Follow-up: silver B&W from digital files

A few weeks ago <A HREF="http://www.bestlab.com"

target="_blank">San Miguel Photo Lab</A> was offering a free

8x10 B&W RC print using an LCD enlarger in order to familiarize

their staff with the new equipment and process, and to get as

much experience with it as quickly as possible.

<P>

I sent a 300dpi file of this photo:<BR><CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/land/towercreek.jpg">

</CENTER>

<P>

My free print arrived about a week ago and I was very

disappointed. I already had gotten an 11x14 LightJet print on

B&W RC paper from <A HREF="http://www.reedphoto.com"

target="_blank">www.reedphoto.com</A> and loved the print: it

has all the detail I'd come to expect from a LightJet print, good

rich blacks, sparking highlights and wonderful tonality. I had

also gotten a free sample 8x10 LightJet print of this image on

Fuji Crystal Archive paper from <A

HREF="http://www.wattscolorlab.com"

target="_blank">www.wattscolorlab.com</A>, and was

pleasantly surprised: there's a bit of a color cast when compared

with the other prints but viewed by itself you'd never suspect it

was on RA-4 chromogenic paper.

<P>

The print from San Miguel was much too harsh. Highlights were

blown out, darker midtones were nearly black:<BR><CENTER>

<IMG

SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/land/towercreek_harsh.jpg"

>

 

</CENTER>

<P>

I contacted San Miguel (bestlab@plateautel.net) and explained

the problem. Lee Dubois offered to re-do the print at the lab's

expense, which I agreed to. It didn't hurt that I told him that

people on several lists had asked me how the print looked ;-)

<P>

The re-print arrived today. Actually 3 arrived. The first was what

Lee called 'Lab normal', which is far better than the initial print.

The second print is 'soft', 50/50 blue and green, whatever that

means. This print is gorgeous, easily the equal of the LightJet

print on RC paper. The third print is normal contrast on

warm-tone paper. A very nice print, though I'd like it better with

the lower contrast.

<P>

Bottom line? When it's my money making the print, San Miguel

is an excellent option. Not only do they have the neutral and

warm-tone papers, they can also print on B&W fiber paper (not

RC). I'm happy. BTW the image is on-topic: I used a Leicaflex

SL2 and 60mm Macro-Elmarit-R

Thanks for the feedback...jf

Good report! For now I think I'll keep using the good old Omega B-22XL with its delightful single coated 1962 50mm f/2.8 El Nikkor. Analog prints from real negatives! If I could just find a source for DuPont Varilour BTW...

I'm betting that the lab tech that printed your first one was told to crank up the

contrast.

I see Al's point. Why shoot some specific camera gear because in your mind it's capable of results better than the gear 99% of the world's top photographers use, then dummy the negs down on a desktop scanner and give them over to a lab to dummy them down further with digital processing? Most people "in the know" say digital prints look better from digital capture, maybe they're right. So, other than DIY does anyone have any recommendations of labs that still make prints with a real enlarger?

Jay, the point in having digital files printed out on fibre b&w paper is that you can do all the darkroom work digitally by yourself. (I'm sure you have heard of dodging, burning, curves, contrast, cropping, etc... haven't you?). As long as you are shooting Leica (this is a Leica forum, right?), which means 35mm negs, any 2900dpi negscanner will put you in a position to perfectly control 8x10 (if not larger) prints. So, for everybody not willing to or not in the position of setting up a wet darkroom this is a tempting and most viable alternative.<p>Thanks for your report, Doug!

This is an exciting area of photography.

 

Despite driving my wife to near mutiny I still hang on to a traditional darkroom. I tend to use a Leica for almost all black and white and usually print them as silver gelatine, but I use a digital camera for almost all colour work and print most of it on an inkjet. There's enough pros and cons with both routes to keep Photo.Net bickering for years!

 

The idea of printing digitally manipulated or digitally captured images on traditional silver paper is the holy grail as far as I'm concerned. I've been experimenting for about six months with producing "digital" negatives for contact printing. I haven't got it quite right yet, but the solutions are in there somewhere and I'm determined to find them!

<center>

<img src="http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/photostuff/PAW1/large/man-and-

childa.jpg"><br>

<i>At a Cafe - Minox EC</i><br>

</center><br>

Gary,<br>

If you haven't seen Dan Burkholder's book, "Making Digital Negatives for Contact

Printing", you should jump to his website and take a look. He's at <a href="http://

www.danburkholder.com/">http://www.danburkholder.com/</a>.

<br><br>

One of my buddies has been practicing the techniques of making large format digital

negatives for contact printing since about 1997 or so. The prints he's making now are

simply awesome.

<br><br>

Godfrey

"The prints he's making now are simply awesome"

 

Godfrey, thanks for the advice, the prints I'm making aren't yet "awesome", in fact they vary from "so what" to "ha ha ha"! But I'm sticking with it and progress is slowly coming. I'm familiar with the Burkholder book and it's by far and away the best guide, but it still doesn't convey the sheer amount of calibration that the process demands.

Thanks for the info, Douglas. Although I still prefer to make my own silver prints in the darkroom, should I need digital prints at some point, your opinion of this service is one I'd trust.

Jay seems to be harbouring some misconceptions about digital

image processing. It's true that older desktop scanners

'dummed down' a negative or slide in the conversion to pixels

but modern desktop scanners can do far better than scanners of

just a few years ago.<P>

There are three critical issues for desktop film scanners:

samples per inch (spi, also called "dots per inch", dpi, a term

which is more correctly used on the printing side of the

workflow), dynamic range, and field flatness.

<P>

A 4000 spi scanner is recording the film's grain with little or no

loss. A scan printed at 300 dpi (the industry standard) with no

re-sampling makes an excellent 12"x18" print. With modest

re-sampling in Photoshop I've made 16"x20" prints that were

easily as good as the dozens of B&W and Cibachrome exhibition

prints I made and sold using my Omega B22XL with dichroic

head and 50mm f/2.8 EL-Nikkor lens.<P>

The dynamic range issue is more difficult for desktop scanners,

particularly for films with dense blacks, like Kodachrome, or

poorly exposed dense negatives. Once the neg is scanned you

can examine the histogram for data clipping, particularly in the

densest areas of the original (shadows for slides, highlights for

negatives). If there's no clipping, and the sampling rate is

sufficiently high, the scan has all the detail the neg has to offer.

<P>

Field flatness is an issue in scanners like the Coolscan series,

which have a very shallow depth of field. I'm using a Polaroid

SprintScan 4000, which has a much better depth of field and in

the case of this photo (Tower Creek) the neg was flat enough to

resolve the film's grain out to the corners. In difficult cases a

drum scan will resolve the field flatness problem.

<P>

Once the image is opened with Photoshop, there are numerous

advantages I don't have using the B22XL. One of the most

important advantages is the ability to fix damage to the image.

This slide was scratched and gouged by a careless processing

lab, but with careful Photoshop work it can be restored:

<BR>

<CENTER>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" target="_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/prwa0.jpg">

</A>

<BR>

<B>Prairie Warbler</B> - Everglades National Park,

Florida<BR>

<I>Leicaflex SL, 400mm f/6.8 Telyt</I>

</CENTER>

<P>

A poorly-restored version of this photo can be found on the

Peterson's CD-ROM bird guide.

<P>

One if the biggest advantages of using Photoshop is the Curves

adjustment, much like using the Zone System exposure and

development controls to modify the response curves of the films

and printing papers. The Curves control allows me to

emphasize tonal differences that would otherwise be difficult or

impossible to show with the enlarger. This photo is a good

example:<BR>

<CENTER>

<A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com" target="_blank">

<IMG SRC="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/birds/sneg1a.jpg">

</A>

<BR>

<B>Snowy Egret</B> - Everglades National Park, Florida<BR>

<I>Leicaflex SL, 400mm f/6.8 Telyt</I>

</CENTER>

<P>

In this photo I used the Curves control to show more tonal

separation between the background and the bird's bill and legs.

Using a traditional enlarger, I couldn't do this without losing

detail in the highlights. This was from a drum scan, BTW.

Current desktop scanners couldn't have picked up the tonal

separation. I also made use of Curves in the Tower Creek

photo.

<P>

In short, digital image processing is just another tool - a very

powerful tool. I don't have a quarrel with those who prefer using

an enlarger, but in case it matters to you, 99% of the top

professional photographers worldwide are printing digitally. And

I prefer the look of a silver B&W print to an inkjet B&W, so the

service offered by San Miguel and other labs is something I

welcome.