Re: Digital negative novice needs help.

Matt wrote:

> Would it be reasonable to think that I could get good enough scans from
> my 5x7s on a good flatbed to make up to 12x17 negs, or do you really
> need imacon/drum scans?

It depends on what you are doing. For instance, you do not say what
printing medium you want to use. Most of the "alt" processes produce less
resolution than a typical silver-gelatin print, mostly because they are
generally coated on plain paper, rather than on calendered, baryta-coated
paper. So, the finished prints (i) are matte rather than glossy, (ii) show
paper texture, and (iii) are not just "on" the paper, but "in" it, which
reduces resolution both at exposure time and again at viewing time.

Having said this, a good carbon print, transferred to glossy baryta paper,
can do as well if not better than silver-gelatin.

Note also that if you are starting with 5x7" in-camera negatives, unless
you like to print really big, the resolution/detail/smoothness of tonal
change in your prints will be more a result of your digital output device
(printer or imagesetter) than the image scanner. You can probably get by
with a really good flatbed scan, but if maximum detail is what you want,
you may need to go to an imagesetter negative rather than an inkjet
negative.

> What level of resolution and apparent sharpness can be achieved from
> out putting on a high end epson ink-jet? Do the negs stand up well when
> compared to analog enlarged negs in this respect?

Not on any process that will resolve everything on a "real" negative. For
example, glossy silver-gelatin paper will resolve anything that you can put
on an in-camera negative. By comparison, the very best inkjet negative
looks a bit like a pictorialist representation when printed on glossy
silver-gelatin paper.

Just as a rule of thumb, I can always tell a "real" negative from an inkjet
negative when printed in Pt on hot-pressed paper, but it isn't always a
huge difference. I cannot always tell a real neg from a good imagesetter
neg on a hot-pressed PT print, but I can on a glossy silver-gelatin print.

> Any advice and description of people's process and equipment set-up
> would be greatly appreciated. I would be interested to how and what
> people are doing in this field.

I usually want prints with fine detail and high resolution, so I almost
always use printing processes that would clearly show the low resolution of
an inkjet neg. Accordingly, I almost never use them. I do use imagesetter
negs from both digital originals and scans of in-camera negs and
transparencies from MF through 8x10".

No doubt you will hear a number of different views.

Best regards,

etiennt
Received on Wed Apr 19 19:56:53 2006