Anyone making digital negatives from digital cameras?

[new hampshire john]

Heya, folks -

 

I apologize if this has been asked before; I've looked and not found

it in the archives (plus, digital camera tech is changing so rapidly

that old responses might be obsolete).

 

My question is whether anyone here is using digital image capture to

make digital negatives. I've read Dan Burkholder's book with great

interest -- I'm a failed large format photographer, but am looking to

continue with alternative printing processes. I don't like the idea

of getting my 35mm and medium format negs drum scanned to make 8x10

imagesetter negatives, but would be willing to invest in a digital

camera if that would give me sufficient resolution and acceptable

tonality.

 

As an aside, are color digital cameras sharper when shooting in black

and white mode? Is there any way to harness the three color channels

to provide greater grayscale resolution? This might be a silly

question, but I'd be interested to know. Alternatively, if anyone's

got one of those nifty high-end Kodak black-and-white 35mm digital

cameras and is bored with it, I'll trade you my Pentax k1000 for it.

 

Danke,

 

John

[chris_hawkins]

Do you need a drum scan? 4000 dpi, 16 bit scans of 35mm negatives are available from a variety of sources and are cheap and may be good enough for your application? It would be easy enough to try.

[philip_sweeney]

Once its in the computer it does not matter where it comes from. However: suppose the image will not posterize at 425lpi @ 3600dpi. Let's suppose we want to make an 11 x 14 neg. Then we would need a file = 65Mb (grayscale). FYI: 425lpi we probably want a 650 dpi file (425lpi x 1.5). So 11 x 14 x 650 x 650 = 65Mb. The original RGB file would be 195Mb. Hope you see where I am going with this. Even a 8 x 10 would require a 34Mb grayscale file.

[ian_greant]

Hi John, <p>

 

Take a look <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1006411&size=lg" target="new">here</a> I've posted a hand brushed cyanotype made from a digital original. There's also a gum over cyanotype print in my portfolio if you look <p>

As someone else said your source really doesn't matter as long as your output requirement doesn't exceed your input capabilities. <br>

Of course working with a digital original is easy and saves the scanning step <p>

Depending on what your personal style is and what process you choose to work in you may find you can get quite good enlargements <p>

That being said I've gotten 8x10's from my Olympus E10 (4.3 megapixel) that I've been very happy with. <p>

Good luck with your adventure,

<br>

[new hampshire john]

thanks for the responses, guys. I guess I'm going to get more out of a moderate, pro-sumer film scanner than I am from even a quite expensive digicam. Back to the drawing board for now, time for more research.

 

By the way, Ian -- thanks for the link, it's a great image, and pretty much exactly what I'm looking to do -- 5x7 to 8x10 contact prints, using cyanotype, gum bichromate, and maybe some carbon processes. It's terribly helpful to have your tech notes there, too -- nicely done.

 

Cheers,

 

John

[bob_kaiser]

Not sure if this helps, but there are services that make negatives from digital files. Here's one -- http://www.ezslides.com/35negatives.htm

[joe_lipka3]

In the current issue of LensWork, the monthly sample prints were captured on a digital camera, converted to a film negative and printed on Ilford paper. Check one out to see how good it really can be.