 Margery B. Franklin |
How to make digital negatives I have taken first steps in making digital negatives for alternative process printing (cyanotype, Van Dyke). Other than Burkholder's book and one other, where can I find an instructor or instructions about simple but effective ways of making digital negatives? (not dng but negatives for contact printing). Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
How to make digital negatives? I have never done this. If I were to attempt: I would procure film holders. These are the old fashioned wood or plastic, two sided holders. They hold two films (sheet film). In front of the film is a dark slide that shields the film from light. Normally you load, in the dark, two sheets of film into the holder and close the dark slides. Now the holder is light safe for insertion into a large format camera. These holders are common at camera swap meets. I would choose the 4x5 size. Using PhotoShop or PaintShop or LightRoom, you can cause any image to be displayed as a negative. For purposes you describe I would make a gray scale negative. Load 100 ISO B&W film in one side of the holder. Load white paper in the other side of the holder. Borrow or rent or buy an LCD projector. In a room that can be darkened, project the negative image onto the white paper target on one side of the holder. Focus and compose on this target. Turn off all lights in the room. Slip a cardboard shield in front of the projector lens. Shield the projector to maintain light tight integrity. Flip the holder over and pull the dark slide. Uncover the shield over the camera lens. Try different exposure times. Using this technique you can make B&W negatives. However you must chemically develop the exposed film. In lieu of a film holder, you can use a camera to copy the projected image. Once you start you can figure out several methods. Alan Marcus alanmaxinemarcus@att.net
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Hi Margery, Do I understand correctly that you want to make chemical/analog film negatives from digital images to be able to chemically develop those negatives and print prints from them in a chemical/analog film darkroom? If so I second Alan's suggestions.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margery B. Franklin |
I am afraid I wasn't clear. I do appreciate your efforts to repsond to my question. I want to make digital negatives for contact printing-- that is, to print from the computer (via Photoshop) negative images on Pictorico OHP or similar transparency film. No 'real' film or darkroom processing involved to make these negatives. It's all computer-> printer. I know the basic process but need help with refining it. The negatives are used for contwact printing with alternative processes such as cyanotype.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
How can you 'contact print' from a computer on an electronic printer if 1) there is no physical negative and therefore 2) no way to make physical contact between it and photo print paper?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margery B. Franklin |
Again, I must have been unclear for the 2nd time. The steps: You have a b&w image in Photoshop (or similar program). Perhaps it was converted from RGB (color). In Photoshop, you invert it, so you now have an image that looks like a negative. (The invert command is under 'image->adjustments'). Using your computer, you print this image on Pictorico OHP transparency film. Voila! a digital negative.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Mr. W. Smith, I am sure the missing data is: Once the negative is obtained it is placed in contact with a modern variation of the Cyanotpe paper process invented by Sir John Herschel’s 1842. This was process spawned the blue-print process. Whereas the chemical black & white papers are silver based this one is iron based. The print that results is Prussian-blue in tone. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
I see. Thanks for that. So then you have negatives. And then what? To be able to print 'm in the classical way on photo print paper in a chemical darkroom? Is that the object of the exercise? Wouldn't the printer need to be capable of an awful high dpi setting to match the resolution quality of 'real' negatives?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"Using your computer, you print this image on Pictorico OHP transparency film. Voila! a digital negative" Sounds good in theory, but the application is self defeating. As WS points out correctly, you will not be able to achieve the dpi from any printer available to the general public and further, you will not approach the exposure latitude of film..especially considering this is a 3rd generation copy originiating from a digital image. If it can be done, I don't see how.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
And, even if it can be done, I don't see why. You still need a darkroom, an enlarger, and developing, stopping, and fixing baths, and the resulting IQ promises to be on a par with a 1995 256 kilopixel camera's... Not an enticing prospect to go to all that effort for.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
And, even if it can be done, I don't see why. You still need a darkroom, an enlarger, and developing, stopping, and fixing baths, and the resulting IQ promises to be on a par with a 1995 256 kilopixel camera's... Not an enticing prospect to go to all that effort for.
|
|
|
|
||
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Pictorico has always had Burkholder as the link for that. Have you gotten the book already or are you wondering if there's another source that may be cheaper or something. Wikipedia actually seems to have a good explanation of making the prints. Look for Van Dyke printing.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margery B. Franklin |
I'm afraid I can't do more to explain (to W.S.) that you don't need a darkroom etc. -- the creation of digital negatives is done on the computer + printer. As explained by someone above, the negative is then used to make cyanotype or other "alternative process" prints-- by placing the negative with coated paper and exposing to UV light. (You do need to coat the paper under subdued light but that doesn't require a full darkroom). I am not suggesting that digital negatives are as good as film negatives (tho' lots of pros are now using them). To gregory i: I own Burkholder's book and know of several sites on alternative processes to which I think I had best return. FYI: www.alternativephotography.com I appreciate the responses to my initial posting but I'm stepping out of this thread. Those who are curious about what "alternative processes" are can look to the website above.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
To produce film negs and slides from digital files, use a Film Recorder. Digital Film Recorders have been around for quite a while, though still little used. I first used one in about 1996 for promo negs for a book cover. The cover was mocked up in Quark Xpress and a magazine needed a neg or transparency as they were not yet working from digital files. I had to send them a large neg that I did not have of the digital cover which had yet to be produced. Instead of going digital to digital print proof to film by taking a shot of the cover (and all the issues that come from that) I did output to a 4000K film recorder and the results were pretty spectacular. (see some info about film recorder resolution) I have not used it in some time and expect that the technologies have advanced some (more info here CCG film recorder technologies and here Wiki -- Film Recorders). You'll just need to find a service that has a film recorder and submit files according to their specs. It never used to be cheap to do... The reasons one has to produce film produce film or slides using a film recorder are usually special purpose (e.g., especially if special wet darkroom processes will be applied). It would be likely that many effects can be produced digitally. I have little experience with Van Dyke Brown or Cyanotypes, but a lot with custom duotones -- which is thought of as a chemical process but can be reliably produced from digital files. If you have some samples of what you'd like to reproduce, I could potentially help more. I hope that helps! Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
http://www.diamond-jet.com/index.php?PageAction=Custom&ID=16 http://www.diamond-jet.com/index.php?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=51 Look at those two links to get more familiar with what she's talking about. What she wants to do, that's still seems to be confusing, is work on her digital image with her computer, then she inverts it. Just like a film negative, the dark areas will be light, the light will be dark. That's what will be on her screen. Then she prints it with her printer, using Pictorico's transparency film. So take that sheet that comes out of the printer, lay directly on some other sheet that's been coated with a substrate. This part doesn't have to be in a dark room, just with tungsten, no uv light. Make the sandwich with the trans and the coated paper, put it in uv light. That can be sunlight, or a uv bulb. Let the uv light shine through the transparency onto the coated sheet, you come out with a contact print. No darkroom.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
is this an attempt to go around a raw image and want something better? raw is paint by numbers,yet you want to record a seperate medium?a blueprint for a virtual medium?hmmm. as it turns out,film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Sam's back to his old self. No, Sam. Just another form of making pictures. Pinhole cameras, holga lenses, emulsion transfers... There's several to choose from. Like film. You can choose Fuji, or what's on your pudding. Preservatives and artificial coloring, but because it's a film and not digital, the flavor is real. Or is it? Oops, my bad, another Samism.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margery B. Franklin |
particularly to Gregory and Richard- Thanks greatly for jumping in and helping to explain. I didn;t mean to stir up controversy but perhaps my question will lead people to find out about alternative processes (which are ALTERNATIVE, not intended to supplant either the good old methods or digital photogrpahy per se). Richard- I may be in touch. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
well I got lost greg on the idea of creating a new negative?a reverse negative?a negative,in digital to show what? is it to confirm that now I have a digital negative? as to margery,controversy is a spark.it involves those of us that will challenge any and all posts,even if it turns out we're stupid,hopefully. I am the first person in any class to raise his hand!!can the instructor explain his format or belief? virtual,not sound,ahhh.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
"I am the first person in any class to raise his hand!" You're excused, Sam.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Samuel, I can't be sure who you were posing the question to, but perhaps I have part of the answer. I always find your posts curious...perhaps as ciphers amidst the rest of the discussion. I think I mentioned a reason for creating a new negative in the case of the requirements from a publishing company -- where no negative actually existed before. Other similar reasons may be creating positive slides for photo submissions for whomever continues to require that, but also for slide presentations (especially in the case of photographers who have been shooting long enough to have a mix of slides and digital files). For those not going direct to plate in printing, you'd have to create negatives all the time -- though these would be halftone output used for burning printing plates. There may be other reasons to go to film, transparency, etc., I won't possibly claim to know them all. I think Margery in the original post was just looking to work with a technical process that involved film negatives, and wanted to know something about how negatives were made from digital files. I do not think it was merely a desire to go retro or anything. But, indeed you can create a negative to work with as you would in the darkroom...You might do that for stylistic reasons, I guess, or for special processes (as suggested here in this discussion), or maybe because you are really good in the darkroom and prefer to use those skills and not figure out how to do it digitally (though that seems an expensive route). I just know it can be done...I don't pretend to be able to know people's reasoning or all the potential possibilities. I'm glad to see people interested in and perhaps being creative with media. So many are staunch and entrenched in their perspective in isolating film and digital technologies when there seems so much more potential and possibility that may deserve to be explored... One thing to watch out for is that beyond being expensive, successive generations/conversions from print to digital and vice-versa will cause degradation. To some this is annoying, while to others it is an effect. There also may be the possibility that end results generated may just as well be made using digital techniques without the need for conversion. In the latter case the expense would end up being for naught. Does that help? Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
hey, unless the courts rule on this,isn't it still a virtual negative?pandoras box kind of thing? a very expensive proof as to what was actually captured,or as to be argued what was captured? decades my friends,legal demise.proven with what? ok,so I think this digital capture is emblazoned with artwork falsehoods,i will endure. it cannot be registered or copyrighted because it's a new medium.unaccepted and until with new programs unproven. heresay?? you may question or say it can be done,yet as was mentioned,the pudding. you pick the flavor?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Margery B. Franklin |
I can't figure out how to attach images to these messages. If you tell me, I'll send you a 'digital negative' of the type I am tqalking about. There's nothing virtual about them. You can hold them in your hands, like any negative. What may be confusing is that the same term is used to refer to the DNG converter for raw images which is part of the Adobe programs. margery
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Gregory LaGrange Contact Gregory LaGrange Gregory LaGrange's Gallery |
Never mind explaining it to Sam. That's his fixation. Any and everything with the word digital involved, he feels it's his duty to extort that it's synonymous with fake, or not being real. Regardless of what it is. For anybody else, this is just to illustrate a point, because there's probably other steps involved besides just inverting an image with photoshop.  Take any picture and invert it so you get what the #2 looks like. You print that out, any size you want, on the right kind of stuff such as Pictorico's film. You slide a sheet into your printer just like regular paper. That's your negative. Now, imagine being able to coat any kind of surface with a UV sensitive substrate,(wood, paper, rock, wall... whatever you want) You take your digital negative, lay it flat on whatever it is that has the substrate, expose it to UV light for however long it takes. You do any kind of fixing or what ever needs to be done, and wha la, you got your contact print. Made from a digital negative.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
M., Just hit respond at the botom of this page and then type in what you want to say and then scroll down...Just before the Submit button, there is a Select drop list, just select the number of photos to upload and then click Submit...you'll be led to a page to upload your images. OK? Richard
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Everybody, For what it is worth I have done this and worked with alternative process prints made directly from film negatives. Burkholder’s book is very good at describing how to do this on a high quality level. However you can also use tracing paper in the printer instead of the overhead transparency material, which is available only in fairly larg quantities. This does give a different effect, sort of like a salted paper print. These are monochome processes only, but you can make color if you use gum bichromate. Most of these processes were developed in the 19th century. The general problem is that these processes are self-making so the darker areas of the print prevent continued exposure of that area. The result is that the image is much flatter (lower contrast) that a silver gelatin print would be. Since the materials are only sensitive to UV light you can use the red ink in addition to the black ink to create what would be a blacker black. These are only contact prints. Prints made with the negative in direct contact with the sensitive maertial, no enlargeong is possible, except in the computer. So if your current prints have sufficient detail so wilol your alt prints made in this way. But if you make an 8X10 inch negative with your printer you will be making an 8X10 inch cyanotype, platinotype or whatever. Margery, I hope you are still with us. This is a lot of fun. I am sorry I didn’t catch this thread earlier, but the holidays are busy. You might want to check out a book by William Crawford called Keepers of Light. It has wonderful details on most of the alternative processes. One more thing, a cyanotype or a kallitype or whatever otype look different from a print made by your inkjet printer. I guess you’ll just have to see one to know how different. Images off the web don’t show what a print really looks like.
|
|
|
|
||
sherry-adkins-photography.com - Sherry Karr Adkins Contact Sherry Karr Adkins Sherry Karr Adkins's Gallery |
Hi Margery. I understand exactly what you're doing and the processes you're playing around with. I have done alot of these processes.....cyanotype, van dyke brown and gum bichromate. You are making the negatives correctly by inverting them in PS and printing out on Pictorico transparency film/paper. If you want some advise on how I've done these alternative processes, contact me personally and I'll try to help you through the procedures.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||