Going the negative film method you require a special internegative film. Kodak made a film just for this purpose, as well as Fuji, in 35mm and sheet film sizes. Once the transparency is copied to the internegative film it is then printed on your RA4 paper.
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
Hi Pentax User,
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
Several things to consider going that route. Number one if you are using something like a Bowens Illumitron or a Beseler Slide Duplicator you have to get the color balance correct with either filters or filtration. Depending on the film that you use you may have to work on the contrast as to either preflash as with the Beseler or use the Illumitron with both flash units. It would certainly require testing whatever you did.
Also, you will be adding another lens into the mix with all of its abberations for the copy and then still another lens and its set of abberations when you finally print conventionally to Fuji Crystal Archive Photo Paper.
If however, you scan the transparency particularly with either a drum or high end flat bed scanner you can make a large digital file that will not suffer from the affects of 2 more sets of lenses. Additionally, in Photoshop or like software, you will find that you will have much greater control in dodging and burning, adjustment of contrast, sharpness, spotting, color adjustment, etc. In addition, when you print with one of the mentioned machines you will not suffer the problems of a cone of light being projected and loss of light toward the corners and sharpness can also be better maintained out to the edges. Finally, generally you will be able to print larger maintaining sharpness than you normally could through conventional printing.
Thanks. Am I right in assuming that all of your caveats about old style slide copying would apply even if it was copying onto another slide film and then printing optically? Wasn't slide copying what the pros used to do to retain a good copy of a slide. They used to either send the original or the copy to their potential customers so as to be sure of retaining a slide which matched in quality.
Originally Posted by naturephoto1
Does scanning and digitally printing using photshop win this much hands down? You present an overwhelming case for it. Unfortunately this means that those who take transparencies had better digitally print their transparencies so as I understand it couldn't then post them in the galleries.
Pity as we're an Analogue site.
I use to get Edupes made to send out duplicate images, though it is rare currently when a business asks for that. More common now is a CD-R of images from a shoot, but that applies only when my images are going to be used for commercial printing and publishing. There is also a slight issue now with sending out Edupes in ensuring the client returns the images; otherwise you need to make sure they don't use the images beyond the rights you granted them to publish them, or make sure they don't try to resell your Edupes for their profit. You could have the same issues with a CD-R of images, but signing the files controls most issues of future usage. Whether or not you use Edupes is up to you, though if a client wants transparencies they are better off with Edupes than you sending originals and hoping they return them intact.
Anyway, back to getting prints from your transparencies. Something I am surprised not mentioned is the DayLab Polaroid system. There is a larger DayLab that can handle Polaroid 8x10 film and most smaller medium format transparencies. The quality of the resulting 8x10 images can be very nice. best of all, no computer is needed.
Originally Posted by pentaxuser
As far the question regarding slide copying, basically the purpose of the slide copy was to make a dupe. Yes you would still have to do much the same and both Kodak and Fuji used to have special duping film. I do not know what film is still available. I have never seen a slide dupe as sharp as the original. Yes they would either send the original or a dupe as for Stock sales and that is still true at least in part I guess today. It is/was understood that a slide dupe was a very good approximation of the original for color, contrast, composition, and sharpness.
To post in the galleries from transparencies you do not need the print. Just the scan of the transparency. In fact, most of the images that I have posted in my gallery are in fact very small copies of the digital files that are used to make my prints; these files will only give a smathering of what a really good large Chromira or such print looks like.
We have used hand prints as guide prints in the past for making my digital files and prints. From my experience over the last 11 1/2 years with Bill Nordstrom (Founder of EverColor and now Laser Light Photographics), and others may disagree, all of my images that have been digitally printed whether they were the old EverColor 4 color (CMYk) way or through either Chromira or LightJet machines have been better rendered and produced and much sharper than the same images hand printed. To bring home the point of sharpness, we have found that the digitally output image is sharper than the conventional print even if it is printed 1 to 2 (or more) sizes larger than the conventionally printed photograph.
Last edited by naturephoto1; 08-06-2006 at 06:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Considering image sharpness
A print directly from the original transparancey will always be sharper than that print from any and I mean any type of scan to digital print.
The benifits of scanning and using PS for colour is in other areas of dodge, burn, colour correct and contrast correction which if used properly can convince the eye that the image is sharper.
A scan, or interneg is always a second generation and will not be as sharp.
Thank you all for your detailed replies. I have a better understanding of the various methods available now.
Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
I am not going to argue with you as to a conventionally printed images being sharper. Then the perceived sharper digitally printed images 1 or 2 sizes larger than the conventional printed images must be due largely to the contrast. With the digitally printed images we have seen more even lighting and less light fall off and greater perceived sharpness toward the edges of the image.
Also, do not forget there are issues with a second set of optics and their abberations and the cone of light issues with conventional printing.
If one uses glass carriers and the enlarger is precision laser aligned with apo enlarging lenses with bulb, negative, lens and easel all in line, there is absolutely better image sharpness from an optical print from original negative than a scanned version from the same negative.
The same could be said of any interneg made vs printing from the original.
Problem with most commercial labs and unfortunately with a majority of printers who work I have seen , the above conditions are not met and the optical prints do indeed suffer at the edges as you suggest.
Percieved sharpness can be manipulated with Photo Shop but upon close inspection it is not all what it seems.
I do both methods at our shop and have come to this conclusion time and time again.
When I look at any photographic show I look at the four corners of the print for sharp film grain. If I see this then I will most likely enjoy the show.
I am not trying to have a fight with you by any means. I have a question. In the past I have heard that the Chromira and the LightJet images appeared to be sharper than the Lambda. Have you noticed this to be true or was this and old wives tale? Also, did you ever have a chance to ever see the original EverColor Pigment and Fuji Super Gloss (generation before Crystal Archive) printed through their 4 color printing method with 4 perfectly registered negatives (CMYK)?