The Path Forward

[Godfrey]

OK, now if I have perfected a digital file to exactly what I like how come I can't easily print a digital negative so I can make a contact print on real B&W paper?

Um, do you mean you've rendered a positive digital image to exactly what you like and you want to invert it so that you can print a digital negative and then contact print that onto silver-halide photosensitive paper?

That's a complicated transformation, John. To properly invert a fully rendered positive image to a negative for the chemical print process, you have to apply the inverse of a gamma correction to the positive image in order to accommodate the print paper's contrast gain and tonal response in whatever print development methodology you've chosen.

To do this requires that you carefully control two things: the printing process and then the positive-to-negative digital inversion process, and in that order.

First, establish a reliable and consistent print process that will render a step-gradient negative image to a satisfactory positive. Then, use that positive to create a positive digital image of the step-gradient that matches the positive print, then use a tonal curve adjustment (in LR or similar software) to invert the image and match the negative step gradient image. Then you have to test that the printing inks used to make the output negative on whatever transparency or paper base you want to use respond the same as your original negative in the contact printer, and adjust the curve until you match the results to high fidelity. Once you have that total tonal curve adjustment, save it as a preset or template so that you can apply it to any B&W positive image.

At that point, you can "easily" print a digital negative from any rendered B&W digital positive image that will contact print to a satisfactory and high-fidelity silver-halide B&W print.

I did this process in the late 1990s, and found the consistency of the output was variable because of the materials available then ... they lacked sufficient stability to be able to just apply a well formed positive to negative transformation reliably without constant tweaking. It was due to the dye-based nature of the printer inks at that time, and the variable quality of the papers/transparency printing media. I kept working at it until about 2005, when the modern generation of pigment ink printers started becoming available. And then the modern generation of high quality ink printer papers started to become available, and I no longer found any reason to do the silver-halide print ... what came out of my pigment inkjet printer as a positive proved to be just as high quality and just as archivally stable. So I abandoned the digital negative process at that point, and print direct to high quality paper with my inkjet printer now from finished digital image positives. 🙂

G

 

[Bob Michaels]

Surely successful photography depends equally on both?

You need technology that best supports concepts, and concepts that work with the technology. Otherwise the photos won't be as good as they could be.

I must disagree. I see all the technology and technical issues reaching a point of diminishing returns very early. That bar is set so low that we commonly exceed it without thought. The conceptual or visual impact appears to have almost unlimited potential for improvement.

My statement does refer to the general public and not specifically other photographers which appears to be prevalent here. If a viewer of my work has technical comments or questions, I view that as my failure to reach them with the message or emotion I wanted to convey.

I know some Cuban photographers who do great impactful work using older generation lower tier consumer cameras, kit zooms, and straight OTC JPG's. They have the advantage of no internet technical groups constantly suggesting that their work could be compromised because they do not have the latest gear or ability to do post processing. Instead they focus on subject matter and light.

 

[charjohncarter]

Godfrey, the answer to your first question is yes. And your second statement is right on: That's a complicated transformation, John.

It seems it would be easier to buy an 8x10 camera.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

...

It seems it would be easier to buy an 8x10 camera.

8x10 film, chemicals and equal size of transparencies, inks are same in the price.

But 8x10 is not Monochrom. You photos are limited by lousy landscapes, still objects on the table and sit still portraits. No wonder it was ditched by most of photogs.

 

[Godfrey]

Godfrey, the answer to your first question is yes. And your second statement is right on: That's a complicated transformation, John.

It seems it would be easier to buy an 8x10 camera.

LOL! Yes, indeed. Of course, then you have all the complexities of working an 8x10 view camera to learn and practice... 🙂

And if you want to add more complication and fun (read expense) to the process, pick up a Polaroid 8x10 instant film processing machine, a couple hundred dollars worth of 8x10 Polaroid exposure units, and go have at it. At least then you can dispense with the contact printing part of the complexities.... 😀

Speaking of which, perhaps today I'll slice up some of my recently acquired Ilford Direct Positive B&W paper (4x5 in the box, I'll cut it down to 6x9cm) and load up my film holders for the Mamiya Press 23 Super. I can make four exposures before I have to reload.... LOL!

Sometimes, the number of obstacles you throw into the path just make the effort more fun... :angel:

G

 

[jsrockit]

8x10 film, chemicals and equal size of transparencies, inks are same in the price.

But 8x10 is not Monochrom. You photos are limited by lousy landscapes, still objects on the table and sit still portraits. No wonder it was ditched by most of photogs.

Maybe ditched by photogs but photographers still use them...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Maybe ditched by photogs but photographers still use them...

Yet, 99% of LF is same dross in terms of the content. LF artists mostly brags about deep tonality. Basically it is not content, photography related. Just technicalities. If it is LF, you are eligible to call yourself as an artist (while you are just DR technician, rig operator). If you don't have LF and no dinking with large negatives, manual exposure metering you are photog.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Um, do you mean you've rendered a positive digital image to exactly what you like and you want to invert it so that you can print a digital negative and then contact print that onto silver-halide photosensitive paper?

That's a complicated transformation, John. To properly invert a fully rendered positive image to a negative for the chemical print process, you have to apply the inverse of a gamma correction to the positive image in order to accommodate the print paper's contrast gain and tonal response in whatever print development methodology you've chosen.

I apply a custom Gamma curve to my M Monochrom files.
I convert the output to 16-bits to avoid collisions.
It works like a look up table. Should not be too hard to reverse.

csnip
C COMPUTE THE GAMMA CURVE, INITIALIZE KEY PARAMETERS. MULTIPLE CURVES ARE
C GENERATED. THIS VERSION PROMPTS USER FOR CURVE NUMBER TO APPLY.
X0= -0.67D0
L= 1.00D0
K= 0.5D0
XBEGIN= -2.0
XEND= 2.0
XINC= ( XEND- XBEGIN)/ 16384.0D0
STEP= 1
XSTEP= DFLOAT( STEP)
DO 10 J= 1, 8
SBEGIN= SIGMOID( XBEGIN, L, X0, K)
SEND= SIGMOID( XEND, L, X0, K)
SLOPE= SIGMA_MAX/ ( SEND- SBEGIN)
X= XBEGIN
GAMMAVALUE( J)= K
DO 5 I= 0, 16383
S= ( SIGMOID( X, L, X0, K)- SBEGIN)* SLOPE
INPUT= ( X- XBEGIN)* ( 16384.0D0/ ( XEND- XBEGIN))
GAMMA( I, J)= INT( S+ 0.01D0)
X= X+ ( XINC* XSTEP)
5 CONTINUE
K= K+ 0.5D0
10 CONTINUE
csnip
REAL* 8 FUNCTION SIGMOID( X, L, X0, K)
IMPLICIT NONE
REAL* 8 X, L, X0, K
C
C L
C F( X)= -------------------------
C ( 1+ E** ( -K* ( X- X0)))
C LOCALS.
REAL* 8 E, VALUE
PARAMETER ( E= 2.71828128D0)
VALUE= L/ ( 1.0D0+ E** ( (- K)* ( X- X0)))
SIGMOID= VALUE* 65535.0D0
RETURN
END

Plotted out- these are the curves that "I just liked" how they made the M Monochrom files look.

GAMMA by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Original Image.
L1005046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
Shadow Area:
L1005046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Fortran code generates a new DNG file, which also changes the "Black Level" in the DNG file header. Straight export to JPEG using LR6.

G5046 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

G5046_100crop by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

For what John needs- you can use Photoshop to generate a custom curve to transform the image "eye-Balling" it, then save the curve.
Adjustments->Curves
You can save and load the generated curves.

 

[jsrockit]

Yet, 99% of LF is same dross in terms of the content. LF artists mostly brags about deep tonality. Basically it is not content, photography related. Just technicalities. If it is LF, you are eligible to call yourself as an artist (while you are just DR technician, rig operator). If you don't have LF and no dinking with large negatives, manual exposure metering you are photog.

There’s a whole world outside of the technical talk of photography forums. Photography / Art books are a good place to start...no bragging about technical concerns there...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

There’s a whole world outside of the technical talk of photography forums. Photography / Art books are a good place to start...no bragging about technical concerns there...

Art is created by hands and talent. It is called painting. I like Picasso way of painting the portraits. Impressionists halls are always full, classic painting halls, not so.

Photography is different. It is documenting by catching the light on emulsion or sensor. While some photos triggers imagination just like Picasso portraits. Or just makes you horny.

RFF consist of two different parts. Gear talk and huge amount of photography only threads, pictures sub-forums and gallery. W/NWords, Warsaw Daily, NY as I see it and so on. Fort Wayne is great photos thread.
Rangefinder.ru is barely alive on forum site, but its Gallery is blooming.

 

[willie_901]

PS Is A Nightmare.

PS Is A Nightmare.

30 years with PhotoShop and I'm still learning things from it.

This is the hallmark of an application with a profoundly inefficient, inconvenient user interface. Otherwise, such as like Vince would have complete knowledge after three decades of experience.

Much of the effort developers invested in PS is wasted because the user interface does not take advantage of the what's happened during last 30 years.

 

[Bill Clark]

I like photoshop.

It turns me loose so as I can express my creativity. It doesn’t have the same boundaries as some programs do, letting me try different ideas and concepts.

I had some help getting started. I met and spent some time with Eddie Tapp, a long time ago, who started my engines. At one time he was on the board of Adobe, as a photography advisor. Don’t know if he still is.

Adobe got into the upgrade cycle. Probably as a way to generate sales. Getting folks to buy the latest. I quit upgrading with CS-4.

The subscription method must work pretty well as Adobe stock is just fine.

For every end goal I want to achieve there are usually about a dozen paths I could take to get there with photoshop.

I use Bridge to process my RAW files, then, when they look like I want em to look, jpegs get made.

Smiles.

 

[olakiril]

I am also in favor of sticking to one, learning it well enough to easily express your vision.
While with cameras slowing down can help in certain situations, I believe with post work the opposite holds true. Get it done as fast as possible. Maybe there are going to be few exceptions, but rarely spending excessive amount of processing time on any image is going to transform it into a masterpiece.
So efficiency is a must. LR is more than enough for me.

 

[jsrockit]

Art is created by hands and talent. It is called painting. I like Picasso way of painting the portraits. Impressionists halls are always full, classic painting halls, not so.

Photography is different. It is documenting by catching the light on emulsion or sensor. While some photos triggers imagination just like Picasso portraits. Or just makes you horny.

Ok then, I’ll agree to disagree.

 

[Vince Lupo]

This is the hallmark of an application with a profoundly inefficient, inconvenient user interface. Otherwise, such as like Vince would have complete knowledge after three decades of experience.

Much of the effort developers invested in PS is wasted because the user interface does not take advantage of the what's happened during last 30 years.

Well it all depends on what we're used to I suppose - one person’s ‘inconvenient’ and ‘profoundly inefficient’ is another’s ‘perfectly fine by me’. For example, I’m not a fan of Lightroom but I know a lot of people here like it and it works well for them. I'm personally comfortable in PhotoShop and Adobe Camera RAW (and for me they work very well in conjunction with each other) - I think they’ve added a lot to PhotoShop over the last 30 years (and actually I started with Aldus PhotoStyler before that) though in general they pretty much keep the standard things as they are, so the 'environment' has more or less stayed the same. But, with every incarnation of PhotoShop there's always something new to learn (at least I think there is). Plus there are things that I don't always use (like layer masks, removing a background, and creating and executing an ‘action’ for example), so when there's a call for it I feel like I have to refresh my knowledge of how to do it. Not really a big deal though.

Overall though it seems fine to me - but then again what do I know. Heck I'm still learning lots of things about photography in general after doing it for 43 years!

 

[Darthfeeble]

I loved Aperture, I migrated to Lightroom and find it just as good if not better. I've tried several different programs in an effort to find better tools but so far nothing has proved to be better for me. I have the subscription program and have PS but I don't find much use for it.