To make a much larger platinum print you can scan the 4 x 5 negative, use software to scale up to a larger print size digital file, print this on your inkjet printer on transparency stock, and then produce a larger contact print. With the original platinum print process you would end up producing 4 x 5 contact prints - beautiful, perhaps, but very small. Let's say that you made a lovely 4 x 5 photograph. There are photographers who create very large negatives from digital originals and print them on transparent stock in inkjet printers, and then make very large platinum contact prints from them. A very expensive and special purpose machine.) (Not an easy way, in any case, though I can imagine a machine that could do such a thing. It also means that there is not a direct way to produce a platinum print directly from a digital original. This means that a platinum print will be the same size as the negative. Platinum prints are typically made as contact prints, which require a negative to be placed directly above the print surface and then exposed to light. I'm aware of one situation in which the results appeal to some photographers, namely the production of platinum prints. And, yes, I have done this actual comparison, and still went with the direct scan in the end. But none of this paragraph really applies to your request. This process is the only way to get around the 8000 ppi limit of the best drum scanners. You are also enlarging all the defects of the enlarging lens that you never see in looking at a bare print, and you sacrifice some tonality, but it *can* be very slightly sharper, if that's the most important factor. Just to give you an idea of what an 8x10 Res 120 is, it's 120 dots per millimeter, so an 8x10 Res 120 in a 16 bit RGB file, and it does have to be RGB, is 4.15 GB.Īll that being said, there are times where you can take something like a 35mm negative, enlarge it to 9x14, printed on high gloss paper, then drum scan that, and actually get very slightly more detail from the scan of the print than from a super high res scan (8000 ppi) directly from the neg. And you want to use the Kodak LVT process or the Fuji equivalent for the best quality, not some crappy cheap film recorder that does not use a laser to expose with. The best quality, detail wise, is to image the LVT at Res 120, which requires an enormous file for that resolution, something your digital original will not have. Having done quite a few LVTs, both on to color transparency and black and white film, the quality can be quite good, but there is always a loss. You'll end up with less than you start with because of that. To make a digital internegative, which you would print on a LVT film recorder, you will always lose something in each generation - digital file to film, then film to projected print. Unfortunately, you're always better off just making the digital print directly from the original digital file. I'm leaning toward the thought that it would, of course, have less detail than an 8x10 negative, but would the print be any better than like a large format ink jet print.if you are printing so large that you would have to interpolate the file ANYWAY. So, could you create an 8x10 negative from, say, a digital file, and then put that negative into an 8x10 enlarger, and print a massive print, and THEN, would there be ANY APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY over just printing that digital file using current, normal means.OF COURSE it's crazy, and OF COURSE it'd would be insanely cost inefficient.but would it be the same, better, or worse. Ok, stay with me here.So there are Optical printers.that will put a digital image onto film ed in motion picture production.and there are also standard, RA processors that will expose digital images on to RA paper and develop through traditional chemistry.and then there are massive enlargers, that will take an 8x10 or 11x14 negative and allow you to make massive chemical prints.Īnd people are ALWAYS saying that 8x10 negatives have SOOOOO much detail and when you blow them up their mind blowing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |