LVT

[glenn_matchett]

<p>Hello I was wondering if any one could give me an idea of comparison between printing a digital print on brominde fiber paper compared to taking the digital image and turning it into a LVT negative.</p>

<p>I really hope that some of you will be able to give me some guidance</p>

<p>regards<br>

glenn</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Glenn, I have ventured down this road, and there are really three things I've played with. First, an LVT is not quite as sharp as a silver print from negative, unless the LVT is produced larger than the original negative (e.g. a 4x5 LVT from 35mm negative). Secondly, as long as I've been printing in the darkroom, I still cannot dodge and burn as well as I can make adjustments on a digital file, so the LVT has an advantage in this regard. Third (and now my current method) is to skip the LVT altogether and print on silver paper directly from the digital file (ala a Devere enlarger). This is really the way to go IMO. Dalmatian Lab is doing this.</p>

[silverpixel]

<p>Any additional transforms (like an internegative) before the final print will complicate tonal control and reduce sharpness, to some degree. A file printed directly to paper is your best bet. There are several technologies to choose from for that purpose, and my experience is that digital enlarger heads provide adequate sharpness for some images. If your image and subject matter need the absolute best sharpness and durability possible, contact me for details about my prints at RES 160 (over 4000 dpi), 16 bit grayscale on good old fashioned double weight, fiber based, archivally processed silver bromide paper. The best there is.</p>

[glenn_matchett]

<p>Many thanks guys I have gone down the route of printing from the digital file thanks guys</p>