Digital negatives . . . the large and small of it.

[moltogordo]

I just don't have darkroom time right now, so I've spent what time I
have free to learn about making digital negatives. After processing the
film, I put my negatives in a negative carrier from my darkroom, and
taped it against the frosted glass of a lightbox. Then I photograph them
with my K10 and 35mm Pentax macro limited, which goes to life size.

The
resultant jpg or RAW files get processed, reversed and done up in GIMP.
Voila. It's not quite as good as scanning a silver print, but I can do
that later. Get to see and post my pics a lot quicker.

I mostly
work with medium format, but I also do subminiature and 4x5. Computer
screens punish medium/large format photography quite a bit . . . the
screen only resolves about 1.5 megapixels. So here you have a
demonstration of what I'm talking about. The first shot is a 6x9
negative, the second shot is a 35mm half-frame. The advantages of large
format are not really apparent here.

Picture 1:  Sinkut River,
near Vanderhoof. Linhof Kardan 4x5, with a 6x9 Horsman rollfilm back.
Fomapan 400 in Xtol, 90mm Schneider f5.6 Symmar. An 11x14 enlargement of
this negative would knock your socks off.





Picture 2 and 3:  Telachick Creek, near Prince George, Olympus Pen FT, 38mm Zuiko lens, Kentmere 400 in Rodinal, 1/60th at f8. An 11x14 enlargement of these negatives would not impress you one little bit. They'd be good at 5x7.







Thanks for looking in!!!

[lesdmess]

Apr 4, 2015 3:14:10 GMT -5 moltogordo said:

I just don't have darkroom time right now, so I've spent what time I
have free to learn about making digital negatives. After processing the
film, I put my negatives in a negative carrier from my darkroom, and
taped it against the frosted glass of a lightbox. Then I photograph them
with my K10 and 35mm Pentax macro limited, which goes to life size.

The
resultant jpg or RAW files get processed, reversed and done up in GIMP.
Voila. It's not quite as good as scanning a silver print, but I can do
that later. Get to see and post my pics a lot quicker.

Just to clarify, the DSLR "scan" of the negative is not as good as a flatbed scan of the silver print?

[philbirch]

I've done many of my old 6x9 negs that way. Done properly with a good lens there is no reason why I shouldnt be better than scanning a print. I'd keep the light source a fair bit behind the neg so none of it comes up in the resultant image.

Good results.

[Stephen]

You have found the problem overlooked by most users of digital, the screen is near useless at displaying a good shot. Even with a big monitor it is nowhere near enough resolution to do full justice to the digital file.

The other problem is printing, as most owners frankly get only an A4 printer, larger are not used much. The quality of a photo grade print setting on an inkjet or laser is now as good as printed from neg at 8x10 or A4.

With 6x9 negavives I use the flat bed scanner direct, at max resolution,(big files). The same for 120 and 6x4.5, and 127 full frame.

Anything smaller is done with a M4/3 Pen with a Schnieder 50mm macro lens, with an LED bulb,(mains multi element), as illumination on to an opal diffuser, with the negative or slide in front of it. The camera is set to lowest ISO and neutral settings, to deliver Raw files.

The Raw file is dealt with to the GIMP and coverted as needed to JPeg. The best possible Jpeg is stored with the original Raw file, and a reduced one for transfer to Photobucket for display on camera collector.


For half frame and 16mm, I use the same setup and then re-size the raw files upwards to 35mm equivalent, before converting to jpeg, it seems to give better details.

Same applies to Jpegs that need sharpening, double or more the size of the file in the gimp, then do the resharpening etc., and then down size, it reduces sharpening artifacts dramatically.

I rarely scan prints to files, most D/P lenses are poor compared to darkroom enlarger lenses, and detail is lost. I do of course scan older prints for restoration etc.

Stephen.

[Stephen]

With the 6x9,or 120 they are placed on the flat bed scanner with a tent of white paper over it, the light comes from the scanner, room light off. It is an LED scanner from Canon. The files are very large! and compared very well with dedicated large format sensors, which I cannot afford!

[Stephen]

A 6x9 Fuji negative,taken on an Ernemann plate camera with 6x9 roll film back. The neg scanned on Canon flatbed and corrected in the Gimp, and converted to Jpeg at 6.39 meg, transfered to Photobucket,(click to view full file).

Coffee Break at the Rochester Dickens Festival.

[moltogordo]

lesdmess said: "Just to clarify, the DSLR "scan" of the negative is not as good as a flatbed scan of the silver print?"

Yes, on my equipment. My scanner doesn't do negs well - I've had nothing but trouble and will NOT buy a new scanner. It does prints very well. It's individual. I LIKE the quality of a scanned print, especially on textured paper. Also, it's easier to "fine tune" than a DSLR picture of a negative. Remember, the DSLR way is another picture, actually, and has to be correctly exposed and done. The print is already there, or I wouldn't scan it.

philbirch said: "I've done many of my old 6x9 negs that way. Done properly with a good lens there is no reason why I shouldnt be better than scanning a print. I'd keep the light source a fair bit behind the neg so none of it comes up in the resultant image."

I find it a bit "colder" - I print on paper that I would present or frame. But yes, it should be just as good as a scan. My scanner doesn't scan negatives worth two hoots, and yes, I've spent a lot of time trying.

ONE MORE THING AND I'M CAPITALIZING THIS FOR EMPHASIS; A NEGATIVE FOR SCANNING AND A NEGATIVE FOR PRINTING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. A DENSER NEGATIVE (like I make for printing) doesn't scan very well, but the DSLR conversion is much better. I'M A PRINTER. I DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE WHAT I AM GOING TO PRINT.


Stephen said: "You have found the problem overlooked by most users of digital, the screen is near useless at displaying a good shot. Even with a big monitor it is nowhere near enough resolution to do full justice to the digital file."

Yes, and this is really the point of the whole argument, methinks. We all find our own ways to deal with things, but no matter what we do, we are still crippled by that 1.5 megapixel screen. It's hilarious, really. We buy 24 mp cameras and they're basically no better than a cellphone on the screen.

I belong to the Large Format Photography forum . . . those guys, many of them world class, bemoan the same thing. Your demo shot in the thread is wonderful, by the way.


The shots I posted worked well, but would anyone doubt that the 6x9 would look better printed? Yet, on the screen, it really doesn't do much that the half frame shots don't.

In any case, I now have a way outside the darkroom! Thanks for your input, guys!!

[lesdmess]

Scanning a silver print has its own characteristics and as you said your limited by your scanner. At the end of the day, as long as your happy with your results - given that you have no intention of getting another scanner anyway, that is what is important.

[philbirch]

You work hard at your photography. Its not easy work. You deserve the best results.