Forums > Photography Talk > Anyone getting fiber prints from BW digital files?

Photographer

r T p

Posts: 3511

Los Angeles, California, US

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Which has been covered here.

hence..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19114432

Sep 26 14 04:33 pm Link

Photographer

Dan Dozer

Posts: 664

Palm Springs, California, US

Derek Ridgers wrote:

For a limited edition series, a $90 4x5 interneg would seem to make a lot of sense.  Unfortunately I don’t have an enlarger that would print 4x5 but I suppose one could find someone that did and they wouldn’t have to be a master printer either.

I have a group show coming up and probably a solo show soon afterwards in the same gallery.  Dependent on sales/interest in the first show, it may be worthwhile to choose this route.

Thanks for the info.

Don't think that just because someone has a 4 x 5 enlarger, they can turn out first class prints.  Making high quality print is an art in itself and takes years of experience.  Master printers are few and far between.  I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I don't by any means consider myself a "master" printer. 

It all depends on what your quality expectations are for your final images.  Going the analog route might not be the best way for you to go unless you find someone who prints to the quality level you expect.

Sep 26 14 08:17 pm Link

Photographer

photoimager

Posts: 5164

Stoke-on-Trent, England, United Kingdom

The original lab ( I think ) that did this in the UK:

http://www.ilfordlab.com

For those unsure about a digital enlarger:

http://de-vere.com/news-review.htm

LCD panel in a traditional enlarger structure, much like some of us used for Graphics calculator projection via an OHP. The DeVere is a digital enlarger, Durst Lambda etc is a different process.

There are significant differences between monochrome prints made in a standard print process system developed for colour and a true digital enlarger with traditional black and white paper and chemicals.

Sep 26 14 11:37 pm Link

Photographer

Derek Ridgers

Posts: 1625

London, England, United Kingdom

Dan Dozer wrote:
Don't think that just because someone has a 4 x 5 enlarger, they can turn out first class prints.  Making high quality print is an art in itself and takes years of experience.  Master printers are few and far between.  I've been doing this for nearly 40 years and I don't by any means consider myself a "master" printer. 

It all depends on what your quality expectations are for your final images.  Going the analog route might not be the best way for you to go unless you find someone who prints to the quality level you expect.

You may very well know much more than I do about this subject Dan but in my opinion, the whole point of going down the 4x5 interneg route is so that one doesn’t need the services of a master printer.

Once one has picked the right contrast paper, mixed the right chemicals at the right temperatures, focussed correctly and got all the timings right, what else is there to do?  I suppose flashing the paper, possibly?

Rendering all the tones correctly and dodging and burning (in not too obvious a manner) - isn’t this what one would go to the master printer for?  Once this is done in the computer, everything else should be relatively easy, shouldn’t it?

I suppose one still needs to fix, wash and dry everything perfectly. 

And make sure the prints are perfectly flat.  This last part was the bit that I always had most trouble with myself.

I spent 30 years printing and only enjoyed doing it when I wasn’t up against a deadline.

I could, occasionally, turn out a decent print but I’m so, so happy that I don’t have to struggle to do it anymore myself.

Sep 27 14 02:22 am Link

Photographer

GeorgeH

Posts: 67

Budapest, Budapest, Hungary

I've had mixed results from three different labs. All three iterations were on Ilford paper. The prints I had done on fiber were expensive and unacceptably soft. I think it's pretty telling that Ilford Direct only have RC on offer (http://www.ilfordlab.com/page/61/Black- … igital.htm). I have been satisfied with the RC prints I've ordered, but I'd recommend sticking with inkjet.

That said, I've also had a small edition of platinum/palladium prints made from a digital negative (printed using the HP system) on Arches Platine that turned out beautifully, but the cost was high. That might be the kind of thing you can do yourself, IF you're willing to invest the time and expense into producing quality digital negatives.

George

Sep 27 14 03:05 am Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6895

Glens Falls, New York, US

Derek Ridgers wrote:

You may very well know much more than I do about this subject Dan but in my opinion, the whole point of going down the 4x5 interneg route is so that one doesn’t need the services of a master printer.

Once one has picked the right contrast paper, mixed the right chemicals at the right temperatures, focussed correctly and got all the timings right, what else is there to do?  I suppose flashing the paper, possibly?

Rendering all the tones correctly and dodging and burning (in not too obvious a manner) - isn’t this what one would go to the master printer for?  Once this is done in the computer, everything else should be relatively easy, shouldn’t it?

I suppose one still needs to fix, wash and dry everything perfectly. 

And make sure the prints are perfectly flat.  This last part was the bit that I always had most trouble with myself.

I spent 30 years printing and only enjoyed doing it when I wasn’t up against a deadline.

I could, occasionally, turn out a decent print but I’m so, so happy that I don’t have to struggle to do it anymore myself.

You don't need to be a master printer, but you can't be a schlub about it either. Basically you set your lens to f/8 or whatever is sharpest, do your test strip, and be prepared to burn in corners. And maybe spot the print.  You need to pick appropriate paper grades and developers, and you may want to to an A/B developing bath or tone the print like anything else. But for the most part the hard work is already done, and you're just going through the motions.

Keep in mind that's all hearsay. I've never done it myself, but I got a very lengthy demonstration from someone who used the process to make collodion plates from digital images. There was a little pixelating, probably because she used a 5Di to expose 11x14 plates.

Conversely, you could have an acetate negative printed, and contact print your images. This is even easier, and you don't even need a 4x5 enlarger for it. Technically the resolution of the 'negative' will be lower, but since you're not enlarging it it will still be as sharp as the photo paper can render. You'll probably end up with a little shorter tonal range and less contrast, but if it's a portrait it may actually look better that way.

Sep 27 14 08:28 pm Link

Photographer

Kincaid Blackwood

Posts: 23492

Los Angeles, California, US

I know a lot of people who make digital negatives with Pictorico and do all sorts of prints both traditional and alternative. Gum printing, fiber,cyanotypes… I know a woman who's toying with them in the albumen process.

Sep 27 14 09:45 pm Link

Photographer

Maxximages

Posts: 2478

Los Angeles, California, US

Here are a couple of links to 2 different systems to make negatives from digital files and links to helpful sites

http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRsupport.html


http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main … _Home.html

Sep 28 14 10:21 am Link

Photographer

Dan Dozer

Posts: 664

Palm Springs, California, US

Derek Ridgers wrote:

You may very well know much more than I do about this subject Dan but in my opinion, the whole point of going down the 4x5 interneg route is so that one doesn’t need the services of a master printer.

Once one has picked the right contrast paper, mixed the right chemicals at the right temperatures, focussed correctly and got all the timings right, what else is there to do?  I suppose flashing the paper, possibly?

Rendering all the tones correctly and dodging and burning (in not too obvious a manner) - isn’t this what one would go to the master printer for?  Once this is done in the computer, everything else should be relatively easy, shouldn’t it?

I suppose one still needs to fix, wash and dry everything perfectly. 

And make sure the prints are perfectly flat.  This last part was the bit that I always had most trouble with myself.

I spent 30 years printing and only enjoyed doing it when I wasn’t up against a deadline.

I could, occasionally, turn out a decent print but I’m so, so happy that I don’t have to struggle to do it anymore myself.

O.K. - I'm not a digital photographer and don't really know a lot about working with digital files in photoshop.  I suppose that it is possible to do the desired dodging, burning, and selective contrast control in-computer to your digital files before you get your digital negs done, and then theoretically, it may be fairly simple to get good analog prints from them.   However, I can't believe that the digital file that you manipulate in your computer will always come out looking exactly the same in the final analog print if you print straight from your digital negative. 

I'm sure that additional darkroom work may still be needed, but you also don't need to go to a "master printer" to have it done.   Perhaps it will work with some negatives, but I'm sure that with many others, further work may be needed.  Dodging, burning, bleaching, toning and contrast control are not difficult procedures to get pretty good at, and you shouldn't have much difficulty finding large format photographers in your area who would be happy to work with you.

Sep 28 14 04:43 pm Link

Photographer

Zack Zoll

Posts: 6895

Glens Falls, New York, US

The idea is that all of the things you mention are supposed to be taken care of when making the digital negative. Contrast control for instance, is done by applying contrast curves to the digital file to match the paper you're using. In theory, you would have one negative for grade 2 paper and one for grade 3, and both would print identically if used with their intended papers.

It's not exact though, and there are a lot of papers and developers; maybe you need to use a more or less active developer than you intended to use, or tone the image longer than usual to really darken those blacks. So you do need to be a halfway decent printer, but mostly you need more knowledge than skill.

And after screwing around with the first batch, you can tell the lab what you had to do, and (in theory again), they can adjust the curves on your next batch of negs so you can more-or-less print them straight. If you're getting a real negative than it is being exposed with light, and the film's compression effect is taken into account.

The only problems you might have are with inkjet contact prints, which don't have a compression effect. But they are made with 7 shades of blacks though, so the tonal range isn't much worse than what you would normally get from a contact print.

Sep 28 14 07:51 pm Link

Clothing Designer

GRMACK

Posts: 5436

Bakersfield, California, US

There is a preponderance of inkjet papers out there, and so many surfaces to chose from.  Much more offerings than the chemical-based papers now.  I don't know why you wouldn't get into using K7 inks and picking one over going to a lab.  The Crane Museo Silver Rag (100% cotton) is one I use and has that warm tint to it.  Very nice paper and surface effect.

With the Piezo K7 you can even fine tune your tonal range to a standard better than a lab will do using QuadTone Rip (QTR) and adjusting the curves in Excel by percentages for each shade of the gray ink.  You can use a 21 or 51 step tablet in fine tuning the tonality too, but you'll need a spectrometer of some sort to make them (i1 Photo Pro 2, or maybe a ColorMunki Photo at minimum.).

Then you can overcoat with a clear in a second pass through the K7 printer instead of spraying a finish coat.  Far less messy too.

Sep 29 14 06:59 am Link

Photographer

liddellphoto

Posts: 1801

London, England, United Kingdom

These guys were the first to offer it www.elevatordigital.ca not sure about now as their site seems to be undergoing a refurb.

From Metro Imaging's site:

"Black and white Lambda photographic prints
Metro worked in close collaboration with Harman Technology to achieve a solution to the problem of printing vintage archives digitally, rather than by hand. By adapting a paper processor for the Lambda, Steve Macleod, Creative Director at Metro Imaging invented a new type of digital black and white photo print. This innovation has meant we have lead the way in producing real fibre based and resin coated photo prints from digital files: something inconceivable ten years ago."

http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/professio … ite-prints

Sep 30 14 02:20 pm Link