Here is another angle on getting a PhotoShop image from the inside of your
computer onto a piece of paper. It avoids the service bureau entirely for
negative production, eliminating a big component of the cost of digital
photography.
This applies only to small prints, 4"x5" or less. I have been photographing
PhotoShopped images directly off my grayscale monitor with B&W sheet film.
About 200 DPI at the final image size is sufficient to get a negative that
when contact printed is very sharp and has no trace of its digital origin. I
of course mean "sharp" only in the context of relatively fuzzy alt-photo
processes, such as Pt/Pd, cyanotype, and gum.
I have a 20" grayscale monitor. For B&W work, this monitor has two
advantages over a color monitor. First, it costs about 1/3 of what a 20"
color monitor costs ($700-800 vs -$2000) Second, it is a bit sharper than a
color monitor. There is one electron gun rather than three, so that the
individual pixel is one screen spot rather than three and there are no
convergence problems to fuzz things up.
My 20" monitor has 1062 x 850 pixels at 4x5 proportions. This gives about
200 DPI, which is just right for 4"x5" film (actually a little more than 200
DPI, as image size on the film is really 3.75" x 4 75"). A 15" monitor set at
8OOx6OO pixel resolution, which is a standard Wintel and Mac setting, would
give an image size of 3"x4" at 200 DPI. If you don't mind your prints being
a little less than really sharp, you could probably finesse a 4"x5" negative
off a 15" monitor.
If you are using a color monitor, you might consider sending a single-color
image (red, blue, or green) to the monitor via controls in PhotoShop. This
would eliminate any loss of sharpness due to convergence problems with your
monitor (only a suggestion--I haven't tried this myself).
There are a few disadvantages.
1. As the screen isn't flat, straight lines near the edges of the image are a
bit bowed. This is a problem for architecture but shouldn't be noticeable
with most other work. I think this could be partially corrected by using with
a long lens (400 or 500 mm). For now, I am using a 210 mm lens on my 4"x5"
camera for this work.
2. The image on your screen has to be a little bit larger than the image on
the film, so that 100% of the image area on the film is filled.
3. You have to expose the film in a dark room (which for me means at night)
to eliminate reflections and glare off the screen.
In a dark room, my monitor has about 7 stops from PhotoShop density 1 to
density 100. My preliminary results suggest fll or fl6 @ 1 sec with TMax4OO
sheet film developed in a Jobo with D76 for 6 minutes or so at 73 degrees F.
as a starting point for a Pt/Pd negative. This is all of course very
dependent on how your monitor is set up and what DMax you need for your
printing process.
My palladium prints made with this method look **sharp**. For example, hair
and eye details in a portrait I just finished have the snap one associates
with regular large-format contact prints made from conventional "analog"
negatives. Even with a loupe, there is nothing in the print to give a hint
as to its digital origins. These 4"x5" prints and negatives are in the equal
of results I've had with digital negatives made for me on a high-end
imagesetter by Evercolor.
And, my initial results with **no** PhotoShop correction curve applied to
the image look great. This means that if you want to do a little fine tuning
to match the screen brilliances to the combined needs of the film and your
printing method, it should be very easy to do.
All of which brings me to a larger issue: In trying to get output through an
imagesetter, maybe our entire approach to creating digital negatives for
alt-processes has been fundamentally flawed. Perhaps we should be looking at
a 4"x5" positive from a high resolution film recorder as our product from the
service bureau. One could then enlarge this positive onto B&W film for the
final negative.
I would be interested in hearing from list members who run service bureaus or
who have experience both with high-end film recorders and imagesetters about
this. What kind of resolution can one expect from a 4"x5" film recorder? How
much enlargement could a film positive take before it would start looking
pixelated or "dotty"? Randy Green at Muse X Editions in LA, are you still on
the list?
Charlie Palmer