Aesthetic Implications of traditional versus digital negatives

[sanking]

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



.

[Joe Lipka]

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?

[sanking]

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

[jd callow]

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.

[jd callow]

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?

[sanking]

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

[jd callow]

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?

[sanking]

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

[Jeremy]

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.

[clay]

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