A crazy idea for black and white photography

P

phototuition

Messages
483
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Black and white photography is deep in the hearts of many of us and now there's even a top class black and white camera (the Leica M) a camera which can never shoot colour images. But do you know what, twenty five years ago and still today it was, and is easier and more convenient to print black and white picures using an enlarger, safelight, couple of dishes and a running tap that in is to print digitally using the latest from Epson or Canon. And what's more we know with historic certaintly and without accelarated ageing tests by the Wilhelm boys, that the images will last.

For several years I achieved near Bromide quality with the Old HP 7660 (I think) series of printers using the HP59 ink cartridge with it's three density of grey ink - the essential ingredient of true monochrome printing. It was with this in mind that I investigated what was available now, nothing below a3+ it appears, and then it's only a couple of expensive models from Epson and Canon, HP appear to have discontinued their a3+ grey scale optimised printer.

The trouble with these printers is the appalling ink and print head costs which become exacerbated when, as is often the case with the amateur, they are not used for a few months, Heads clog, ink gets dumped, waste ink tank, Waste Ink!!! overflows and so on. I've tried labs, the B/W is clearly printed on clour paper so what permanency will there be. Ilford are great but expensive, but worst of all it's no fun. I want to produce my own prints.

So here's the crazy idea for B/W only and those who don't mind experimenting a bit - perhaps someones done it already?

Shoot your image, in edit software convert to B/W then reverse image to negative and save file. Modify a digital projector to become an enlarger, fit a fan interlock so vibration stops momentarily during exposure, fit ND filte to reduce light llevel, Fit physical shutter to control exposure time - nothing sophisticated , just a piece of card - exposures will be 5-20 secs like the old days perhaps. Send image to projector and project image onto photo paper, doing test strips and developing as in the old days.

Developer is cheap, £7 or so, fixer even cheaper and they will last for ages, you just dilute what you need and the bottle lasts for ages. Paper is 70p a sheet at a4 and will last for ages and so on. Obviously this won't mean a lot to those who don't know Silver halide printing but I think it might just work.

Anyone got an old projector they don't use? I'll report back if I. find one.

I have now retired (somewhat early) from all pro shooting and training by the way.

John
 
One problem you are overlooking... 1920x1080 resolution = crap quality.

back to the drawing board.


..unless you want to fork out for a 4K projector... which makes it prohibitively expensive... may as well just fork out for a decent printer.

Here's another crazy idea for you: Shoot black and white film, and set up a black and white darkroom. You can pick up everything you need off Ebay for peanuts these days.

I'm surprised that never occurred to you.


phototuition said:
Ok, what's the easier way? Oh hang on. You're going to say shoot film aren't you!
Click to expand...


Of course he is. Why arse about with all that to get a low res image with pixels the size of golf balls that will look crap when you can use the real deal?
 
Last edited:
Just got back from the pub where I suggested the notion to a a snapper and computer geek who also pointed out the resolution issue.

As for the smartypants comments re the obvious. If this was acceptable I wouldn't have proposed this notion of course.
 
Why is it not acceptable though? Just out of curiosity.

As for smartypants comments.... well.. if you failed to explain fully why it wasn't acceptable to use the obvious alternative.. that's your fault.. not ours.


Actually..... seeing as you are a tutor specialising in getting people started in digital photography, and you want to include black and white in that equation... I think you just need to invest in a decent printer :).
 
Last edited:
The main reason I can think of for not shooting it on film in the first place is that there may be the need/desire to carry out some form of editing/pp that isn't possible analogously.
 
He runs a "digital" photography course.... that's why. He needs a decent printer.... full stop.
 
I always have my smarty pants on. But yes, it does seem like a very long winded way of getting a crap resolution print when the film to print method is so much easier and will give better quality.


Steve.
 
Sebastião Salgado actually did what you suggested for his latest project, Genesis: http://rfman.wordpress.com/2009/05/10/an-evening-with-sebastiao-salgado/

For the current Genesis project, he needs to travel all over the world going through multiple countries and airports. His assistant would carry tens of pounds (I believe he said up to 50 pounds) of films, and being post 9-11, this got to be difficult as they requested hand checking of the film. He would carry documents from different agencies and a couple of times he had to call “people in high places” to straighten things out. With the 220 film, if it went through the X-Ray scanner more than 2-3 times, the quality degraded to less than 35mm level. So the assistant said they needed to do something about the situation.
One of his friends suggested that he try digital, which at first he resisted. However, he did try a medium format 645 back and was quite impressed by the quality. Since the medium format back setup was a bit large, he eventually settled on the Canon full frame (1Ds-something?). However, he still uses it like in the film days: his assistant makes contact sheets for him, and his camera is modified to give the same 645 ratio he is used to. He also has the images processed to look like Tri-X. For prints, a lab converts the data into a 645 negative and prints using traditional darkroom process!
Click to expand...

It's pretty cool since you do all your adjustments with the very fine level of control you have in Photoshop, then the rest is pretty much a straight print. It also means you have the original RAW file and a celluloid backup of the finished file.
 
That's not what the OP was on about. The OP was talking about using a projector like an enlarger to actually expose a piece of black and white paper, and the quality would be abysmal.

What Selgado is doing is making a digital negative, and the process is not as simple as just running some acetate through an inkjet to get a negative either. It's an expensive process to get right.
 
Maybe I'm confused but wouldn't using an OHP be better than a digital alternative?
 
Pookeyhead said:
That's not what the OP was on about. The OP was talking about using a projector like an enlarger to actually expose a piece of black and white paper, and the quality would be abysmal.

What Selgado is doing is making a digital negative, and the process is not as simple as just running some acetate through an inkjet to get a negative either. It's an expensive process to get right.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, but OP's basic workflow is similar which is why I brought up Salgado: start from digital and end with a silver halide print. The tricky part would be creating the negative from the digital file - perhaps a macro capture of a retina display Mac with some fine grained MF film like Pan F would work, although you'd be limited by the resolution of the screen again (even if it is very high res by most standards anyway), so while it would be fine for A4 it's still only about 5MP of resolution. Shooting film would be easier, Salagado had to switch due to his travel patterns anyway.
 
Last edited:
maybe you could fix two cameras together, one film, one digital, and use cable remote to fire shutters at same time, or do test shots on digital then switch to film with same settings.

i think if you want the true athestic of a old film process, or tin type or whatever, man up and go do that process.
 
FruitFlakes said:
I'm aware of that, but OP's basic workflow is similar which is why I brought up Salgado: start from digital and end with a silver halide print. The tricky part would be creating the negative from the digital file - perhaps a macro capture of a retina display Mac with some fine grained MF film like Pan F would work, although you'd be limited by the resolution of the screen again (even if it is very high res by most standards anyway), so while it would be fine for A4 it's still only about 5MP of resolution. Shooting film would be easier, Salagado had to switch due to his travel patterns anyway.
Click to expand...


So he'd have to buy a retina display MacBook Pro just to display an image to photograph? For that amount of money you could set up a killer black and white darkroom these days.... or buy a Epson 3880, which produces awesome black and white prints up to A2+.
 
Pookeyhead said:
So he'd have to buy a retina display MacBook Pro just to display an image to photograph? For that amount of money you could set up a killer black and white darkroom these days.... or buy a Epson 3880, which produces awesome black and white prints up to A2+.
Click to expand...

You're just re-stating my own closing sentence - starting out with film is simpler and probably better. The rMBP would be cheaper than whatever Salgado is using though, and better than the projector method that OP is talking about. Just positing a possible workflow for starting from a RAW and ending with a optical print. Do you know how Salgado transfers his digital files to film though? I'm guessing the same way that film studios transfer digital files onto film prints, but Salgado is working with much higher resolution files and larger negs...
 
To make the interneg you just print onto a clear base with an inkjet receiving layer. The problem you end up with is that as you're contact printing you have to do all the contrast adjustments before you print, and then as you're optically printing control it further with the exact colour/curves of the printout.

It takes a long time to calibrate to get exactly what you want, especially if you're not technically minded, and can be expensive. They are nice though, and allow for doing alt process stuff as well without having to shoot an 11x14 to get reasonable print sizes
 
raathistle said:
The problem you end up with is that as you're contact printing you have to do all the contrast adjustments before you print, and then as you're optically printing control it further with the exact colour/curves of the printout.
Click to expand...

You can still use graded paper and local dodging and burning with a contact print.


Steve.
 
You can get traditional black & white silver halide prints (RC or fibre) direct from digital files. One lab I've used is Metro Imaging in London, though TBH I'm not convinced the quality is better than a really good ink-jet print.
 
Last edited:
It's not. Been there, done that.
 
Steve Smith said:
You can still use graded paper and local dodging and burning with a contact print.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Didn't think about graded paper, I've only ever used mulrigrade for the flexibility of split grade printing. However, even with graded paper it's going to take a lot of work to get a printable output
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top