Making digital prints look like film prints

[Garnick]

Thanks for that Paul.  Another memory from the wet darkroom days - print bleaching.  I've been trying to recall the name of the chemical, although I think it was something - ferracyanide, but that's probably wrong.  We used to call it Sunshine In A Bottle, or The Zone System in a Bottle.  I will admit it did do the job when necessary.  But as I mentioned in my previous post, knowing when to stop was imperative when using that chemical procedure.  One always had to keep in mind that the STOPPING point was just before you see what you want, since one could easily go too far and then be reprinting.  Also keep that water flowing to dilute the chemical if needed.

FUN and GAMES in the darkroom - An Amber Glow of the past   

   

[Damir]

It's simply a fact! Just examine the testing done here and here:
http://wilhelm-research.com
http://aardenburg-imaging.com
Even Ciba can't compare in terms of the archival properties of pigmented inks. And of course, the best approach with either technology is to avoid OAB's in papers.
http://digitaldog.net/files/24TroubleWithFWAs.pdf

I am not talking about arhival properties, I am talking about scratch resistance of the surface.

Anyway is easy to reprint if you damage the surface of inkjet print.

Old papers do not use OAB.

[digitaldog]

I am not talking about arhival properties, I am talking about scratch resistance of the surface.

Which of course you didn't state (even if true).

Anyway is easy to reprint if you damage the surface of inkjet print.

Sure is. And some ink jet papers are far more scratch resistant than others, another issue with your generalizations! Epson Exhibition Fiber is far more delicate than Luster. That's not a generalization, it's just another specified fact.

Old papers do not use OAB.

Yet another generalization. Old is an undefined metric. Some papers do have OBAs, some don't. Do attempt to be specific with your comments please. 

[Damir]

Which of course you didn't state (even if true).
 Sure is. And some ink jet papers are far more scratch resistant than others, another issue with your generalizations! Epson Exhibition Fiber is far more delicate than Luster. That's not a generalization, it's just another specified fact.Yet another generalization. Old is an undefined metric. Some papers do have OBAs, some don't. Do attempt to be specific with your comments please. 

I don't want to be rude, but from my writing it is easy to dedicate what I am talking about if you read it and process information in a proper way.

1. I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.

2. whatever inkjet paper you use it doesn't matter - surface is not as resistant to scratches as hardened gellatine.

3. I talked about about 19-th century photography, mention it several time - that is what I mean old.

Anyway I feel that I'm just lost my time trying to explain some, from my experience, well known facts. This is not scientific magazine, and I do not write science paper.

Have a good day.

[faberryman]

I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.

Anybody here drag their nails across their prints?

[Garnick]

I don't want to be rude, but from my writing it is easy to dedicate what I am talking about if you read it and process information in a proper way.

1. I talked of hardness of the surface, event mentioned nail scratch test.

2. whatever inkjet paper you use it doesn't matter - surface is not as resistant to scratches as hardened gellatine.

3. I talked about about 19-th century photography, mention it several time - that is what I mean old.

Anyway I feel that I'm just lost my time trying to explain some, from my experience, well known facts. This is not scientific magazine, and I do not write science paper.

Have a good day.

"I have in my hands darkroom prints that have surface very tough and hard, close to plexy, even harder. If you don't saw them that doesn't mean they do not exist. If someone try to scratch it with nail there is no trace or scratch. I will like to try to scratch some of your print to see how it will stand that test."

I'm obviously missing something here.  In both of these posts you have mentioned the issue of hardened gellatine being much more scratch resistant than any of the papers we use today to print from digital image files.  Since I have never ever tried the nail test on any photographic paper I've used I cannot provide any sort argument to your assertion.  Therefore I can only ask this question.  How do you handle your printed images, and do you first use the nail test to make sure the surface of the paper will stand up to your personal specifications?  Of course I am being somewhat facetious by asking such a question, but not totally.  Therefore I can only surmise that you are rather heavy handed when it comes to handling photographic prints, hard gellatine or otherwise.  Obviously I do agree that inkjet papers are less resistant to abrasions than most gellatine papers, but somehow that has never been an issue for me.  When I am printing on inkjet matte surface papers for customers I include a note informing them to handle with care, especially if the image contains a lot of deep blacks which can burnish rather easily.  Perhaps I should now add to that note not use nails anywhere near these papers.   

WHOOPS!¡!  I think I might have misinterpreted something in your posts that you didn't make clear.  I believe you may have been referring to ones fingernails, not necessarily the carpentry variety.  If that is the case I apologize.  However, I will say that running my fingernails across the printed image has also never occurred to me as being a necessity.             

[digitaldog]

WHOOPS!¡!  I think I might have misinterpreted something in your posts that you didn't make clear.  I believe you may have been referring to ones fingernails, not necessarily the carpentry variety.  If that is the case I apologize.  However, I will say that running my fingernails across the printed image as also never occurred to me as being a necessity.           

Ditto. On all of the above.

[Damir]

My first post:

I don't thimk that digital print will ever be the same as analog print. The obvious reason is that in digital printing printer lay out ink on the surface of paper, while in analog one it is inside, on the top of print there is an layer of hardened gelatine, ink or silver particles deep inside.
This change the was lite is reflecting. Digital print is for that reason sensitive and prone to scrathhes.

John reply:

That’s wrong. The gloss enhancer on some of the HP and Canon printers, and Piezography gloss optimizer provides a very similar encapsulation over the carbon based pigments. If you add the additional uv coat of a solvent spray the latent image is actually more protected than gelatin.

I just compare how is surface prone to scratches. I do not test it like that, but accidents do happen and some information is gathered that way. Yes I ment fingernail, sorry I am not native English speaker, I do make a mistake.

[Ernst Dinkla]

For the first time I have been looking at some darkroom prints and am stunned by the subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail. The prints are landscapes and village scapes, old wood barns, red rock boulders, twisted tree trunks, grassy fields. I shoot digital and process in Photoshop and get a harsher look with apparently less subtlety.

I wonder if there is a guide to making digital prints more film like, particularly to bring out the textures. I have Silver Efex Pro but am not getting the same look.

Digital sensors, today's lenses (and even some vintage lenses), monitors, editing software, printing software, digital printers and papers, are very capable to deliver subtle differentiations of textures in the fine detail, or whatever image quality you see in analogue B&W prints. Even the "character" of silver halide prints, like paper white, paper texture, can be found in the diversity of available digital papers + finishing methods these days.

At the stage where you start editing the images, correct color management + compatible viewing conditions are needed for getting it right on the monitor and with the printer/paper. Loss of texture and detail information can also be caused by using mediocre editing methods and printing software. More dedicated tools and ink sets for B&W printing exist to improve on that all.

There is a B&W forum on this site. Also check the website of Paul Roark for information, he replied in this thread as well.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plo

[Ernst Dinkla]

Old papers do not use OAB.

You have to go back 70 years I guess to find a manufacturer's silver halide paper catalog that had only papers without OBA content. Since then only very warm portrait papers may have been without OBA. Today's Harman made Ilford Multigrade Warmtone Semi-Matt is not even free of it and that is the warmest silver halide B&W paper in their catalog.

http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic44-01-001.html


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Ernst Dinkla]

Sorry no; there are several digital print processes (Lambda, Lightjet, Frontier etc) that use light to expose silver material.

True, they are digital printers as well. Few however are used to print on B&W silver halide papers. I doubt the normal ones using chromogenic paper can simulate an old analogue printed B&W silver halide print in dynamic range and neutrality of the greys. Not to mention the limited choice in paper qualities.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[digitaldog]

True, they are digital printers as well. Few however are used to print on B&W silver halide papers. I doubt the normal ones using chromogenic paper can simulate an old analogue printed B&W silver halide print in dynamic range and neutrality of the greys. Not to mention the limited choice in paper qualities.

Few perhaps but some do exist. Using the same paper and processing as analog printing, I can not fathom why there would be any reduction in DR.

[Garnick]

To finish this discussion for me.  "I don't think that digital print will ever be the same as analog print".  I agree totally Damir.  When all we had was a darkroom (both dry and wet), chemicals and the available papers of that time, we tried to produce the best print we could manage.  And yes, I also agree that there were various ways of accomplishing that, both during the enlarging and the processing stages of the final print.  I have mentioned in this thread a couple of procedures I used to enhance the sharpness and detail of the print.  In the processing of the print there were also various ways of controlling the final outcome.  Yes, we did indeed use various procedures to produce the print as we had envisioned it.  That would often involve many hours just to produce the final print and then repeat that procedure to produce more prints while all of the information was fresh.  I still have some of my old "mock up" prints with the printing instructions written on them for future prints if necessary.  Those prints would now look like a road map, which is exactly what they were of course.  A road map to a future print that would look like the original as closely as possible. 

Having said all of that I will once again use the quote above - "I don't think that digital print will ever be the same as analog print".  And yes, I agree totally, simply due to the fact that if done properly, the digital print is superior in many ways.  Notice I used the word fact, so I will finish with this Damir.  You have voiced your opinion and I have done the same.   

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

In the U.S. at least there are several labs that print digital files using traditional-type silver-halide B&W papers and chemicals. I have attached a chart that I recently compiled on the ones I could readily identify. Some print on fiber-based paper, some print on resin-coated paper, and some print on both types. The available papers and surfaces differ, although most (all?) of the labs that offer prints on resin-coated paper use Ilford's paper designed to be printed on wet minilab-type equipment. Ilford sells that paper in glossy and 'pearl' surfaces. The pearl is about like luster. Personally I would have preferred Ilford to offer their 'satin' RC surface, which IMO is closer to matte. The range of prices is large, the cost of an 8x10 inch print running from $3.52 to $45.00 or more (toning etc.).

I have made some comparisons of RC prints from the first three (Mpix, Harman / Ilford, and Fromex / True B&W) with prints of the same files I made on a Canon Pro-100 (dye-ink) printer with papers with similar surfaces. Overall they are pretty close, but I won't say identical. Obviously if you are using pigment inks and/or matte papers the difference could be large.

What I cannot do is make close comparisons of these digital B&W prints to wet B&W prints from film. Not only have I not had a functioning wet darkroom since 2005, but there are too many process differences. I will let you experts discuss and debate that.

To me, potentially-important but unanswered questions include:
(1) are there any traditional-type B&W papers for sale today that are neutral (not warm-tone) that don't contain substantial amounts of OBAs?
(2) Does exposing the paper for a comparatively short time, to comparatively much more intense light, as is done with a typical digital printer, produce some effect that makes the resulting print differ substantially from one made under an enlarger with, say, a 10 s exposure? As a corollary, does the performance of papers designed for short, intense exposures differ meaningfully from the performance of papers designed for longer, less-intense exposures?

[John Nollendorfs]

Wow
What a  wonderful discussion about the photographic printing process by some very knowledgable people that have transitioned from the "good old days" to the digital inkjet reality of today. Yes, today's prints are different than yester-years. But remember, the medium of photography has been evolving from the day of it's inception, just not to the extent that we have seen since the digital revolution of the 1990's and early 2000's. Thank you one and all for your personal insights and experiences.

[nirpat89]

Thanks for that Paul.  Another memory from the wet darkroom days - print bleaching.  I've been trying to recall the name of the chemical, although I think it was something - ferracyanide, but that's probably wrong.  We used to call it Sunshine In A Bottle, or The Zone System in a Bottle.  I will admit it did do the job when necessary.  But as I mentioned in my previous post, knowing when to stop was imperative when using that chemical procedure.  One always had to keep in mind that the STOPPING point was just before you see what you want, since one could easily go too far and then be reprinting.  Also keep that water flowing to dilute the chemical if needed.

FUN and GAMES in the darkroom - An Amber Glow of the past   

   

Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.) 

[Garnick]

Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.)

HMMMMMM ••••• Not sure you should have included the last part of your previous reply - if you know what I mean.       However, I doubt anyone on this list would be so reckless as to try it - I hope.   

[John Nollendorfs]

Standard issue! Does not work with inkjet prints.

[nirpat89]

HMMMMMM ••••• Not sure you should have included the last part of your previous reply - if you know what I mean.       However, I doubt anyone on this list would be so reckless as to try it - I hope.   

I wanted to make sure people don't start mixing stuff based on what I said about it being non-toxic.  If I understand it correctly (no first hand knowledege  ) it requires fairly strong acid, like 90% HCl or something like that to split the cyanide from the ferricyanide so it is not accomplished that easily.  If one ingests it, the stomach acid is not strong enough to make cyanide gas.  Many anecdotal cases of people trying to commit suicide by eating some of this thinking it was cyanide and lived to tell their story.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Potassium ferricyanide....actually it's not that bad (not toxic even though it has cyanide in the name, unless you drop it in concentrated acid, that is.)

LOL!!!  I'm reminded of my qualitative organic chemistry class some years ago.  Each week the professor would bring in a natural substance and circulate it around the class for us to smell and guess the functional group.  One lecture he had a mortar and pestle and was grinding up some leaves.  He sent it around for the sniff test and it faintly had the almond smell of cyanide.  One of the chief components in the plant was a cyanogenic glycoside that when treated with weak acid released the cyanide (not enough to do any kind of damage).  The plant was a common weed whose name I cannot remember and the compound was a deterrent to prevent insects and others from eating it.