Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I do a bit of hybrid darkroom work where I print traditionally from digital files, scan film to print digitally, and sometimes scan film to create a large digital negative for alt process printing. 

I'm not really sure what you're asking though?  Are you referring to traditional (wet) fiber based prints from digital files?  Or are you talking about ink-jet printing?

Traditional fiber prints from digital files. I've seen adverts from labs that do this (a digital enlarger, I guess they call it?), and then the prints are done in trays just like the traditional wet process.

Just wondering if there is a lot of difference in what I would see at home, and what would arrive to me later on.

I understand there is certainly trial and error, as well as profiles for the lab, just wondering how these prints look.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
I do a bit of hybrid darkroom work where I print traditionally from digital files, scan film to print digitally, and sometimes scan film to create a large digital negative for alt process printing. 

I'm not really sure what you're asking though?  Are you referring to traditional (wet) fiber based prints from digital files?  Or are you talking about ink-jet printing?

salvatori. wrote:
Traditional fiber prints from digital files. I've seen adverts from labs that do this (a digital enlarger, I guess they call it?), and then the prints are done in trays just like the traditional wet process.

Just wondering if there is a lot of difference in what I would see at home, and what would arrive to me later on.

I understand there is certainly trial and error, as well as profiles for the lab, just wondering how these prints look.

I suppose it depends on the lab.  I've seen the work that Duggal does:

http://duggal.com/digital-fiber-paper.aspx

It's top notch, and will look as good as a traditionally enlarged print.  I've used them myself and was very happy with the results. 

You also have some other options.  They can create an actual negative for you, from a digital file, and you can enlarge and print that traditionally yourself, or you can learn to create a digital negative using an inkjet printer - but you can only use this for contact printing (it is the preferred method for alt prints beyond film size) as inkjet negatives will not enlarge well. 

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/alternati … -negatives

Zack Zoll wrote:
I've done fiber prints with a digital enlarger, and didn't see much difference between that an a really nice inkjet. Personal preference, really. Those are almost always on colour paper, which isn't usually that great.

I've seen, but not made, prints made in a black and white darkroom from a digitally-created negative, and contact prints from a digital transparency. I've actually pestered people on MM about it, including Giacomo if I'm not mistaken.

It sounds sexy, and the results are great. It's also a lot more special than an inkjet print. But I decided it wasn't for me. If my average print price were higher, I would probably do it. But it costs a lot of money, and I don't have enough pull to charge what I would need to charge to make it worth doing. For me, regular inkjet prints, and the occasional piezo print for really important stuff, makes a lot more sense.

But if you have the sort of pull where you can take home $300 in profit for an 11x14-20x24 after all your costs are paid and your gallery takes a cut, it might be a good way to increase your value to collectors, and bump yourself into the next price bracket.

But if you're talking about machine prints, I would take a piezo print over that any day.

You've both used the term "digital enlarger" and, I have to admit, this confuses me.  When you say digital enlarger, are you referring to LightJet and Durst Lambda machines (which I'm familiar with) or something else (which I'm obviously not familiar with)?

Zack Zoll wrote:
I've done fiber prints with a digital enlarger, and didn't see much difference between that an a really nice inkjet. Personal preference, really. Those are almost always on colour paper, which isn't usually that great.

I've seen, but not made, prints made in a black and white darkroom from a digitally-created negative, and contact prints from a digital transparency. I've actually pestered people on MM about it, including Giacomo if I'm not mistaken.

It sounds sexy, and the results are great. It's also a lot more special than an inkjet print. But I decided it wasn't for me. If my average print price were higher, I would probably do it. But it costs a lot of money, and I don't have enough pull to charge what I would need to charge to make it worth doing. For me, regular inkjet prints, and the occasional piezo print for really important stuff, makes a lot more sense.

But if you have the sort of pull where you can take home $300 in profit for an 11x14-20x24 after all your costs are paid and your gallery takes a cut, it might be a good way to increase your value to collectors, and bump yourself into the next price bracket.

But if you're talking about machine prints, I would take a piezo print over that any day.

Your first paragraph confuses me. To my knowledge, you can't make a fiber print on color paper.

My reasons for considering this process are personal. Let's just say they have to do with wanting a final print that feels more 'substantial' in my hands. Sounds fuzzy I know, and I'll expand if necessary.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

You've both used the term "digital enlarger" and, I have to admit, this confuses me.  When you say digital enlarger, are you referring to LightJet and Durst Lambda machines (which I'm familiar with) or something else (which I'm obviously not familiar with)?

My use of the term 'digital enlarger' was generic. A couple of years ago, someone explained the process to me, in that a digital file was 'seen' by the enlarger (instead of a neg), and it's just what I pictured in my head.

salvatori. wrote:
If so, what have your experiences been?

> Are the prints close to what you saw on your monitor?
> Are they significantly nicer than machine prints?

Thoughts ?

I had 5 prints in a series from medium format B/W done.. 4 were done on a traditional enlarger on fibre and the last was scanned and printed on a Durst Lambda on the same fibre paper and developed the same way as the others.  Nobody has ever been able to spot which one and I don't even remember which one it is.  No discernible difference.

salvatori. wrote:
Traditional fiber prints from digital files.

are the files digital captures?

OR film scans??

r T p wrote:

are the files digital captures?

OR film scans??

Well, they are scanned film negs, but I don't understand what difference that makes.

salvatori. wrote:
Well, they are scanned film negs, but I don't understand what difference that makes.

was curious about the source of the digital files

r T p wrote:

was curious about the source of the digital files

Sure. I guess what I am looking at is this: I have a b/w film neg scanned and interpreted and ready to print. I can do an inkjet, get a machine print made, or do the fiber thing.

I am remembering printing in my darkroom with Forte Art paper (company and paper long gone), but liked the thickness and feel of the print. Wondering if I can get that feel and look again (I understand the particular ivory tones of the Forte paper are another thread topic).

salvatori. wrote:

Sure. I guess what I am looking at is this: I have a b/w film neg scanned and interpreted and ready to print. I can do an inkjet, get a machine print made, or do the fiber thing.

I am remembering printing in my darkroom with Forte Art paper (company and paper long gone), but liked the thickness and feel of the print. Wondering if I can get that feel and look again (I understand the particular ivory tones of the Forte paper are another thread topic).

Yep, it's really no different than shooting an internegative

salvatori. wrote:
Sure. I guess what I am looking at is this: I have a b/w film neg scanned and interpreted and ready to print. I can do an inkjet, get a machine print made, or do the fiber thing.

I am remembering printing in my darkroom with Forte Art paper (company and paper long gone), but liked the thickness and feel of the print. Wondering if I can get that feel and look again (I understand the particular ivory tones of the Forte paper are another thread topic).

any and every step in the process (from capture to final print) can and will make a difference (for better or worse) in the final print (of whatever type).

if you start out with a solid scanned file (relative to desired print size), pass it on to a reputable print shop, with some trial-and-error (establishing a good working relationship with that print shop), i don't see why you can't obtain the results you seek.

of course, the only way to properly assess if *you* "can get that feel and look again" is to actually do a few prints

salvatori. wrote:

My use of the term 'digital enlarger' was generic. A couple of years ago, someone explained the process to me, in that a digital file was 'seen' by the enlarger (instead of a neg), and it's just what I pictured in my head.

A 'digital enlarger' is exposed using a laser, and is usually called a lightjet or a digital c-print. As far as I'm aware, modern colour paper is all c-type - no fiber. The developing is all done by a machine, and fiber paper isn't flexible enough to go through the rollers.

So if the exposure is made by a machine, even if it's black and white, it's not fiber paper. If it's fiber paper, it's a hand printed, hand developed print.

You mentioned exposing with a machine, and developing in a tray. That's not generally how it's done, since you'd need to take the machine apart in total darkness. The confusion in my reply was my fault - I was trying to answer the question the way you asked it, rather than correcting you and explaining all the terms and techniques. Sorry about that.

With that cleared up, my response ought to make more sense. Fiber prints are great - especially on graded paper. The DMax(level of blackness) is incredible, and they look almost 3D. Maybe 2 1/2D But if you're using a machine, it's most likely loaded with colour, dye-based paper, rather than silver-based darkroom paper. It's definitely not fiber paper. The tonal range is a little longer and more subtle than a high-end inkjet print, but the DMax is lower, and it isn't as archival(unless it is bw paper).

Compared to a really nice inkjet of baryta paper, it's personal preference. If you're printing BW then you can make a piezo print on baryta paper, and I think that beats anything that isn't a handmade darkroom print on fiber.

But that preference is based on my own images, and what I can afford to make and sell them for.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Duggal makes a 4x5 neg from a digital file for $90.  They print exceptionally well, so, if you have a darkroom and print, this is a pretty good value.

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.

The F-Stop wrote:
Analog negs make silver gel wet prints!

I've seen some spectacular digital B&W peizeo prints that were breath taking. Is this what you are refering to?

No.  You can use a digital file to make an analog negative...

John Hough  wrote:
I have spent more hours in  a darkroom than I want to think about it. For many years I made my own black and white and color prints. At the time that is all we had and I enjoyed my time in the darkroom. It was a chore though, sometimes it might take an hour or so to get a great print. dodging here and burning in there, and then a week or so later, trying to get the same results with the same image, then washing the print, drying it and then hoping it didn't curl too badly when it dried.

Well, that's kind of silly, really.  I spend DAYS making the perfect print (sometimes requiring additional masks that can be registered to the original neg).  BUT, I write down the printing instructions and it gets typed up and stored with the negative, any masks and any custom dodge or burn tools that had to be made to craft the print.  Remaking it is not guesswork.  Having said that, this is what makes retouching on the computer and creating an interneg so nice.  You can do all your dodge and burn on the computer, along with any retouching that would have been done on the negative (or on a print that was then rephotographed) and simply output an analog neg with the contrast you want and all the under the light work built in.  Printing is now as simple as making a contact sheet.  This is how hollywood studios churned out all those 8x10 glossies of the stars….

John Hough  wrote:
I am so happy with digital, I think at this point it is about 95 percent as good as film and traditional printing. I have a Canon ipf5100 inkjet printer. It uses 12 inks, 4 of them are grey and various degrees of black. So, when you are printing black and white, there is no color inks being used. My favorite paper for this is Ilford gold fibre silk. it is double weight paper with a slight sheen to it. The prints I get with this printer and paper are as good as I could get in the darkroom, and if I come back a week, month or later, I can get  the same results making the prints..

I'm a big fan of Ilford products, but for inkjet paper, I'm settled on Canson.  You should check them out.

The F-Stop wrote:
Analog negs make silver gel wet prints!

I've seen some spectacular digital B&W peizeo prints that were breath taking. Is this what you are refering to?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
No.  You can use a digital file to make an analog negative...

OR a *virtual* negative

r T p wrote:

The F-Stop wrote:
Analog negs make silver gel wet prints!

I've seen some spectacular digital B&W peizeo prints that were breath taking. Is this what you are refering to?

OR a *virtual* negative

No, it's a real negative. Sometimes.

Anything larger than 4x5 is usually made from an inkjet. 4x5 and smaller, it's often a real piece of film, exposed with a laser - the same way those of us that went to art school a few years ago had to get our scans and digital files put onto slides for the application.

Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Very seldom do I curse in threads, but properly done digital fibre based prints are fucking amazing!!!

Just go to one of these two labs:

http://www.dalmatianlab.com/digital/tru … s-pricing/

I lust after the rig to do this, but the machines (Durst Lambda's) are finicky as all get up and Durst no longer supports them. Basically you buy and refurbish a Lambda and anytime one comes up for sale you buy it for parts. Processing is done through a Kreonite or similar roll transport processor that has been modified for the longer developing, fixing and wash times associated with fibre based papers.

The Lightjet 430 could also be modified for B&W fibre, like the Lambda they're no longer made.

These guys use one of those:

http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/printing

Thanks for that info. I did not know machine printers could be adapted to use fiber paper.

The F-Stop wrote:
....
I've seen some spectacular digital B&W peizeo prints that were breath taking. Is this what you are refering to?

Yes---that's what I was referring to:  B&W K7 (as in seven shades of black ink---no color at all in the printer) Piezography prints.  Stunning.  Or you can also use K7 Piezography to generate digital negatives and print traditionally.

Zack Zoll wrote:
No, it's a real negative.

except when it's a *virtual* negative

Chop Suey for the Soul wrote:

Yes---that's what I was referring to:  B&W K7 (as in seven shades of black ink---no color at all in the printer) Piezography prints.  Stunning.  Or you can also use K7 Piezography to generate digital negatives and print traditionally.

I've heard some say the that they're so close to continuos tone that the can be enlarged and others say that now, you still have to contact print.  What has your experience been?

r T p wrote:

except when it's a *virtual* negative

Define *virtual* negative?  Are you referring to digital c prints?

Blue Cube Imaging wrote:
Very seldom do I curse in threads, but properly done digital fibre based prints are fucking amazing!!!

Just go to one of these two labs:

http://www.dalmatianlab.com/digital/tru … s-pricing/

I lust after the rig to do this, but the machines (Durst Lambda's) are finicky as all get up and Durst no longer supports them. Basically you buy and refurbish a Lambda and anytime one comes up for sale you buy it for parts. Processing is done through a Kreonite or similar roll transport processor that has been modified for the longer developing, fixing and wash times associated with fibre based papers.

The Lightjet 430 could also be modified for B&W fibre, like the Lambda they're no longer made.

These guys use one of those:

http://www.digitalsilverimaging.com/printing

Zack Zoll wrote:
Thanks for that info. I did not know machine printers could be adapted to use fiber paper.

Dalmatian's B&W fiber prints are the best that I have found.  They are, however, quite expensive.  A remarkably close second, in terms of image quality and without even considering the vastly cheaper price, is printing a B&W on Brent's (Brent = Blue Cube Imaging) Fuji metallic paper.  The metallic paper is much thinner and therefore more easily damaged, and doesn't have quite the depth of the fiber print.  Nevertheless, the metallic paper has excellent tonal range, especially mid-tone blacks, and gives a better result, in my opinion, than any inkjet.  They make excellent proofs, at the very least.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

Define *virtual* negative?  Are you referring to digital c prints?

i'm referring to digital enlargers

r T p wrote:

i'm referring to digital enlargers

Which has been covered here.