Mike Rawcs Posted June 11, 2014 Share #1 Posted June 11, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Can anyone provide a contact where I can have an internegative made from a digital file in the U.K.? I wish to test this method of making traditional b&w prints. The ideal would be an internegative no-large than 5" x 4". Many thanks, Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 11, 2014 Posted June 11, 2014 Hi Mike Rawcs, Take a look here Digital internegative required. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sanyasi Posted June 11, 2014 Share #2 Posted June 11, 2014 I can't help you. I am in the U.S., but more to the point, I don't know what an internegative is. For my edification, could you kindly define what this? Thanks Jack Siegel Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 11, 2014 Share #3 Posted June 11, 2014 You might consider the Paris lab (Central Dupon) written about in this TOP post for the sale of Peter Turnley prints, produced from M9 and MM files and put on 4x5 internegs for printing. Note that Peter and his team worked carefully with the lab to get what they wanted, and then had one of the world's best printers (with Peter's input) to do the rest. As I said in your other thread, not plug and play. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 11, 2014 Share #4 Posted June 11, 2014 Might this help? Digital Internegatives - Photo.net Digital Darkroom Forum 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 11, 2014 Share #5 Posted June 11, 2014 (edited) If you have a good quality inkjet printer you can buy the film base. This means you can make a negative as big as your enlarger will take, or as big as you would want to contact print. Steve Edited June 11, 2014 by 250swb Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share #6 Posted June 11, 2014 Jack, it is a digital photograph (file) that has been reversed into a negative and that is then printed onto a 'film-like' medium. This can be either as a negative, that can fit into, and be printed from, a traditional enlarger; or as a negative that can be contact printed to produce a print at a required size. All of the printing process involves darkroom, chemical, means of making a print - the marriage of digital and analogue photography. Mike. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 12, 2014 Share #7 Posted June 12, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Digital film here, Permajet Digital Transfer Film but I'm sure there are other makes and suppliers. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 12, 2014 Share #8 Posted June 12, 2014 It is of course the reverse of scan-film-print digital workflow. I have some doubt about the validity of hybrid processes. I appears tto me that the disadvantages of both systems are added up. Much as I like a fully chemicaly made image, I wonder whether it is possible to improve on a baryta print derived from a digital file, or if one wants the look of "real" photographic paper, a Lambda print. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share #9 Posted June 12, 2014 It is of course the reverse of scan-film-print digital workflow. I have some doubt about the validity of hybrid processes. I appears tto me that the disadvantages of both systems are added up. Much as I like a fully chemicaly made image, I wonder whether it is possible to improve on a baryta print derived from a digital file, or if one wants the look of "real" photographic paper, a Lambda print. Jaapv, that's just what I'm attempting to find out. I'm going to have the same digital photographed printed by all three means and see which looks the best. Thank you all for your input and advice. Mike. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 12, 2014 Share #10 Posted June 12, 2014 I have some doubt about the validity of hybrid processes. It doesn't need to be valid, it just needs to work. In his latest work 'Genesis' Sebastiao Salgado converted his digital files into digital negatives (complete with fake Tri-X grain) and had them printed on photographic paper. This was to make the images all look the same in a project that started many years ago. Now I'm not going to criticise him, and the book and exhibition look damned good with no hint that this hybrid process doesn't work. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rawcs Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share #11 Posted June 12, 2014 It doesn't need to be valid, it just needs to work. In his latest work 'Genesis' Sebastiao Salgado converted his digital files into digital negatives (complete with fake Tri-X grain) and had them printed on photographic paper. This was to make the images all look the same in a project that started many years ago. Now I'm not going to criticise him, and the book and exhibition look damned good with no hint that this hybrid process doesn't work. Steve Steve, I was looking at the Genesis book this morning. Some great photography and as you say, some produced with film, some with digital. The book comes with a pullout (as you probably know) that gives details of the photographs, where they were taken etc. and the year they were taken. Knowing when Sebastiao moved from film to digital it is possible to have a good idea which medium was used for a particular photograph and I can't help but try to guess which. They are very close and I sometimes get it wrong but in general the digital photos have more detail. They all look good though. I also have his Workers book, which I think is his best. Mike. Mike. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryW Posted June 12, 2014 Share #12 Posted June 12, 2014 Mike, Although the printing process differs have a look at this video where an interneg is created from a digital file. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 12, 2014 Share #13 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) It doesn't need to be valid, it just needs to work. In his latest work 'Genesis' Sebastiao Salgado converted his digital files into digital negatives (complete with fake Tri-X grain) and had them printed on photographic paper. This was to make the images all look the same in a project that started many years ago. Now I'm not going to criticise him, and the book and exhibition look damned good with no hint that this hybrid process doesn't work. Steve I don't doubt that it works, but what does it add? Comparing an inter negative with a Lambda print, for instance.(Not arguing, just displaying my L plates...) Edited June 12, 2014 by jaapv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 13, 2014 Share #14 Posted June 13, 2014 It adds the possibility of true archival processing of the print, it adds the possibility of using 'alternative techniques' like platinum printing etc., it adds the possibility of using your darkroom again, it adds the possibility of exact reproducibility by doing all your dodging and burning before printing the negative. I'm sure I could think of more, but that's enough for now. Steve 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esquire53 Posted June 13, 2014 Share #15 Posted June 13, 2014 and may I suggest to create a custom ICC profile with your printer and the negative media you intend to use. The negative printing is highly biased by your printer. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted June 13, 2014 Share #16 Posted June 13, 2014 An excerpt from the link I provided above regarding Peter Turnley's process working with the French lab…. " Peter: We use a terrific photography lab in Paris called Central DUPON Images. The process is called making a "shoot." That's what they call it in French—I don't know if there's an English equivalent, other than "internegative." We have spent time working with one their wonderful technicians calibrating a digital file with a standard set of curves so that when a 4x5 negative is made from a digital file, there is no excess gain in contrast or loss of detail. Mike: Is there usually? Peter: In general, the digital file that is projected onto a piece of 4x5 film has a bit less contrast than a digital file one would print from directly. We have studied this carefully and made many tests and arrived at a standard setting that enables us to have constant, excellent mid-tone values and levels of detail in the highlights and shadows in the 4x5 negative that the silver gelatin print is then made from . " As I said, not plug and play…for an optimal result. And the process will vary based on that intended result, e.g., a different interneg for platinum versus silver print. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 15, 2014 Share #17 Posted June 15, 2014 Jack, it is a digital photograph (file) that has been reversed into a negative and that is then printed onto a 'film-like' medium. There is a bit more to it than creating a negative image that looks good on a calibrated monitor - it is usually necessary to apply a curve to the negative that suits a specific printer, inks and paper. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted June 15, 2014 Share #18 Posted June 15, 2014 I can't imagine how that would be any different to applying a printer profile to any inkjet paper. Steve Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted June 17, 2014 Share #19 Posted June 17, 2014 Never was happy with inter negs even the ones made by Kodak from my slide. Maker really needs to know how to make color balance correctly. Not sure the film is even available now. The best I have ever seen from digital camera is a laser print from Durst "enlarger" . The middle quality is inkjet. These range from middle grade to very good and the better ones differ mostly in esthetics from prints made on Durst Lambda which are on real photo paper and are always perfect if the lab is good. When you get to large prints, 16x, high end work, a large format inkjet is expensive and the inks dry and are very expensive in a per print basis if you do not use them up. $800 to reink the machine. Lambda machines are $100,000 and not a home investment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.