Digital BW, The Print

Martin,

Although I haven't made a 24x30 of the full image off the LJ neg, I 
have to say that the 8x10 crop prints (at that magnification) of the LJ 
and original neg are impressively close to the same from a viewing 
distance of arm's length.  This is closer than most people would view a 
full print.  Of course I had to bump the contrast a grade and a half in 
the LJ neg to get it to look the same as the original, but the contrast 
issue is still a moving target.  I need to find out more from Jim as to 
how much pushing of the film was done, and how much contrast was added 
in PS.  My impression is that the LJ tends to produce slightly flat 
negs, but that is not based on direct information.  There are a great 
many variables at work, quality of the scan, manipulation in PS, 
exposure and development of the negative stock.  A&I has experience 
with this but I think my situation and demands are creating the need to 
scan/print repeatedly to produce satisfactory results.  All this while 
they try to meet the needs of other clients.  Takes time...

The contacts of the negative are flat out beautiful.  At this size they 
are indistinguishable from the originals.  Piezos of the scan are 
likewise beautiful, so I can vouch for the high quality this part of 
the workflow.  Straight piezos are identical to the original silver 
images, and with sharpening, better. There is extremely little noise...

Phil
http://philbard.com


> The results so far are very impressive. While I see the difference 
> between the prints from 2nd digital neg and the original, the gap 
> seems pretty narrow given the huge amount of enlargement.
> 
> Aside from the small detail area, how do you feel about the quality 
> of the image as whole comparing the original silver print, the 
> digital to silver print and the Piezo print? Have you tried a contact 
> print of the negative? If you have I would be curious as to your 
> impressions of the result.
> 
> The lack of contrast is of more concern than the sharpness 
> difference. I think you are correct that going to an 8x10 neg should 
> resolve or greatly improve the sharpness issues. Is A&I pushing the 
> film in development to build contrast or are they just working with 
> the Photoshop and LightJet settings?
> 
> One thing I find very fascinating is that the image on your web page 
> from the original scan is the sharpest and has the most detail. This 
> is not really surprising since all the others have gone through a 
> second scanning and additional steps as well. But it makes me think 
> that there is a real need for $100, 5 pound, *" thick, 24x30 flat-
> panel displays (archival of course) in which we could imbed our image 
> file (or files?) for sale to the customer. In the meantime, what 
> silver paper are you printing on?
> 
> I really appreciate your sharing this information. The amount of work 
> and effort involved in calibrating a new workflow like this is very 
> large.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
> wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> > 
> > On my website I have posted the results of the second round of 
> Lightjet 
> > negs I recently received from A&I Digital (link at bottom). For 
> those 
> > of you unfamiliar with this test it involves making 4x5 B&W 
> negatives 
> > from scans (from 4x5 originals) using a Lightjet digital enlarger. 
> Once 
> > again I made 24x30 enlargements from 4x5 negs.  The new negs show 
> an 
> > increase in sharpness and some gain in the grain area, but are 
> > promising depending on what your particular needs for this process 
> > might be. They are still lower in contrast by about a grade or so 
> than 
> > the original. Still unclear is how an image will print back to 
> negative 
> > after my tweaking it in PhotoShop, since all of these negs were 
> > produced without my intermediate involvement there.  I have yet to 
> > produce full crop 24x30's yet to get a sense of the overall impact 
> of 
> > the Lightjet negs, but will try to find time to do that soon.  Note 
> > that for these negs, A&I went back and did a 16 bit scan of my 
> > original.  First negs were from 8 bit scans.
> > 
> > Conclusions so far are that at 24x30 there is a moderate loss of 
> detail 
> > and tonal smoothness.  If printed at less magnification, something 
> I 
> > will also do shortly, this may not be much of a sacrifice.  And for 
> > problem negs, ie. difficult or impossible to obtain satisfactory 
> silver 
> > prints of, it may be worth the tradeoff.  Again, that is each 
> person's 
> > own decision.  I will try to provide as much information about the 
> > results of these tests ongoing as possible (posts to the site, 
> > qualitative remarks), but those of you who are serious about this 
> > process will have to perform their own trials in order to determine 
> its 
> > feasibility.  At some point down the line I might be able to mail 
> out 
> > samples of the actual prints I've made to folks who are interested, 
> as 
> > long as I'm not overwhelmed with requests.  Off list for that 
> please.
> > 
> > I'm contemplating having 8x10 negs output. It could increase 
> overall 
> > sharpness and reduce grain.  Additionally I will continue to work 
> for 
> > increased film contrast and test the results of contrast 
> control/burn/
> > dodge in PhotoShop on the scan before sending it to the Lightjet.
> > 
> > Hope these are informative, sorry for the double post.
> > 
> > Here's the link:  http://philbard.com/tests.html
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Phil
> > http://philbard.com