> David, I find your postings about the digital negatives and in fact all the
> postings regarding imaging in general very enticing yet at the same time
> the high tech aspect somewhat intimidating. Let me ask a few elementary
> questions:
It may sound intimidating -- all these new terms, etc.. But once you
learn the terms and see the process, it's really quite simple.
> #1 Are you using the digital negative to clean up and modify thru photoshop
> an original negative of the same size and to optimize its contrast to
> match the requirements of platinum? Your post for example said that your
> original negative was 8x10 and I assumed the final print was also close to
> 8x10. What if the neg was for example 35mm or 2 1/4 and the final print
> was 16x20 ? Would the results be as good and would there be any hints of
> its digital orgin ? What price is paid in terms of the quality of the
> final print in the case of significant enlargement ? Is the smoothness of
> the platinum print as preserved ?
These are good questions, and it's important that you understand the
answers.
The amount of "digitalness" that you see (which if you take care in the
process should be none) is predicated on just two things.
First, is the resolution in dots per inch (dpi) of your image file (on
your computer) at the *final* output size. That is, if you were enlarging
a negative up to 16x20, we are talking about the resolution of the image
file at 16x20. I think it is important to have a resolution of at least
600 dpi at the final image size, so since I plan to make 16x20 prints from
my 8x10 negatives, I scan at 1333 dpi. The actual image area of my neg is
7.625" x 9.625", so making an image which is 16" tall means an enlargement
of about 2.1x (16" divided by 7.625" = 2.1). If my scan gives me an 8x10
file with a resolution of 1333 dpi, and I then enlarge it 2.1 times, my
resulting resolution will be 635 dpi (1333 divided by 2.1), which meets
my criteria for being equal to, or greater than 600 dpi.
If you were to print at 8x10 (i.e. no enlargement) then you could scan
your negative at just 600 dpi. So in other words, the amount of
enlargement you want will determine at what resolution you need to scan.
The second thing which affects "digitalness" is the resolution of the
linescreen used. From my testing, I have determined that a linescreen of
300 lines per inch (lpi) -- or more -- will result in a picture without
any hint of it's digital origins. This will produce 300 rows (lines) of
dots per inch. For technical reasons I won't go into here, it is
necessary that your image file resolution be 2 times the linescreen
"frequency" (in this case 300 lpi would be the linescreen "frequency").
This ensures that you get the maximum detail resolution possible. For
commercial printing, images are often scanned at just 1.5 times the
linescreen frequency. This is fine for most ink-based printing, resulting
in very little perceptible image degradation, however, for our application
you should scan at a full 2 times the linescreen frequency.
If you follow these rules you can scale to any size, from any size
negative and the degradation would be the same as if you optically
enlarged the negative, and it would be completely free of any digitalness.
That said, let me entice you further... :) Photoshop, and other similar
programs allow you to digitally apply the equivalent of "unsharp
masking", which is an old-fashioned analog technique for enhancing image
sharpness by making some special film masks. By using this sharpening
feature you can make your 16x20, enlarged from a 35mm negative, look much
sharper than if you enlarged the negative optically. In other words, the
result can be *better* than if you used pure optical methods. You can
make a 16x20 enlargement from a 4x5 negative look like a contact print.
It is really a terrific feature.
HOWEVER, here's the caveat... If you apply *too* much sharpening, your
image will look unatural -- and while not a pixelated type digitalness, I
would say that to me this hyper-sharpness looks "digital". So just be
careful and you'll be fine.
> #2 Are you exposing your original negative for silver or for platinum now
> that you have the ability to change the contrast profile via photoshop?
Good point! It is not necessary to expose your film for anything other
than good exposure now. You can totally control the contrast digitally.
Just expose so that you get all the detail you want.
> #3 What do you feel are the main strengths that digital imaging offers to
> platinum and pd printing as well as the other alt processes?
Digital imaging offers me 9 very real advantages (I'm sure I'll think of
more after I send this off):
1. In the past I have not done any dodging or burning on my prints. I
just never felt like hanging my arm out underneath a 1000 watt ultraviolet
source for 8 minutes -- call me crazy. Now, with digital imaging, I can
make a new negative which has all the dodging, burning, etc. included, so
I just have to make a straight print... which brings me to #2.
2. When you dodge and burn manually, everytime is slightly different than
the last. Have you ever seen the "recipe" John Sexton, or Ansel Adams
have written out for one of their prints?! Once I have everything in the
negative, I just make a stright print each time. I know I could do this
optically to an enlarged negative, but I don't have a darkroom, and I
believe it to be much more precise than doing it manually... which brings
me to #3 & #4.
3. I *still* don't need a darkroom.
4. Working on the file on the computer is *so much* more precise than
working under an enlarger for the following reasons:
a) I can work on a positive image rather than a negative (once
you scan your negative, you can instantaneously "invert" it so that
you see it as a positive. This is also great for "proofing" your
negs without having to print them.). I find it so much easier to
work with a positive.
b) I can undo, and redo changes as many times as I like until I
get just what I want. You can't do that with negative reducer!
c) I can make multiple copies of my file, work on them
differently and then compare them side by side, to decide which I
like better.
d) Your ability to work on small areas is tremendous. Imagine,
for example, a field of tall blowing grass. When you print the
image you notice a slightly dark area, perhaps the shadow of a
passing bird. The more you look at it, the more this area of the
print distracts you. Normally, you would just burn that area in a
bit. However, there is the problem of burning *exactly* that area
and *none* of the area around it. With digital imaging, it's no
problem.
Another example is suppose you have a small scratch or hair or
dust speck in the middle of a big blank sky. Seamlessly,
retouching either the print or the negative is extremely
difficult. With digital imaging, it takes about 5 seconds.
5. Some things are just so much easier using digital imaging. Making
"masks", adjusting the contrast, sharpening, "burning" in a smooth
gradient. All of these take just seconds on the computer, but are very
difficult or time consuming when done manually.
6. I can make enlargements which are as sharp as contact prints.
7. I can adjust the contrast to perfectly print on my standard paper
using my standard developer (no contrast agents) every time.
8. Digital imaging gives you the *potential* (remember, just because you
*can*, doesn't mean you *should*) to do some manipulations which are
just not possible using analog means. For example, you can change the
aspect ratio of one of your images, compressing or stretching in one
direction. There are cases where a little of this might help, but now
we're venturing into new philosophical territories. I generally keep my
manipulations to those which could also be accomplished non-digitally.
9. Getting a 16x20 enlarged digital neg is probably cheaper than getting
an analog one.
> #2 What part of your process do you do in your lab or studio and what part
> is contracted out ? If you contract out work, what kind of time delays can
> be expected ? I assume a Howtek D 4000 drum scanner and the Linotronic
> imagesetter is expensive ??
Yes, they are expensive. The Howtek is probably about $50K and the
Linotronic about $100K. There are more "affordable" scanners available,
ones which you could conceivably own, however it is unlikely that very
many people will own imagesetters -- though I believe John Warzoniak (?),
who is featured in the current issue of View Camera Magazine, owns one
(and a drum scanner too). Just as an aside, having been to John's studio,
I think that he sharpens his pictures too much for my taste.
So, I scan my negatives at a service bureau. I am fortunate in that I
have a friend who happens to own a service bureau and he often goes in on
weekends to catch up on work. He lets me go in and use his drum scanner
and imagesetter. However, I can't use his imagesetter for my final output
because it is only capable of 3600 dpi resolution -- which means a
maximum linescreen frequency of 225 lpi (see my previous posts for
details). But I am glad I get to drive the scanner, as there is an art
to it. You really need to get a good scan. Just like the old adage
about getting it all in the negative, you've got to get it all in the
scan too.
I found a printing company with a Linotronic imagesetter which can output
5080 dpi (which is good enough for a maximum linescreen frequency of 317
lpi). I pay them to make film. I allow them to run my jobs at night, and
unlike most of their customers I don't need my job run immedieately.
Also, I pick up and deliver stuff to them, rather than having them do it.
All of these things will help you get a better price. Initially, this
printer was reluctant to tie up his imagesetter making film for me since
it is really there so that he can service his printing clients. But, I
showed them some platinum prints and computer files of my images; I
explained the whole process, and tried to educate them as to why I
print in platinum, etc., and they finally came around. :)
> #3 Are there any introductory workshops being offered on this subject ..
> hands on approach here in the states?
I think the Santa Fe Workshops are offering something, though I don't
know what their specific variation of this whole process they are using.
I also don't have any details. Sorry. However, if you're ever up my way
(Boston) I'd be happy to show you the process.
Regards,
David Fokos