I attended last week the Alternative Photography International Symposium, sponsored by Bostick and Sullivan and held in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The event was well attended, though participation seemed somewhat off from previous years. Even so, there were many people there most of us consider important in the world of alternative photography, including folks such as Dick Arentz and William Crawford, and there were many interesting presentations.

One bit of information that emerged during the symposium was that a great majority of alternative printers are now using digital techniques to make enlarged negatives, rather than the wet processing methods typically used just a few years ago. Dick Sullivan referred to the change as something of a paradigm shift that has taken place over the past three or four years. This shift has by no means eliminated interest in large format and ultra large format for making in-camera originals but it has for all practical purposes reduced wet processing of enlarged negatives to a very small percentage of practitioners. There may be valid reasons why some people choose to not embrace the digital negative movement for alternative processes but based on the work I saw at APIS print quality is not one of them at this point.

One matter that does deserve further attention, however, is the aesthetic implications of this paradigm shift. People who are really familiar with the particular look of specific printing processes are aware of the fact that it results from a combination of the characteristics of the curve of the printing process and that of the negative. Changing either gives a different look, visible in either the highlights or shadows, or both places.

For example, a palladium printing made from in-camera negative with a long density range will typically have a very long shoulder, which is a good thing, with a very long toe, not a good thing because it means that you can only use about 90% of Dmax on the print if blocked up shadows are to be avoided. Most curves for digital negatives produce a straight line rendition of what is seen on the monitor. This is generally considered to be a good thing for the shadows because it allows one to use close to 100% of Dmax on the print, but it is not good for the highlights because the shoulder is eliminated. I discussed this issue at some length with Dick Arentz, who is finding that his Pt./Pd. prints made from digital negatives have a very different “look” than those made with in-camera negatives. In their joint presentation at APIS both Dick and Mark Nelson addressed this issue and discussed some of the hybrid curves that will appear in the next revision of Mark’s book that will combine the desirable qualities of the straight line curve with the desirable qualities of curves typical of in-camera negatives. The implications of this work, as should be apparent, are significant for the aesthetics of most processes in relation to the way tonal values are rendered.

Sandy



.

Not surprising. The wonderful thing about the transfer curve is that you can bend it anyway you want. To make a digital negative match the output of a in camera negative seems like a relatively easy thing to do.

The problem digital image makers is that once you get up into the hightlights the ability to control the myriad variables that make the final print are barely controllable (and measurable) on a consistent basis. If this issue can be solved, that is the holy grail of digital negatives.

Another topic - Were most of the digital negatives from desktop printers or from lithographic film? My digital negatives are made from film and I have noticed prints made from these negatives are sharper than in camera negatives. I have never made a negative from a desktop printer, but my assumption would be that the thin film base of the lithographic negative would make the image sharper. Can you comment on this?

The problem digital image makers is that once you get up into the hightlights the ability to control the myriad variables that make the final print are barely controllable (and measurable) on a consistent basis. If this issue can be solved, that is the holy grail of digital negatives.

Another topic - Were most of the digital negatives from desktop printers or from lithographic film? My digital negatives are made from film and I have noticed prints made from these negatives are sharper than in camera negatives. I have never made a negative from a desktop printer, but my assumption would be that the thin film base of the lithographic negative would make the image sharper. Can you comment on this?

Some people, Dick Arentz for example, are proposing that the straight line curve be change in the negative to give a longer toe, which will allow significant shouldering in the highlights. This seems to solve the problem quite nicely.

At APIS I saw images made with digital negatives from both inkjet printers and from Imagesetters, and as best my eye could determine both types appear to be about equally sharp. However, most of the prints I saw were made with a vacuum frame rather than a contact printing frame.

Sandy

Not surprising. The wonderful thing about the transfer curve is that you can bend it anyway you want. To make a digital negative match the output of a in camera negative seems like a relatively easy thing to do.

I don't do alt process, nor do I contact print, but I do and have made digital negs and tranies on some high end equipment.

It has always been the case (for me atleast) to try and compensate for the highlight problems associated with the straight digital curve. As Joe says it shouldn't be nor is it that hard.

I suspect that many of you are creating these negs on inkjets. I have not used an inkjet for this, instead I have used Lightjets, LTV's and Solitaires. It may seem like over kill for contacting (again I wouldn't know), but oversampling in the digital realm has always been an advisable practice.

It would seem to me that an image setter should not have an advantage over an inkjet. I would think an imageseter creating shades of grey via dot size would have inherent limitations (although much sharper than an inkjet). I would recommend finding someone with an lightjet 2080 and have them create an 11x14 neg as a comparison to inkjets and imagesetters.

Or have imagesetters changed since I last used them -- some 5 or 6 years gone?

It would seem to me that an image setter should not have an advantage over an inkjet. I would think an imageseter creating shades of grey via dot size would have inherent limitations (although much sharper than an inkjet). I would recommend finding someone with an lightjet 2080 and have them create an 11x14 neg as a comparison to inkjets and imagesetters.

Or have imagesetters changed since I last used them -- some 5 or 6 years gone?

If we are in the realm of smooth surface silver gelatin papers an image setter could, if printed at an approrpiate resolution, have a slight advantage over an inkjet. However, in the world of alternative photography images are usually placed on drawing and water color papers that neutralize any theoretical advantage in sharpness of the image setter.

At APIS I looked very carefully at some of Dick Arentz' s Pt./Pd. prints made from digitally enlarged inkjet negatives from 5X7 in-camera originals, and my impression was that at a magnification of about 3X or less these prints were similar in quality to original work from 12X20 negatives. The prints made from digital negative did have more openess in the shadows than his in-camera work, which often have a more ciaro-oscuro look for reasons alluded to earlier. This suggests to me that inkjet technology is more than adequate for Pt./Pd. printing.

Sandy

Sandy, that make sense.

I am still puzzled why you aren't creating digital negs from traditional, continuous tone, negs. Wouldn't an 11x14 TMX neg rip'd at res 80 beat the beegeebers out of any inkjet or imagesetter?

Sandy, that make sense.

I am still puzzled why you aren't creating digital negs from traditional, continuous tone, negs. Wouldn't an 11x14 TMX neg rip'd at res 80 beat the beegeebers out of any inkjet or imagesetter?

There is a convenience factor in the inkjet in that one can do the work at home, and so far I have been very satisfied with my work from digital inkjet negatives in carbon and palladium. I suspect that it would be possible to get slightly better quality in carbon, and almost certainly so in AZO, from continuous tone negatives made with the new generation of laser and LED printers, such as LightJet, Lambda, etc. but so far have not gotten involved with this technology. However, I have agreed to do some testing whenever Bob Carnie gets his Lambda up and running.

Sandy

Sandy, that make sense.

I am still puzzled why you aren't creating digital negs from traditional, continuous tone, negs. Wouldn't an 11x14 TMX neg rip'd at res 80 beat the beegeebers out of any inkjet or imagesetter?

I believe another Apugger is doing that with one of the large Fuji film recorders, but right now they are out of my price range so I stick with the inkjet diginegs.

Hi Sandy,
I have to admit I was a little stumped about the whole idea of a so-called process adjustment curve. Would it not be simpler to just assume your curve will output what you see on the monitor, and then adjust the image on the monitor to give you the 'palladium' look or whatever? It is pretty trivial to use a curves adjustment layer to create a palladium-like long-toe image on the monitor.

Mr Callow: How much do the con-tone film recorders cost for output? That might be the reason that people are not using them as much. An inkjet negs probably runs about 3 dollars or so and an imagesetter neg about ten dollars for a 8x11 sized neg.

2 cents

Mr Callow: How much do the con-tone film recorders cost for output? That might be the reason that people are not using them as much. An inkjet negs probably runs about 3 dollars or so and an imagesetter neg about ten dollars for a 8x11 sized neg.

2 cents

$3?!? With the photowarehouse OHP and the cost of ink I have it down to ~$1 or less.

Film recorders are 'cheap' these days. I know of a lightjet that was listed on ebay for 200.00 that didn't sell. A friend bought one from a Lab inCA for under 500.00ca.

A Rhino LVT was bought here in the Detroit area 2 years ago from a lab closing for 2k and as part of a lab buyout a Lightjet 2080 (180k new)with all options and in perfect condition was bought for 10k along with 4 enlargers, 2 dip and dunks, a winglynch, serria fotoprint, etc. etc...

Once you have one, film and dev is cheap.

To buy an 8x10 neg should be around 100.00 -- although the labs may try and charge you twice that. The truth is film recorder days have come and gone and are little more than scrap to the commercial world.

It is correct to argue cost if your goal is to produce cheaply, but i wasn't getting that from these and other discussions pertaining to digital negs. It is also correct to dismiss film recorders if the quality is no better for your purposes.

My thoughts were that if creating a perfectly matched (to paper), high res, neg was your goal then testing a neg created with a film recorder would be a natural.

This was in addition to the comment about adjusting the curve to compensate for high fall off in detail at the bright end of digital.

Hi Sandy,
I have to admit I was a little stumped about the whole idea of a so-called process adjustment curve. Would it not be simpler to just assume your curve will output what you see on the monitor, and then adjust the image on the monitor to give you the 'palladium' look or whatever? It is pretty trivial to use a curves adjustment layer to create a palladium-like long-toe image on the monitor.



Clay,

What you say makes perfect sense and shows that there are many paths that lead to the same destination. My impression is that Dick prefers the process adjustment curve because he really believes in minimal manipulation of the image on screen. In looking at some of his prints I saw some highlight areas that were washed out and asked him why he did not simply burn in these areas and his answer was that he does not like to manipulate the tonal values on screen other than setting the white and black point in levels. This would appear to echo a personal printing practice that has tended to use process controls whenever possible rather than local dodging and burning to tame the tones at the lower and upper end of the scale.

The problem I have with the process adjustment curve is that it takes us back to curves that are kind of fly by the seat of your pants when one of the great attributes of PDN is the extreme precisions one can achieve in matching the image on the monitor with process output

Sandy

Film recorders are 'cheap' these days. I know of a lightjet that was listed on ebay for 200.00 that didn't sell. A friend bought one from a Lab inCA for under 500.00ca.



Well, this is pretty surprising to me. I assumed that this technology was fairly new and still quite expensive. What would the be maximum print size of a LightJet that would sell in the $200-500 range? If these will go up to about 16X20" I would definitley be very interested.

Sandy

The problem I have with the process adjustment curve is that it takes us back to curves that are kind of fly by the seat of your pants when one of the great attributes of PDN is the extreme precisions one can achieve in matching the image on the monitor with process output

Sandy, I was wondering the same thing. It seems to me that taking the "perfect" straight-line curve and then bastardizing it to give you the long shoulder flies in the face of what the PDN system was made to do, give you a negative that prints exactly as your screen shows.

The film recorders stopped at 11x14 for LightJets, 8x10 for LVT's and Solitaires. Most LVT's have an image limit of 9x7 on 8x10.

The LVT's have the highest res, but not all pixels are created equal. The LJ's output was better at ~3/4 of the res. The technology/lasers used in the LJ film recorder is the same as their paper burners and very similar to a Lambda's. These max out at 400dpi (I believe) which would be about res 16 and I believe paper is about res 10. So if you can find a material that is transmissive and sufficiently high res a lambda might be a good choice for 16x20's or larger.

I would think that if the transmissive material used does not have higher resolving power than the printing paper, creating a neg via a lambda and then doing a contact would be a needless step.

Well, this is pretty surprising to me. I assumed that this technology was fairly new and still quite expensive. What would the be maximum print size of a LightJet that would sell in the $200-500 range? If these will go up to about 16X20" I would definitley be very interested.

Sandy

I bought a Lightjet 2080 and it has a max size of 11x14. If they do over this size they are going to still cost much more as there is still demand for them in making prints. The problem with the lightjets is that support is about to be discontinued. Currently replacement parts are out of my budget, and a service call will cost a minimum of $1K, so if it breaks I will need to find another one for parts. There was a lightjet 5000 that prints on roll paper (should work on film as well) upto 50" wide that was selling for about $10K a few mounts ago. Of couse this is a huge beast and only sutable for a lab. This is the same type of configuration that Bob Carnie's Durst is.

I am planning to offer negatives for sale with the device, but I haven't settled on the price range yet. When you factor in film costs and development you are looking a only about $10 for materials. But my time to profile the machine, maintenance, and just running the process brings the cost up if a user only wants a sheet or two. I have been thinking of pricing this at around $65 for an 8x10 and $110 for an 11x14. Any feedback will be appreciated? I will also offer drum scanning to complete the process if desired.

Of cource your process will determine if you will see the difference with this route, verses an inkjet. It is readily appearent on Azo, but mayby not so visible on alternative processes.

The film recorders stopped at 11x14 for LightJets, 8x10 for LVT's and Solitaires. Most LVT's have an image limit of 9x7 on 8x10.

The LVT's have the highest res, but not all pixels are created equal. The LJ's output was better at ~3/4 of the res. The technology/lasers used in the LJ film recorder is the same as their paper burners and very similar to a Lambda's. These max out at 400dpi (I believe) which would be about res 16 and I believe paper is about res 10. So if you can find a material that is transmissive and sufficiently high res a lambda might be a good choice for 16x20's or larger.

I would think that if the transmissive material used does not have higher resolving power than the printing paper, creating a neg via a lambda and then doing a contact would be a needless step.

The lightjet 2080 records at 2032dpi (res 80) not 400dpi. The larger Lightjet 5000 is limited to 400dpi (maybe 300 I can't remember). I agree that using that resolution is overkill for contact printing, but I am not sure that 300dpi is adequate for glossy papers (something seems missing to my eyes).

Larry,
Yes, I thought I said that the 2080 was res 80 and that the paper burners were res 16 (or 400dpi). The only reason to run at res 80 for contacting would be for unbelievably smooth tonal gradations, certainly not for detail.

FWIW I think your pricing is good. I assume that you have the cassettes for the 2080 so doing small or large batches shouldn't be an issue if you can put off souping them until you have a reasonable quantity.

FWIW I think your pricing is good. I assume that you have the cassettes for the 2080 so doing small or large batches shouldn't be an issue if you can put off souping them until you have a reasonable quantity.

The 2080 does have input and output cassettes. I tend not to load more than 1 sheet of film at a time however because sometimes the machine screws up and half pulls the sheet out. The has the potential to fog the rest since I don't have it in the darkroom. Also, I can only do 2 sheets of 11x14 in the Jobo. Thanks for the feedback on the pricing.

Hi Sandy
The Lambda is in our facility now. July14, I have sourced out a roll of 16inch x 100ft 100 ISO film from Jand&C . I will be ready to test with you and others that have agreed to help with other alternative end processes over the next few months. I will need to get my feet wet with the Lambda on the floor here ,but I am excited to try this out with you. Your observations of the paper is what I believe allows one to have equal sharpness.
I have always been a bit suspect of the inkjet digital negatives due to the opacity of the ink laying on the film . whereas using real film the transmission of light may be different and easier to control. Don't know I guess we will find out soon enough,

The Lambda is in our facility now.


Its about time! Good luck Bob, life should get interesting for you now.

Hi Sandy
The Lambda is in our facility now. July14, I have sourced out a roll of 16inch x 100ft 100 ISO film from Jand&C . I will be ready to test with you and others that have agreed to help with other alternative end processes over the next few months. I will need to get my feet wet with the Lambda on the floor here ,but I am excited to try this out with you. Your observations of the paper is what I believe allows one to have equal sharpness.
I have always been a bit suspect of the inkjet digital negatives due to the opacity of the ink laying on the film . whereas using real film the transmission of light may be different and easier to control. Don't know I guess we will find out soon enough,

Great news. I am very excited about the potential of this printer for making top quality digital negatives, especially for AZO and carbon, and am really looking forward to the testing.

Sandy

What are the drawbacks from getting one of the smaller imagesetters to set-up for home use? I've been looking on ebay and if you can find one locally they can be had for <$500. Can someone enlighten me?