Enlarging Digital Negatives

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,586
Today, I had a go at enlarging a digital negative created from a 5x4 negative.

The maximum negative size my enlarger can take is 6x7 so I scanned in the 5x4 negative and resized it down to 6x7 cm.
I them created the correction curve for Ilford Pearl RC and then printed it out on to some transfer film.

6x7-magpie-mine.jpg
I then put that in the enlarger and created a 10x8 print from it.

Magpie-Mine002.jpg

Initial thoughts are that there appears to be quite a bit of artefacts which looks like noise. I still need to figure out where this is coming from, my initial thoughts are that the original scan had some sharpening applied to it and when I reduce the size to 6x7cm, Photoshop added its own sharpening interpolation.

My gut feeling tells me to evaluate the image after Photoshop has done its dance to see if any more sharpening is required which I don't think it will.
 
Could simply be the dither pattern of the ink drops. Don't forget that going the enlarging route is going to magnifying everything. Just a thought...
 
Could simply be the dither pattern of the ink drops. Don't forget that going the enlarging route is going to magnifying everything. Just a thought...

It will be the dithering patter and enlarging through it will help emphasise it quite significantly. Film writers use far higher resolution to make analoge negatives.

Ian
 
I never thought about the dithering. In that case not much we can do about it
 
Dust removal software doesn't like the grain in B+W films, but I expect you know that anyway.
Does this pattern persist if you print the negative onto 10x8 paper?
Could it be a surface tension, wet ink effect, if the ink is drying slowly on the film? A cold day, perhaps?
I have printed onto the shiny backing sheet that used to come with inkjet paper to make something like a Polaroid transfer print and the ink "balls" on the surface to give a blotchy effect that may or may not be considered attractive.
Faulty film seems a remote possibility. Accidental wrong side?
Magnification of the surface of anti-Newton glass?
Can't think of any other, even more remote possibilities. These all seem unlikely enough.
Something isn't quite square, which I wouldn't expect.
 
Ian
Perhaps you should try using the 'negative' printed onto Pictorico 'film' for one of the 'alternative' print processes.
You might be surprised as to how 'good' it could turn out.

Ken
 
Ian
Perhaps you should try using the 'negative' printed onto Pictorico 'film' for one of the 'alternative' print processes.
You might be surprised as to how 'good' it could turn out.

Ken
I would like to try platinum but the cost is to high for me plus I dont have the room
 
Ian
I would like to try platinum but the cost is to high for me plus I dont have the room

If you could sent me a digital copy of the original negative, the next time I'm 'doing some VDB printing I'll make an enlarged 8x10 negative and send you back a print on 11x14 paper.

If you would like to see a 'scan' of one of my 4x5 'portals' negatives AS A "VDB" print... give me a 'shout' from your 'personal' email address (rather than on the forum)

Ken
 
I would like to try platinum but the cost is to high for me plus I dont have the room

Much cheaper to go the palladium / Na2 route. Ya still need an UV exposure unit or you could wait for the sun to shine.
 
Rush job then?

No... there's no 'rush' unless you are in desperate need. Being 'officially retired' I
can do 'whenever' (unless She Who Must be Obeyed deems 'otherwise'.... :cool:
Too many working years of dealing with "I gotta have it" ASAP
and sometimes "Stat".... "NOW".... or I go to your 'department head'
to which I would reply "Would you like my union Rep. to be there as well?

Ken
 
Last edited:
No... there's no 'rush' unless you are in desperate need. Being 'officially retired' I
can do 'whenever' (unless She Who Must be Obeyed deems 'otherwise'.... :cool:
To many working years of dealing with "I gotta have it" ASAP
and sometimes "Stat".... "NOW".... or I go to your 'department head'
to which I would reply "Would you like my union Rep. to be there as well?

Ken

LOL! Reminds me of a job I got years ago that involved moving about 600 miles; the hiring guy called me on a Friday (still working my old job, of course), offered the job, I accepted, and then asked "When would you like me to start?" Now I'm thinking...2 - 3 weeks was a normal notice timeframe back in my day, but he said, "How's next Monday for you?" I did start that Monday, but it was kind of funny. I spent 38 years in the IT field and everything was always "gotta have it now!" :)
 
Been there... done that.. bought the "T-shirt"... then.... wore it out

ken :cool:
 
VDB prints are great and not very pricey to make. I use a cheap used old face tanning unit to expose them as it is useless in the uk for sunshine. Enlarging stuff printed onto film will always show the artifacts from scanning and inkjet dithering process.
 
Does the existence of artefacts partly explain the popularity of textured papers?
Although I certainly appreciate the problem of cost, I don't think Pt/Pd printing takes up a great deal of space. Cyanotype or Salt printing might be a better toe in the waters of alternative printing. As far as I can see, although the chemistry is different, the mechanics follow similar paths.
 
VDB prints are great and not very pricey to make. I use a cheap used old face tanning unit to expose them as it is useless in the uk for sunshine. Enlarging stuff printed onto film will always show the artifacts from scanning and inkjet dithering process.

Monsta,

With all due respect for your eyesight, enlarging a 4x5 negative around 8x10 inches and printing the digital file on to Pictorico followed by contact printing the resultant negative onto less than PERFECTLY smooth 'watercolour' paper`coated with the VDB emulsion you will need magnifying glass (or a microscope) to observe the artifacts you mention. I don't know of anyone who 'looks' at a VDB print hanging on a wall at that distance seeking such fine detail. Photographs are 'usually' observed from a 'reasonable' viewing 'distance' that cannot allow the hominid eye to see the extremely fine detail you mention.

Ken
 
The orange-peel effect on Ian's original is not microscopic. It reminds me of anti-reflection picture glass or over-sprayed paint. Would setting a longer drying time on the printer help?
 
Monsta,

With all due respect for your eyesight, enlarging a 4x5 negative around 8x10 inches and printing the digital file on to Pictorico followed by contact printing the resultant negative onto less than PERFECTLY smooth 'watercolour' paper`coated with the VDB emulsion you will need magnifying glass (or a microscope) to observe the artifacts you mention. I don't know of anyone who 'looks' at a VDB print hanging on a wall at that distance seeking such fine detail. Photographs are 'usually' observed from a 'reasonable' viewing 'distance' that cannot allow the hominid eye to see the extremely fine detail you mention.

Ken
I would have thought they be very visible as the neg was 6x7 printed up to 8x10. I do get what you are saying re the watercolour paper though, it covers lots of trouble up.
 
Back
Top