Good point about using hybrid techniques. It probably would result in less overall quality loss. I'm not excited about calibrating my printer to print digital negatives though.
Printable View
Good point about using hybrid techniques. It probably would result in less overall quality loss. I'm not excited about calibrating my printer to print digital negatives though.
Cool, I'd never seen that. Need to dust off my Freestyle catalog!Quote:
Originally Posted by StorminMatt
If you intend your final output to be traditional silver prints, I'd probably not bother with scanning and making a digital neg to print from. I think the process of making an interneg in the darkroom would be easier. I've read up on making digital negs because it looks like a cool way to make repeatable silver prints from images that need a lot of dodging and burning (you do all that in photoshop and the digital neg will have all that set in it), but the process of getting an inkjet to produce a negative with the correct tonality looks very hard. If I were you I would only consider doing scanning if you want to make digital final prints, or if the slides are damaged and need work to remove scratches or embedded dust.Quote:
Originally Posted by domaz
An easy but slightly expensive way to do this is to scan and have an LVT made (e.g. at Chicago Albumen). The LVT negs are easier to work with than digital negs... to do digital negs right, you need to deduce the correct curves for your combination of paper, light source, ink type etc. If you have an LVT made, you can just tell them what your output will be (e.g. silver or Pt/Pd or whatever) and that's that. LVTs have *far* high resolution than inkjetted digital negs, won't give any banding at all, and can actually be enlarged considerably. The LVT can then be stored like a normal neg for reprinting later.
I used to be enthused about digital negs but now the only thing I use them for is cyanotypes. For silver they basically suck, in my experience. LVT is far better for silver, in my experience. (Mind you this is one of those things that I say knowing full well that somebody will follow up with "didn't you try this and this and this" and my answer is no, I don't feel like I was put on this earth to dick around ad nauseum with computers. I'll happily pay an LVT lab to do the dicking for me and give me a much higher quality result.)
Still... the cheapest and least computery solution of all is simply to dupe to tmax or such, it's very easy, can give excellent results, costs next to nothing... and doesn't involve photoshop or such.
If I enlarge a slide onto sheet film to make a negative, do I need to invert the slide to keep from getting reversed directions on the negative?
Yep. Just realize that you want the emulsion side of your b&w dupe to go face down onto your paper, if you want to contact print. If you're enlarging the b&w neg for the print then it won't matter. But IMHO the biggest feature of this slide -> b&w workflow is being able to produce a *large* b&w neg for contact printing.
I am interested in doing this with 4x5.
I have 4x5 E6 images and 4x5 B&W film, I'll be using the negs for contact printing alt processes. In my mind it seems pretty easy...I'm thinking all I'd need to do is sandwich the positive e6 and the B&W emulsion to base, do some test strips, and develop like normal. Has anybody out there tried this, and if so is there anything I should be aware of?
Thanks,
Adam
Why don't you just get some black and white reversal paper to print the slides in black and white?
Yes, it works well. Is your b&w film panchromatic?Quote:
Originally Posted by adamc
Panchromatic = yes