> An interesting technique but are the advantages significant ?
There are several advantages:
1. Ability to market the final print as "Silver Gelatin on Fiber".
2. Ability to make use of glycin-based developers to achieve a "glow"
effect not possible through any other means.
3. Ability to use of other emulsion types (platinum) that can only be
immitated with inkjet printing but isn't the real thing.
4. Ability to make use of the density curves of the emulsion for tonal depth.
5. Cost. For multiple prints of images which have vast areas of high
density. The paper and ink costs can be multiple times that of the
wet-print process.
> My concern about this is that every additional step you introduce in the
> process is a source of degradation in the final image (print), e.g. can you
> create a negative that has the full tonal range of the original digital
> image file ?
It can be. But under the same criteria, the very act of converting a
raw file degrades the image. Every tiny bit of editing degrades the
image. The process of creating a digital contact negative is just part
of the process (and is of the same output resolution as any other
quality inkjet print. The resolution lost during the making the final
print from the digital contact negative is no different than that of
making a contact print from a large film negative. The loss of
resolution is less than that of the ability of the human eye to
discern without the aid of a magnifying glass.
Tonal accuracy for a print derived from a digital contact negative is
unlikely to be as accurate as that of a pure digital output. That's
fine, though, because what you are doing is leaning on the "flaws" of
the medium to create a look that is unique. Isn't that what so much of
what we are doing with our editing is? Isn't there room in photography
for artistic expression?
I have a nice poster print of "Two Sisters" hanging in the house. It's
one of my favorite paintings. When presented in most flattering light
and from a normal viewing distance, you would be hard pressed to see
any gains from the original painting (other than in the oranges and
reds which can't be exactly reproduced). Why would anybody care to
have original paintings instead of nice lithoprints? Same stuff,
right?
Of course not. The painting has intrinsic value that goes beyond just
the display medium. The painting is the original work of art.
The same thing is relatively true with photographic prints. Like it or
not, a digital B&W print does not have the same gravitas as a AgX B&W
print. A digital print might be a "pretty picture", but the
chemical-process print is a tangible object. This is especially true
in the previously mentioned alt-process technologies. Blue tinting a
digital B&W print doesn't make it anything other than a blue-tinted
inkjet print. Who are you trying to fool?
As to tonalities, Moose did a pretty good job of introducing the issue
of tonal compression. We take a scene which may have 20 stops of
exposure range and have to stuff that into the initial capturing
medium which may have anywhere from 8 to 16 stops of dynamic range.
Not only do we have to be selective of which of those 20 stops to
keep, but where to place them. With digital (and some films like Kodak
TMAX 100), it's pretty linear with little to no toe or shoulder to
stuff a few extra fringe stops into. Other films have broad toes and
shoulders which allow us to keep the middle stops linear and then the
fringe ones get compressed, placing multiple stops into a single stop
of capturable range.
During post processing, we then choose what to do with the captured
range of tonal values. In the case of most traditional B&W films, the
mid-tones have a nice agressive contrast with a continual compression
or reduction of contrast as we get get closer to the blacks and the
whites. This is OK, though, because studies have shown that as long as
the midtones are displayed in "normal" contrast gradient, the extremes
don't matter much. You can compress the extreme tones a lot and that
is just fine, but don't mess up the midtones. The post processing step
is where you get to be artsy, but you are also effectively working the
pre-print process.
The printing process (or any desired form of output) is where things
get tricky. We can be misled by the fact that such-and-such paper has
only 6 stops of dynamic range. Well, not quite. It actually has more
to do with how the print is lit than anything else, but I digress.
Just like the capture phase where we select which stops to present as
midtones, we also select which stops get to be compressed together or
just thrown into the threshold of black or white.
Most people think that B&W printing (in the pure analog world) is
limited to just brightness and contrast. Anything beyond that basic
exposure and printing control requires localized or regionalized
dodging and burning. There are actually many other controls at our
disposal. Split-grade printing is a rather recent advancement. Paper
and developer selection is another means of control. Paper flashing,
fixing and bleaching methods also can be used. These tools give us a
lot of control over the image gamma as well as determining how tonal
values are placed in the shadows and highlights.
I find it quite disingenuous for certain individuals (I can name
names, but will refrain) to loudly proclaim how much superior digital
printing is than analog printing because they can get far better
prints now than they ever were "back in the day". Well, duh! I'm also
a far better photographer now then I was 15 years ago too! The biggest
advancement to these individuals' print quality has less to do with
the specific technology and more to do with the fact that they've
progressed and learned new techniques and methods. There are darkroom
techies today that have pushed the medium far beyond anything that was
even remotely possible five years ago. We may have fewer paper choices
today, but the paper choices we do have are better than the majority
of paper choices we had 15 years ago. And we have new developer
options now that we didn't have then. I won't even get into the new
electronic tools we have for the darkroom which nobody had 15 years
ago.
The exciting areas really are in hybrid photography. Being able to
mix-and-match the technologies to achieve a specific result. There are
times when digital capture is best. There are times when analog
capture is best. There is little question that the real strength of
digital is in the editing. For final output, inkjet is usually best
for color (multiple reasons), but AgX is usually best for B&W. Being
able to pick and choose is significant. A 100% digital workflow is
just as limited, but in different ways, as a 100% analog workflow.
The Iowa State Fair has a huge photo competition. Thousands of photos
are entered, and I forgot how many thousand get displayed. The B&W
prints are interesting because almost without exception, you can spot
the real B&W prints from across the room. Well, almost across the
room--it's usually stuffed with a few hundred times more people than
fire code would allow. As you get closer you can see even greater
differences. But there are also differences among B&W prints. It's
usually pretty easy to spot the Ilford papers and now the ADOX MCC 110
prints can be identified because of their unique richness of tones.
Periodically, you'll encounter one that has the sparkle that only
Oriental paper will give.
To limit oneself to a 100% digital workflow and output is not going to
make or break the typical photographer. Subject and substance matter
far more. But just as there are those who appreciate a real painting
over the lithographic copy, there are people who appreciate a fine
silver-gelatin on fiber print over an inkjet print. Sometimes the
resulting print is technically "better" than the inkjet print,
sometimes it is not as "perfect". But it is "different".
There have been a few of Tina's pictures that I would really like to
see printed using traditional means. I don't think that the
digitization process is helping those pictures at all, and in fact, is
hurting them. The reason why is that the analog process is optimized
to the specific capture medium AND the methodology use to expose the
picture in the first place. Digital is the compromise.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|