Making an 8x10 negative ....conventional , digital or 8x10 camera?

I�ve been reading these archives for about a week now and just

cannot seem to put the whole picture together on a few basic

questions. Perhaps it is because the topics are not directly joined

and I may be confusing myself on the blending of the different

replies. So if you would be so kind as to forgive my ignorance on

Platinum/Palladium printing I would like to ask a few simple

questions. Please treat me like a complete beginner without any

basic knowledge and do not assume that I have any knowledgeable on

the different choices that seem available.

 

My questions are:

 

What method (digital or enlarging) in your opinion would be the

simplest way to take a 4x5 negative and create an 8x10 negative for

Pt/Pd printing?

 

When making a digital negative, what is it that you would scan as a

source?

 

I have the equipment to make a digital negative or enlarge a 4x5

negative, so which would you recommend that would provide a quality

negative yet be straightforward to do?

 

I do not have the money at this time to buy a used 8x10 camera, but

the kids are all grown up and I could now sell the milk cow and get

the money. Should I take this direction as the best possible

solution towards getting an 8x10 negative for Pt/Pd printing?

 

 

Thanks for helping a newcomer.

I can't tell you that one method is particularly better then another. On Ed Buffaloe's site, www.unblinkingeye.com, you will find an article written by Bob Herbst on enlarging negatives using ortho litho film. Additionally, I believe that Ed also addresses a direct negative to negative process without the bother of doing an interpositive. There are a couple of other sites if you do a search under "platinum" (I forget the photographers names, but both located in New Mexico) that are about making an enlarged negative using conventional darkroom processes.

 

The digital method (by the Texas Photographer) seems to be good but also expensive in that the curves need to be worked out for the material that you are working with.

 

As an aside, I find it interesting that Bob Herbst who wrote the first article that I mentioned is now shooting 12X20. That tells me that he did it for a reason even though his enlarged negatives seemed to be very good.

 

With the softening of prices on 8X10 gear, (heard of one fellow who bought a camera for $200), I wouldn't even cosider of going to the bother of enlarging negatives, but to each his own. Good luck.

GreyWolf, <p>

 

I think it really depends on what you are familiar with. Personally I find outputting digital negs on an inkjet pretty simple. (I bought Dan Burkholders book) <P> I use scanned negs as a source (or digital originals)

 

<p>

 

I've considered going to an ULF camera for platinum prints but found the thought of developing my negative to a single standard for very limiting. I now develop normally and make all adjustments to contrast via curves. Never can tell when I might want to print in silver, or gum, or carbon (some day)<p>

 

 

If you have both digital and traditional equipment.. try both. It's hard to tell which will give you (and only you) the best results.<p>

Good luck,

Having made enlarged negatives in the past in the darkroom with wet procesing, and more recently digital negatives on an inkjet printer, there is absolutely no question in my mind but that digital is superior. Digital has it all over the wet process approach. Get a copy of Burkholer's book, mentioned in a previous message, and you will find there everything you need to know.

 

If your intention is to print with Pt/Pd a digital negative on Pictorico with an inkjet printer will give you all quality you need since the limiting factor to sharpness is paper on which we make the image, not the negative.

 

To my mind the only advantage to wet processing is cost, and this would be especially important if you were interested in making very large enlarged negatives, say 16X20" or larger. In this case the use of lith film and darkroom processing would make some sense to me. But for 8X10 enlarged negatives digital is the way to go.

Thanks for all of the replies. Like most of you suggested, I have already bought Dan Burkholders book and am just waiting for delivery. I probably would like to become proficient at scanning, as this seems to offer the best-cost advantage. I do not mind (in fact I enjoy) darkroom work but obtaining 8x10 negative stock in my geographical area may be a bit of a challenge. I guess I could always buy via mail order.

 

The one aspect that was mentioned was about the digital method was that "in that the curves need to be worked " and this is something that I do not understand. Is this a task that would require an extensive amount of computer skills related to scanning that I would have to acquire? What exactly are these curves that are being referred to?

 

The other aspect was that Sandy mentioned " If your intention is to print with Pt/Pd a digital negative on Pictorico with an inkjet printer will give you all quality you need" has my interest. I would be using an Epson 2200 and wish to know if the 8x10 digital negative (from a 4x5 scan) would provide me with the quality I want. My intention is to learn Pt/Pd printing and I wish to have an 8x10 for the process. Will I be losing any significant quality by scanning a 4x5 instead of printing an 8x10 via the wet process method?

 

I wish to express my appreciation so far for your knowledge and sharing on this topic. Must say I am a bit surprised by the quiet nature of this specific forum. Should I be asking my questions somewhere else?

 

Kind Regards,

Grey Wolf,

 

 

You might look at the archives of the alt-photo-process list. There are many people on that list with extensive knowledge about making digitl negatives for alternative printing processes.

 

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/

 

Sandy

Another option if you want to do it the traditional way is to shoot B&W trasparencies. I

use the DR5 process quite a bit and I've always thought about how nice it would be to

do alt process with them, I could eliminate the interpositve step! I shoot a lot of TXP

in LF and the results in this process are beautiful. You can control contrast in camera

by using different exposures. Just a thought...

 

Isaac

As an earlier poster said, everything is in Dan's Book, including a CD with an assortment of curves. I have found that only minor modification of Dan's suggested curves are necessary to create a good negative.

 

I have scanned silver prints on a flatbed scanner to get my digital file created. I have been relatively lazy and have yet to calibrate my scanner for transparencies, which would make scanning negatives my prime source. In any case, you will need to calibrate your scanner to make sure that original art and scanned file contain the same values. Until you do this, you will not be building on a solid foundation.

 

You will have to do tests, but again, step wedges and a whole bunch of other goodies are included in Dan's book. You can also check out his website for updated curves for various digital negative media for used with a desktop printer.

 

Pictorico is a trade name for the medium you run through your printer to get a negative. I haven't tried that yet. I send mine out to an offset prep house to get a film negative made.

 

(Shameless Plug) I wrote a short article on www.unblinkingeye.com on "Alternative Process Quick Start" which might help you make up your mind.

 

Oh, yes. Don't sell the cow unless you get magic beans as part of the deal....

Hi GreyWolf,

depends what you want. The "real thing" is a 8x10" camera and especially develop the negs to the wanted contrast to directly contact print.

On the other hand I use an interpositive wet process (standard b&w enlarged print on speed paper like tetenal work, and contact copying to repro film), and decided against an 8x10 because on the one hand I feel to want bigger prints than 8x10 (another bigger camera????) on the other some great pictures where made with 35mm. Ok, I don`t print pt/pd but cyano where resolution would be even less problem, but I tested the process and know what I`m doing now, especially that I need high d-max and high transparency for cyanos (not the major problem with pt/pd), which is easiest with repro film.

Have fun

Martin

I sold my 8x10 and 5x7 for one reason: limited depth of field and the problems associated with it when shooting portraits. Focusing on a face, then asking them to be completely still while you insert the film and pull the slide then expose...even a slight movement will throw of the point of focus. OTOH, shooting the closeup with the RB and getting everything framed and sharp, then making the interneg, well, that's the photo. Sure, we could work with handcoated glass plates and props to hold people still for long exposures, but why, when the new technolcoy affords an alternative?

I agree with Joe, and I do think it really depends on what your are looking for, your photographic vision. I am attaching a jpg of a contact print [6.4 x 9.9 inches] I mad on Ilford MG IV FB, from a digital paper internegative - on my Epson Stylus 600, not exactly cutting edge hardware there. I scanned it from an enlargement made with a 35 mm neg.<P>

I just thought you might short-change yourself if you don't investigate digital desktop inter negatives.<div></div>

Well after reading most of the posts, I had decided that at this stage I would attempt to make digital negatives (once I understood and obtained the materials) as a first step towards pt/pd printing. I now have Dan Burkholder�s book �Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing� and have been reading it for the past four evenings.

 

Perhaps I was expecting something a bit different but the book IMHO should be named �How to use Photoshop to adjust scans for making digital negatives�. I am sure that all of this information is quite important in making a great digital negative and for those more familiar with Photoshop and scanning this is probably a great book. For myself I was hoping for a �Dummies guide in scanning 4x5 negatives (or perhaps prints) and creating printable, usable 8x10 digital negatives for contact printing.�

 

I needed a much more basic tutorial in what �curves� and such really do and other basics I need to learn. I have bought Picture Window (a unique software package for photographers) and do not own Photoshop. The book does not address the needs I have nor does it relate to Picture Windows in any way that I understand. Once again I believe that it is probably an excellent book for those with more scanning knowledge than I and those that use Photoshop. So for now the idea is heading up to the �back shelf� while I consider my alternatives.

 

Thanks again to all those who have made helpful and constructive suggestions in how to learn the process and why it may be a good approach in getting 8x10 negatives.

 

Kind Regards,

Gray in the book "the new platinum print" is a digital workflow by David Fokos. I think this would be a good start and it also gives you a good reference for platinum printing. Also you mught want to check the B&S site, I think they have it online on their articles section.

 

Another thing might be to ask Michael Kravit to help you, he is experienced in this and he might no mind giving you a little primer.

 

Good luck..