enlarged negatives via inkjet

While trolling through the archives, I found reference to a technique by Dan Burkholder to make enlarged negs via an inkjet printer. As I understand, the process involves scanning the neg and doing any contrast control, etc., in Photoshop. The enhanced and enlarged PS negative is next printed to an 8x10 inkjet 'film' which is then contact printed onto any traditional paper type.

<p>

Does anybody have any experience or seen the results of this technique? I'm a bit of a traditionalist but the idea appeals to me and still allows a traditional silver print as the end product. How is the quality, and would it allow retouching a 4x5 neg for enlarging to 8x10 or 16x20?

Sorry, not an answer, but I'd like to expand upon the question if I

may. I too am intrigued, as I prefer to contact print...if one

starts with an 8x10 negative, how good of a scanner is required

(except that it is capable of a high dMax)? I'm sure that the output

to the new Epsons is nice, but how archival is the ink when printing

on injet "film"?

Andy:

<p>

Dan Burkholder has his own site which, among other things, provides a

table of contents for his book on digital negatives (see

http://www.danburkholder.com/).

<p>

I have used digital output for photopolymer gravure and

screenprinting, but I have not had any experience producing negatives

for platinum or gum bichromate work. From a quick reading of Dan

Burkholder's table of contents, however, you get the impression that

the quality of your output depends a great deal on the quality of the

original scan and the type of print device used. According to the

table of contents, his book spends one chapter (CH 12) on the inkjet

and describes it's limitations and potential for future use. Most of

the book, however, seems to deal with non-desktop equipment including

high-end imagesetters and drum scanners.

<p>

My sense is that the combintion of a high quality drum scan and output

to an imagesetter will provide excellent negatives, even by some

traditionalist standard. On the other hand, a deskstop scan combined

with output to a typical inkjet printer (even the new Epson) will

yield different and, for some printers, less desirable results.

<p>

IMHO it depends on the type of image you are attempting to create and

the look you try to achieve in your work. It may also be a function of

your own feelings about output generated by the inkjet. Some

photographers like the appearance of inkjet prints and some don't. By

the same token, some will use injets to produce digital negatives and

some will require imagesetter output.

<p>

.....................................

Many people are doing this, or at least trying it. Dan's method

doesn't involve making the negative on your home ink jet printer as I

recall (I read the book about six months ago). You do everything at

home except print the negative, then take the disc to a service

bureau where the negative is actually made. If my memory is correct,

he says that home ink jet printers haven't yet reached the stage of

producing acceptable (to him at least) negatives. There has been a

lot of discussion about digital negatives on the alt process list.

Some people seem to be making them but you see a lot of discussion

about all sorts of problems to which there doesn't appear to be an

easy solution. One of the main ones seems to be finding a suitable

substrate, one that will provide sufficient density in the highlights

and adequate detail in the shadows. People don't seem to be using a

film type substrate because of problems with the ink puddling,

inadequate density, and other things that now escape me. FWIW, my

impression from reading Dan's book and from reading many of the

discussions in the alt.process list over the last several years is

that it's something that can be done with a lot of trouble and iffy

results but whose time from a technology standpoint really isn't

quite here yet. If you subscribe to the alt process list you can go

to the archives and you should be able to find a lot of information.

I don't have subscription information handy but perhaps someone else

will post it or send me an e mail if you're interested and I'll dig

it out.

I know I will probably get a lot of bad press here for being old and

bull-headed... but am I wrong in thinking that an enlargement is an

enlargement at any stage of the game. Am I wrong in thinking that a

negative that is enlarged by digital methods will lose some of the

subtle detail that is possible to obtain with origional contact

printed negatives??? -Dave

I might be wrong about this but it seems that the contact print is

simply a means to an end, rather than the objective of the whole

exercise. The appeal to me is that the process would seem ideal for

correcting any defects - such as dust, scratches, or out of control

highlights, for example - on the neg and still allow a traditional

print to be made, either by contact or for that matter outputting back

to a 4x5 neg and using an enlarger. Again, I could be wrong about this

but it makes sense that it would be much simpler to eliminate the

enlarging step, and necessary equipment, entirely by output to an 8x10

negative and contact printing.

Take a look at the LensWork Quarterly site, Special Editions, they are

doing this to a high level, outputting a master negative through

digital means, then contact printing on fiber base paper-an

outstanding marriage of digital and traditional. It requires an

extremely high dpi imagesetter to get those results-but every B&W

photographic image needn't have 256 tones, either.

large InkJet positives for Patino contact printing.......

Epson 3000 .....Using WestJet transparency film and

epson inks.

<p>

Go to www.westjet.com - ask for kevin newell !!!!!

Film is available in many sizes and priced right.

<p>

we are using Quad Tone inks and getting good results ---

both on paper (watercolor or acid-free museum quality)

and film

Tonal quality is excellent - Life exspectancy for these

prints is 200 years.

<p>

I'm using Epson/Westjet positives for very fine detail

when making silkscreens. (at a considerable savings over

traditional silver film or laser image-setting output)

<p>

Best results to you........Bru

Thanks for the tip! However, the URL you gave led me to an airline's

web site! A web search hasn't turned up anything on West Jet

inkjet film yet. Can anyone help?

Just an FYI-

<p>

the current issue of Photo Techniques magazine has a multi-page

article written by Dan Burkholder regarding his enlarged digital

negatives. He speaks of which Epson printers he recommends (Epsons,

duh!), what transparency films he prefers, etc.

<p>

This process excites me, because of my past experiences with

Photoshop, and my love for silver and platinum prints.

<p>

If anybody has any additional info, I would love to keep this thread

continuing.

<p>

Andy Biggs

I bought Burkholder's book, and found it completely confusing, and

the proceedure much too complicated.

I have the book, and I thought it was fairly good. He has some

tutorial-like chapters on this that I more or less skipped, so I

can't comment on how it is for a real beginner to digital imaging.

He does have a sense of humor in the book, which is nice. I was able

to make a few inkjet negs (Epson 870) and then silver prints, and

they look fine except I have to tune my curves for my paper to lower

contrast.

Here's a URL with more info. It's not a substitute for the book, but

it does give the basics of how to use Photoshop's curves to make the

negative.<br>

<a href="http://www.slonet.org/~dkrehbie/2photo/outneg/outneg.htm">

http://www.slonet.org/~dkrehbie/2photo/outneg/outneg.htm

</a>

I've just bought Dan's book and it seems very usable to me. Yes, it does go into detail about the high end scanning and imagesetting, but he's also making negatives with inkjets- his preferences seem to be the 1270 and 1160 epsons. He suggests fantastic results using the 1160 with piezography BW inks, software (http://www.piezography.com/piezographyBW.html) and pictorico film (pictorico.com). He's posted curves for many of the epsons at his site. Read the FAQ's, they're quite helpful.

Now, having said all that, I can't tell you how they turn out since I'm just starting, but I feel prepared enough by the site and book to dive in.

http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/misc_pages/inkjetneg.htm

Earlier this year, I decided it was time to 'invest in a scanne fo making slightly enlarged negatives onto 'Pitorico' for the 'alt photo' processes via an inexpensive Cannon I believe its the 'colour of the ink' on printing the negative (rather than the DPI) to provide the best results.

Ken

Take a look at work done by Dick Arentz, Tillman Crane, Bob Herbst and Sandy King.

All use digitally made enlarged negatives for excellent images for many print processes. Some use film and scan, some use digital and enlarge from there. Have seen Platinum/Palladium 16x20's from a Fuji X-Pro1 digital body that are excellent. Have seen hand poured Carbon prints that size from 6x7 film negatives that are excellent.

Bob Herbst wrote the section on digital negatives when Dick Arentz re-did his book on Platinum printing. Doesn't get any better than that.