[pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
- From: "Eric Neilsen" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:26:41 -0600
The process of negative making and print making are just too different to
compare directly to an extrapolate digital scanning to LVT. I’ll run this by my
friend that is going big with an LVT and see what he think and let you know. I
have not operated one, just digital negative making direct to film with ink
jet. The last one I had made was 7 years or so by the New Lab out in San
Francisco. Much has changed since then when it comes to workflows.
I think you stand to lose far more detail by operator error than the small
amount that you may lose in going from 2 ¼ to 4x5. If we were talking film to
film matching like direct enlargement to pos to neg, I would agree.
Eric
Eric Neilsen
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 2:33 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
I haven't tested it either, but mine are based on conversations with others
that ran film recorders. It isn't the upsizing of the negative that is the
issue Eric. It is when its projected. Sharpening is important and so is grain
emulation, and the best lab you can get is important too. Yet you are creating
something that will be projected and that is where you have the issue.
Think of it this way. Are you going to get the same quality of print at the
same size from a 35mm negative or a 4x5 with all other things being equal???
You can make a 4x5 negative from a 35mm negative, but are you going to get 4x5
quality? No. You might get better than the same size print done with 35mm,
but you are not going to get the same quality as a 4x5 negative. If we did,
few would use large format and just make copy negatives of everything. Yet it
doesn't quite work that way. A lot depends on how the lab Shannon uses works
and what the final output Shannon has in mind. Many may find taking the
negative size up to the final print size and then contact printing it is a
better method still. I know some have done this with films and a normal inkjet
printer, but I have never been successful at that method.
Quality is often subjective too. So what looks good to one person, may look
awful to another. Now Shannon is better off with a medium format negative in
the first place. Either one would likely work just fine, but I would suggest a
few extra prints and an extra negative or two to see which method works best
and report back. When it comes up again in the future, you won't be guessing.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
From: "Eric Neilsen" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, January 24, 2009 12:21 pm
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mark, At the size we are talking and the fact that scanning is being done, I
don’t think that holds much water. And that is my intuition talking and not
based on tests. So much of the quality will depend on the scanner used and
settings that going from 2 ¼ to 4x5, that I have a hard time seeing how the 4x5
will lose quality. I’d be much more concerned about appropriate use of
sharpening steps and grain emulation than a small amount of image size gain if
I were Shannon.
Eric Neilsen
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
<mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 1:02 PM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
Eric its for one reason only. The original negative was a Medium Format
negative. By making the negative bigger you don't have more information to
work with unless you add it. Adding information may or may not be a good thing
depending on the particular image. Sort of like working with upsizing.
Sometimes Geniune Fractals can do wonders, but it isn't the end all be all.
Sometimes you are better off sticking with what you have.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
From: "Eric Neilsen Photography" <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, January 24, 2009 9:41 am
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mark, Why do you think a medium format neg may be better? And Shannon, the
advantage that jumps out at me with a neg for the enlarger is the ability to
make prints of various sizes from the same output? If that is requirement at
all and you can also have a positive made and make your own contact neg
later.
Eric Neilsen Photography
4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
Dallas, TX 75226
214-827-8301
<http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
SKYPE ejprinter
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[ <http://email02.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>
mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark Blackwell
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 10:12 AM
To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
First I think we need to get Shannon to clarify if a contact print is the
goal, or a negative is needed to use in an enlarger. With a contact print
there may be some other options, but frankly a digital negative with a a
film recorder would be best. Unless advised otherwise by the lab, or the
enlarger wouldn't accept a 4x5 or don't have something needed to print 4x5,
I'd personally use this as a test.
Id get a digital negative of the same file both as a Medium Format negative
and a 4x5 negative and see first hand which project and printed better in my
workflow and methods.
--- On Sat, 1/24/09, Eric Neilsen Photography
<ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Eric Neilsen Photography <ej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Saturday, January 24, 2009, 10:04 AM
> Better is such a loose term. The newer printers give you
> better results with
> the ABW setting than the 2200. However, if silver prints
> are your goal you
> may be better off going with a film negative made with an
> LVT. Not all
> providers of LVT will or can go up to anything bigger than
> 8x10. Some of it
> depends on the paper that you chose and whether a contact
> neg is a good
> choice. You also need to learn how much sharpening to add
> to your film to
> make it look right, etc. It is not just a slam dunk thing
> where you provide
> a file and it is perfect first time around. You may want to
> create a file
> with 4 4x5 on a single 8x10 layout and see what adjustments
> work best. ONLY
> deal with a lab that can tell you what your RGB # will
> translate to in real
> density to your negative. And just like with shooting and
> exposing you can
> get absolutely perfect target numbers but they will be
> really close.
>
>
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 214-827-8301
> <http://www.ericneilsenphotography.com> www.ericneilsenphotography.com
>
> SKYPE ejprinter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [ <http://email02.secureserver.net/pcompose.php#Compose>
> mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Shannon Stoney
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 8:42 AM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: having digital negatives made
>
> My enlarger can go up to 4x5. (the 8x10 enlarger is broken
> right now.)
>
> My ink jet printer is an Epson 2200, but I have access to a
> 2400. In
> the past my efforts to make digital negatives didn't
> work out very
> well, but maybe I can try again.
>
> My process is silver. :-) (Although in the past I did do
> those other
> processes you mention.) My paper scale is 1.2.
>
> So, you are saying that it is better to make a negative for
> enlarging
> than one for contact printing if possible?
>
> --shannon
>
>
> ere.
>
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to <//www.freelists.org>
> www.freelists.org and
> logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password
> you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to <//www.freelists.org>
www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to <//www.freelists.org>
www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and
password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
====================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to
www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and
password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
====================================To unsubscribe from this list, go to
www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and
password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
