has the specific "depth" to it, given by the presence of the layer of emulsion, has no surface metamerism, and has an almost infinite resolution to human eye even at close viewing distances - something particularly important in case of small prints.
An example of a lab, that offers this kind of printing facility is the famous Picto in Paris.
However, a few days ago, I have come across this article in The Online Photographer:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...013/09/dxo-film-pack-and-salgados-method.html
Where we learn, what is supposedly the current workflow Of Sebastiao Salgado, ending with silver halide B&W prints:
1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer** (with dodging and burning for the Salgado look).
It has then been corrected, that the internegative is apparently larger ( 4.5x6cm or even 4x5in).
I have the following observations to make:
1 - I do not see much sense in creating the digital grain, if there has to be an internegative - the internegative itself could be done on Tri X
2 - No matter how good the internegative, it cannot recreate the "natural" logarithmic brightness values from an image with a limited bit depth, so perhaps it would make more sense, to create the grain artificially and print from file
3 - The main scope of this process, beyond getting a silver gelatin print from a digital image, seems to be the AVOIDANCE of working on the image, so that the photographer presses the shutter button, and the Master Printer creates the final image.
4 - I have nothing at stake against Mr. Salgado, the artist. I regard him as one of the greatest photographers of all time, and think he should be free to produce his images in any way he chooses. HCB also never printed his images. I brought him up here, only for the sake of comparing the two processes.
I would welcome your opinions on this topic.
Thanks
Marek
So, he came up with the help of Ilford, I believe, with the solution of digitizing his film images, doing all the burning dodging and spotting in PS, and then using these "master" files for printing on silver halide paper with the help of laser technology ( I think).
This for him was the best of both worlds: he would have total control over the final look of the print, would get the traditional and highly archival print that satisfied the collectors/museums, and would save countless hours of darkroom time in the process.
To me, this procedure makes a lot of sense, particularly for three reasons:
1 - the critical process of translating the "unbounded" range of tones present in nature to a "bounded" range present on film is being done through the analog process, that has an implicit logarithmic compression of tonal values, similar to how we process images in our brain, hence, the resulting tonal transitions look more natural to the eye. What's more, the silver negative is a fairly archival storage medium for images.
2 - All the work on the image can be done by the photographer, in order to interpret it the way he wants it to appear. This work needs only to be done once, including the spotting, etc. The laser printing ensures no further loss of quality caused by additional optical apparatus. (No MTF loss)
3 - The resulting print is highly archival, has a high Dmax and beautiful tonal transitions, has the specific "depth" to it, given by the presence of the layer of emulsion, has no surface metamerism, and has an almost infinite resolution to human eye even at close viewing distances - something particularly important in case of small prints.
An example of a lab, that offers this kind of printing facility is the famous Picto in Paris.
However, a few days ago, I have come across this article in The Online Photographer:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...013/09/dxo-film-pack-and-salgados-method.html
Where we learn, what is supposedly the current workflow Of Sebastiao Salgado, ending with silver halide B&W prints:
1. Shoot with a digital camera
2. RAW demosaic (+ exposure correction, I suspect)
3. Process with DxO Film Pack for Kodak TriX 400 or TMax 3200 film simulation.
4. Print that image to a 35mm technical film internegative (so you have a real negative whose image simulates his favorite old films without adding grain).
5. Print the internegative to silver halide paper in Parisian darkroom using his regular printer** (with dodging and burning for the Salgado look).
It has then been corrected, that the internegative is apparently larger ( 4.5x6cm or even 4x5in).
I have the following observations to make:
1 - I do not see much sense in creating the digital grain, if there has to be an internegative - the internegative itself could be done on Tri X
2 - No matter how good the internegative, it cannot recreate the "natural" logarithmic brightness values from an image with a limited bit depth, so perhaps it would make more sense, to create the grain artificially and print from file
3 - The main scope of this process, beyond getting a silver gelatin print from a digital image, seems to be the AVOIDANCE of working on the image, so that the photographer presses the shutter button, and the Master Printer creates the final image.
4 - I have nothing at stake against Mr. Salgado, the artist. I regard him as one of the greatest photographers of all time, and think he should be free to produce his images in any way he chooses. HCB also never printed his images. I brought him up here, only for the sake of comparing the two processes.
I would welcome your opinions on this topic.
Thanks
Marek
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Marek,
It's all doable, but it's also all too ersatz for my taste. And don't forget the DeVere enlarger that prints digital files directly onto silver halide paper.
Cheers,
R.
It's all doable, but it's also all too ersatz for my taste. And don't forget the DeVere enlarger that prints digital files directly onto silver halide paper.
Cheers,
R.
icebear
Veteran
The option to print on silver halide paper from a digital file is offered in the US e.g. from
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/
I haven't used their service personally as they only offered matte surfaces so far.
Everybody is free to use whatever process to achieve a certain look that either he likes or his customers prefer. I do not see much sense in Salgado's approach but that's just me. I tried Silver Efx Pro with my MM files and every emulation of film look appeared just artificial to me. Reality doesn't have grain it's just an artistic preference and I don't like it.
As for the archival ratings of today's inks, I guess they easily rival silver halide prints when the base is an archival paper without optical brighteners.
The few prints from MM files that I had made in local store on Canson Photo Rag using an Epson 9900 are pretty OK in my book. I am not a professional and these were just my first trials in preparing digital files for print output. Someone with more experience and knowledge how to optimize every bit and detail of the process will be able to achieve a stunning quality with today's process.
For me the controls e.g. in LR are much more detailed and reproducible than traditional darkroom printing. Unless you are a master printer, you will produce a LOT of waste to create one perfect print.
http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/
I haven't used their service personally as they only offered matte surfaces so far.
Everybody is free to use whatever process to achieve a certain look that either he likes or his customers prefer. I do not see much sense in Salgado's approach but that's just me. I tried Silver Efx Pro with my MM files and every emulation of film look appeared just artificial to me. Reality doesn't have grain it's just an artistic preference and I don't like it.
As for the archival ratings of today's inks, I guess they easily rival silver halide prints when the base is an archival paper without optical brighteners.
The few prints from MM files that I had made in local store on Canson Photo Rag using an Epson 9900 are pretty OK in my book. I am not a professional and these were just my first trials in preparing digital files for print output. Someone with more experience and knowledge how to optimize every bit and detail of the process will be able to achieve a stunning quality with today's process.
For me the controls e.g. in LR are much more detailed and reproducible than traditional darkroom printing. Unless you are a master printer, you will produce a LOT of waste to create one perfect print.
willie_901
Veteran
This approach seems impractical and pointless.
Making an internegative is problematic. Apparently even the omniscient Ctein admitted the only practical way to create an internegative is using a third-party lab.
My other comment is I do not see how natural logarithmic luminance is superior to applying an appropriate logarithmic luminance function. Maybe the natural function is not strictly logarithmic so a pure logarithmic function does not create the same tonality.
Making an internegative is problematic. Apparently even the omniscient Ctein admitted the only practical way to create an internegative is using a third-party lab.
My other comment is I do not see how natural logarithmic luminance is superior to applying an appropriate logarithmic luminance function. Maybe the natural function is not strictly logarithmic so a pure logarithmic function does not create the same tonality.
Murchu
Well-known
Two points - didn't Salgado always use larger internegatives when he shot on 35mm, I seem to recall reading his 35mm negatives were copied onto 4x5" negatives and then printed.
Secondly, how is this process impractical? It seems immensely practical for Selbastiao, from what I can see, in that to switch from shooting film to digital, all he has had to really change is his cameras and the process by which his images are transferred to film negatives. From there the workflow is just as it has always been, and he gets to continue working in many of the ways he is accustomed to. Win-win for him, as far as I can see, as long as he is happy with the aesthetic he is getting with his switch to a digital capture (which he obviously is).
Secondly, how is this process impractical? It seems immensely practical for Selbastiao, from what I can see, in that to switch from shooting film to digital, all he has had to really change is his cameras and the process by which his images are transferred to film negatives. From there the workflow is just as it has always been, and he gets to continue working in many of the ways he is accustomed to. Win-win for him, as far as I can see, as long as he is happy with the aesthetic he is getting with his switch to a digital capture (which he obviously is).
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Marek,
thanks for your notes, have you had any chance to compare the outputs
with digital silver printing ?
thanks
thanks for your notes, have you had any chance to compare the outputs
with digital silver printing ?
thanks
willie_901
Veteran
It is impractical due to the time, trouble and cost of making the internegative. How many labs can make a high-quality internegative on a consistent basis? How do you establish a strong relationship with such a lab? If the lab is not where you live, how efficient is the process? It is hard enough negotiating printing from afar.
This process may be practical for an established artist such as Salgado, but I do not believe it is practical for 99.9% of photographers.
Murchu
Well-known
That was mainly my point. Now I agree with what you are saying.
Sam Kanga
Established
Hello Marek,
Yes I would be curious to read that David Bailey interview.
re: Salgado, Typically he is shooting digital, and having an interneg made, however, in the Genesis show it is clearly stated that all the prints were made on Ilford Galerie Prestige Gold Fibre silk - i.e. digital output of all the prints. Of course Genesis is made up of photos he took on film in the earlier years as well as his later digital work, so I'm sure for consistency they were all output digitally.
That Ilford paper is lovely for b/w. I use a knowledgeable printer who uses an Epson 9900. Even he suggested not to bother with the Ilford, they have a great Hahnemühle that they use, so they did a print on both papers - gob smacked all around.
Sam
Yes I would be curious to read that David Bailey interview.
re: Salgado, Typically he is shooting digital, and having an interneg made, however, in the Genesis show it is clearly stated that all the prints were made on Ilford Galerie Prestige Gold Fibre silk - i.e. digital output of all the prints. Of course Genesis is made up of photos he took on film in the earlier years as well as his later digital work, so I'm sure for consistency they were all output digitally.
That Ilford paper is lovely for b/w. I use a knowledgeable printer who uses an Epson 9900. Even he suggested not to bother with the Ilford, they have a great Hahnemühle that they use, so they did a print on both papers - gob smacked all around.
Sam
Sam Kanga
Established
Hello Marek,
Further to my last post - I think I know what the David Bailey method must be: Durst Lambda. They will print a digital file on conventional paper. There aren't many around, but luckily, here in Toronto Bob Carnie at Elevator Digital has one.
Further to my last post - I think I know what the David Bailey method must be: Durst Lambda. They will print a digital file on conventional paper. There aren't many around, but luckily, here in Toronto Bob Carnie at Elevator Digital has one.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
The Durst Lambda is an RGB laser printer, I had one and it's little brother the Epsilon plus; they were just a larger version of the Fuji Frontier not designed for mono.
I don't think you could output them to B&W paper to do that you'll need something like the DeVere machine previously mentioned (I didn't own one) they are here:
http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm
I don't think you could output them to B&W paper to do that you'll need something like the DeVere machine previously mentioned (I didn't own one) they are here:
http://www.de-vere.com/products.htm
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136805
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136805
Salgado had two shows in Toronto, during "Contact 2013".
One at a private gallery. Fewer prints, well chosen and brilliant prints..
Sadly some showed the very artificial look of digital.
The other show at ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) had many prints.
The quality and look of those somehow different from the first.
They looked so ordinary in quality!
The photos themselves were stunning.
They looked flatter.
Making internegatives is a difficult chore.
We are in the early period of digital printing.
In time, it ought to improve.
It may not improve, as people abandon all printed material, books, magazines and photographs..
Salgado's book "Genesis" is almost perfect.
Smaller prints..
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136805
Salgado had two shows in Toronto, during "Contact 2013".
One at a private gallery. Fewer prints, well chosen and brilliant prints..
Sadly some showed the very artificial look of digital.
The other show at ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) had many prints.
The quality and look of those somehow different from the first.
They looked so ordinary in quality!
The photos themselves were stunning.
They looked flatter.
Making internegatives is a difficult chore.
We are in the early period of digital printing.
In time, it ought to improve.
It may not improve, as people abandon all printed material, books, magazines and photographs..
Salgado's book "Genesis" is almost perfect.
Smaller prints..
Last edited:
Sam Kanga
Established
re: Durst Lambda,
Thanks Photo_Smith. I wonder if Bob Carnie at Elevator has something slightly different. http://www.elevatordigital.ca/printing.html I have had prints made by him, and have seen the work of others.
re: DeVere, I have the lovely 504, however sadly the digital version (504s?) costs more than my car.
thx
Sam
Thanks Photo_Smith. I wonder if Bob Carnie at Elevator has something slightly different. http://www.elevatordigital.ca/printing.html I have had prints made by him, and have seen the work of others.
re: DeVere, I have the lovely 504, however sadly the digital version (504s?) costs more than my car.
thx
Sam
mfogiel
Veteran
@raytoeil
I haven't yet tried to do the comparison, but I will do one day. Anyway, now that I have actually looked at some technical data, it looks like Durst Lambda is limiting the resolution of these chemical silver prints to 400dpi, which is a bit of a let down, because analog prints have AT LEAST 600dpi equivalent, so for small prints there might not be such a big advantage. If you have ever seen a contact print from a large negative, you know what I mean.
As to the Bailey interview, I don't find the right one anymore, but I have found this one, which is highly enjoyable:
http://pdngallery.com/legends/bailey/interview01.shtml
I am actually waiting for the next generation of A2 Epson printers, that will have a transparent "gloss" or "emulsion" layer, on top of the pigments. This should pretty much settle the doubts once for all, if digital printing is as good as chemical one.
I haven't yet tried to do the comparison, but I will do one day. Anyway, now that I have actually looked at some technical data, it looks like Durst Lambda is limiting the resolution of these chemical silver prints to 400dpi, which is a bit of a let down, because analog prints have AT LEAST 600dpi equivalent, so for small prints there might not be such a big advantage. If you have ever seen a contact print from a large negative, you know what I mean.
As to the Bailey interview, I don't find the right one anymore, but I have found this one, which is highly enjoyable:
http://pdngallery.com/legends/bailey/interview01.shtml
I am actually waiting for the next generation of A2 Epson printers, that will have a transparent "gloss" or "emulsion" layer, on top of the pigments. This should pretty much settle the doubts once for all, if digital printing is as good as chemical one.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Possibly. It was 8 years since I bought mine they may have adapted it, we could only put RA4 paper in ours so we used Kodak chromagenic paper which is no longer available.
I have also heard that Durst are going to concentrate on ink jets and drop the Lambda.
I hope I'm wrong because it was a great printer, possibly they released a software update to print on mono.
From memory I paid £130,000 for the Lambda and about £75k for the Epsilon, so these things aren't solutions for hobbyists.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
My information says 400ppi which I think is different from dpi
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I guess you might be able to put B&W paper in them and the software possibly has changed since I owned one. But the point still stands they are RGB laser printers and as such are designed for RGB printing.
I'm not sure how much quality you can expect from that process...
I'm not sure how much quality you can expect from that process...
David_Manning
Well-known
All my large (20x30 inches) b&w prints are Durst Lambda/LightJet printed on resin-coated silver halide paper, and processed in chemistry. The output is fantastic, but you're limited to the paper the printer chooses to use. It's archival in any event. The prices aren't bad, and the companies who use this in the US might surprise you...Printroom.com is one I've used, and the other is Apple!!!
Photo_Smith
Well-known
My interest was piqued because Durst told me it wasn't possible to put B&W paper in our Epsilon/Lambda because the B&W paper is mainly blue sensitive and the methods of writing use Red wavelengths that the paper isn't sensitive to.
The LED safelight we used was made by Durst and for the same reason it didn't fog paper means the red LED or laser can't write to that paper.
Possibly Ilford have made their papers panchromatic, I can't find any such paper listed.
Yet people's links seem to suggest that some labs can print this way–very strange.
David_Manning
Well-known
I have tried Apple, and I'm very impressed...I like them a lot. They are archival in the sense that the silver halide will last as long as a wet print silver halide will last. As far as borders, they print exactly what you send them...they are digital, after all. I'm sure you can prep a print with a white border and have them printed in "standard" sizes.
I don't know Apple's back-end workflow...I'm not sure if they use different regional printers, or whether Apple owns it's own print "shop" for Aperture/iPhoto etc. The 20x30in prints I got were very good quality, and were NOT printed on "poster paper"...it's the real deal (resin-coated semi-gloss). I do the work, and ordering, through Aperture.
I don't know Apple's back-end workflow...I'm not sure if they use different regional printers, or whether Apple owns it's own print "shop" for Aperture/iPhoto etc. The 20x30in prints I got were very good quality, and were NOT printed on "poster paper"...it's the real deal (resin-coated semi-gloss). I do the work, and ordering, through Aperture.