I am attaching a image of a palladium print made from a digital negative. The original negative was 5X7” in size. It was scanned at 2400 dpi with an Epson 4870 and after adjustments in Photoshop rescaled to 360 dpi at the final print size of 10X16”. The digital negative was made with an Epson 2200 on Pictorico OHP. The method was made from beta testing of procedures described in a new book (soon to be released) by Mark Nelson called Precision Digital Negatives.

The beauty of Mark’s system is that it works for every output device and is capable of creating a perfect curve for virtually any process. The print in question was made by simply following the calibration recommendations in Mark’s book. I printed the negative and exposed and developed it according to what was indicated by the test calibration. As you can see, the rendition of tonal values and exposure is virtually perfect, pretty remarkable since no test prints at all were made before making the large print.

This system allows the capture of every tone in a negative, from highest highlight to deepest shadows, and the negatives from the Epson 2200 are extremely smooth and for all practical purposes the equivalent of negatives made with large format cameras.

Sandy King

This system allows the capture of every tone in a negative, from highest highlight to deepest shadows, and the negatives from the Epson 2200 are extremely smooth and for all practical purposes the equivalent of negatives made with large format cameras.

Sandy King

Sandy, I am amazed by this. In the past I havve tried to make digital negatives with OHP and the Epson 2200. The results were horrible. The results were much better on the white film, but this will not work for UV based proeccess.

Would you be willing to send me a sample file and the print settings you used so I can see how this works comparred to Dan Burkholder's methods?

Thanks,

Larry

Sandy,

I'm assuming you've done Dan Burkholder's method as well, right? Could you sum up the differences in the two methods, with regard to the actual mechanics of process?

-KwM-

Sandy, I am amazed by this. In the past I havve tried to make digital negatives with OHP and the Epson 2200. The results were horrible. The results were much better on the white film, but this will not work for UV based proeccess.

Would you be willing to send me a sample file and the print settings you used so I can see how this works comparred to Dan Burkholder's methods?

Thanks,

Larry

Larry,

I know quite a number of folks who are using the 2200 with OHP with good results for digital negatives. But Mark's system is quite unique.

Unfortunately I can not send you any sample files or settings at this time of this procedure. Mark sent the book to a few folks for beta testing the procedure, including in addition to myself Sam Wang, Phil Davis and Dick Arentz and one or two others, but asked us not to disclose anything at this time since the results are still in the experimental stage and as you can understand he does not want to be responsible for the mistakes of others.

However, I know someone else who makes beautiful selenium toned kallitypes with the Epson 2200 and I could send you his curve. Or perhaps better contact me off the forum and I will send you his email and you can contact him directly. This should work perfectly for palladium as well since kallitype and palladium are sister processes and require negatives of identical density range. I have not used his curve but have seen the prints and they are quite wonderful.

But no question, the Epson 2200, with the right settings and materials, is one great machine for making digital negatives. I had previously used the Epson 2000P for making digital negatives and they too were really quite good, but the 2200 gives results that are better.

Sandy King

Sandy,

I'm assuming you've done Dan Burkholder's method as well, right? Could you sum up the differences in the two methods, with regard to the actual mechanics of process?

-KwM-


Basically Dan Burkholder provides a curve for a given printer and process. With Nelson's system you develop the curve and calibrate it to your specific output device.

Mark's system is more precise and can be calibrated to any output device.

The basic issue is that the ink sets of all printers very rather dramatically in terms of actinic filtration of UV light. Mark's system recognizes that the cookie cutter curve approach, while it works fine in some situations, can not provide optimum results. His books provides detailed instructions for obtaining the results.

Dan Burkholder's book, on the other hand, is very useful in describing the basic overall procedures and for that reason should continue to be highly useful in my opinion. It provides general information, is well organized and if you are interested in making digital negatives can set you on the right path. But if you really want to know exactly how your fish should be cooked, Mark Nelson's approach is the thing.

Sandy King

Sandy,

Please let us know when the book is available.
The sample you posted is beautiful.

Thanks,
Tom

So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..

"for all practical purposes the equivalent of negatives made with large format cameras"

:rolleyes:

nice looking print though.

So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..

The benefits would be several...but mostly what I see is that a true alt process could be printed whereas outputting directly to an Epson would entail the limited life of the dyes/inks used by that printer.

So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..

Taking the scan and printing a negative on the Epson "might" just reproduce the density curve of the orginal negative. (Don't know, never tried) Then you would be faced with the task of making the light sensitive coating on the print match the curve of the negative. If you go through the process of applying an adjustment curve to the scan, you are "guaranteed" that the curve will match a specific sensitizing formula perfectly.

In the first case you adjust the print to meet the negative. In the latter, you adjust the negative (via a calibration curve) to meet the print.

So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson? Is the contact print that much better than the epson print to make it worth while? Interesting to know what you feel when viewing a side by side comparison..

You are not serious, right?

Sandy King

So what is the advantage of a digital negative and contact print, vs. just taking your scan and printing it on the epson?


The original negative was 5X7” in size. It was scanned at
2400 dpi with an Epson 4870 and after adjustments in Photoshop rescaled to 360 dpi at the final print size of 10X16”.

This would be a good enough reason for me to try it. The ability to make large contact prints from my 4x5 negatives.

Sandy, Please let us know when the book becomes available. I will purchase one upon release.

Thanks,

Jim

This would be a good enough reason for me to try it. The ability to make large contact prints from my 4x5 negatives.

Sandy, Please let us know when the book becomes available. I will purchase one upon release.

Thanks,

Jim


Hi folks,

If you are interested, Mark's direct email is Ender100@aol.com. Contact him for release information on the book.



Sandy King

Thanks Sandy,

Email has been sent :D

Jim

I just might mention that I was fortunate to see Mark Nelson's digitally enlarged negatives and pld/plt prints from them and some of Sandy's carbon prints made from digital negatives using Mark's method at APIS last July and they are really quite impressive. If I remember correctly Mark's digi negs were made from 35mm or medium format film scans using an Imacon scanner.

I look forward to reading the book!

Don Bryant

You are not serious, right?

Sandy King
Well people rave about their Epson prints and how they far surpass silver prints. I thought if you scan, then print, then contact print what you printed the image might degrade a little..

I think the aim is to have a negative big enough to contact print in the alt. technique of your choice.

Sandy, I understand why you can't send out samples. The issues I had in the past had nothing to do with the tonality. I was testing digital negatives on silver paper to see if it would work for AZO or Platinum. I could not produce a negative with smooth tones using OHP and the 2200. Using the white film things got better, but there were still issues in the lighter print values. This made for rough looking portraits, but OK landscapes. I guess waht I am questioning is - has Mark found a way to make a smooth digital negative from the 2200? I want smooth tones on the negatives and don't want to rely on a rough paper surface to hide the blemishes.

OK Guys forgive me for this, but this would be more fun than an in camera negative Why?

OK Guys forgive me for this, but this would be more fun than an in camera negative Why?

Mike,

Imagine taking your medium format negative and creating a larger negative that you can use to make a contact print with in one of the alternative processes.

Not "more fun" but another tool for us to use.

Jim

OK Guys forgive me for this, but this would be more fun than an in camera negative Why?

Carrying a 12X20, holders, tripod, and lenses further then 50 feet from the car becomes daunting at times.

[QUOTE=L GebhardtI guess waht I am questioning is - has Mark found a way to make a smooth digital negative from the 2200? I want smooth tones on the negatives and don't want to rely on a rough paper surface to hide the blemishes.[/QUOTE]


Larry,

I wonder if there may not be somethiong wrong with your printer? As I indicated before I know quite a number of people who have been using the Epson 2200 to make digital negatives for alternative processes and so far as I am aware they have not had problems of banding or blemishes. And I am not having any problems of this type either, although most of my work so far has been with slighly textured papers with kallitype and palladium printing. However, I have seen some work by my colleague Sam Wang on silver gelatin papers that is very smooth and totally without printer artifacts. Later this week I am going to work out a curve for AZO and that should fully answer my own questions about smooth surface papers.

I might also mention that you will get a much better negtive if you scan and make all of your corrections with the file in 16 bit. If you change to 8 bit there is a big risk of posterizatio.

Sandy King

OK Guys forgive me for this, but this would be more fun than an in camera negative Why?

For reasons that the two previous posters mentioned, plus....

There is more control over burning, dodging and spotting in ps than when you do film interpositives and enlarged negatives. Every negative is perfect for the alt process of your choice. No burning, dodging, identical exposure times...

It is a great time saver if your goal is to produce many prints rather than slave over a single image.

Again it's always your choice on how to work. Personally, I love doing digital negatives. But I'm still a throw back in that I get my negatives made as film negatives, not from an Epson printer.

OK Guys forgive me for this, but this would be more fun than an in camera negative Why?

Several reasons.

1. Control. You do all of your tonal corrections on the computer and the negative prints pefectly with straight printing. First time and every time.

2. Rescue. Most of us have nice negatives that for one reason or another (scratches, fogging from light leaks, wrong negative DR for a process) simply can not be printed without an unreasonable amount of dodging and burning. You can salvage virtually all such negatives in Photoshop.

3. Size. So you have a 5X7" negative and it makes a nice 5X7" print, but you like the print so much and want it larger. Solution. Scan it and make a digital negative of the size you want.

Sandy King

It's just amazing how far photographic technology has come in the last few years. Very exciting to say the least. There are many different ways to get great results, each with their own intricacies and expenses. I'm enthusiastic about the possibility of taking one of my favorite 8x10 negatives and enlarging it to 11x14 or 16x20. I have a lot of negatives that are so contrasty that they require extensive dodging & burning; a difficult task with contact printing. To be able to fix these in photoshop so that they are simple to print, consistent, AND with the ability to enlarge them is fascinating to me. I look forward to the day when I have the means (funds) to try this new process. I am very appreciative to those who spend their resources of time & money on these innovations.