Digital File to Silver Print

Introduction: As I've mentioned, our next Print Offer, which starts in less than two weeks, on October 30th, features some really fine and very recent Paris pictures by old friend Peter Turnley, from his marvelous new book French Kiss.

But an obvious question arose. Peter's been using a Leica M9 and an M Monochrom recently...and how does he get from there to the fine prints he's long been known for, and that so many of our readers have bought and enjoyed in the past?

So, I asked....

Mike: We're very much looking forward to your third TOP sale, just nine days from now, of several prints from your new book French Kiss. But one big question. How do you handle the mix of digital and traditional originals? You are known for the signed fine prints that Voja Mitrovic has made for you for many years. And any good printer is in part an artistic collaborator, not just a mechanic. Is Voja just out of the picture (no pun intended) when it comes to photographs you've made with the Leica M9 and M Monochrom?

Peter: Voja is still in the picture for all of my prints! The great news is that all of my Paris photographs, whether made by an analog or digital camera, are still printed as traditional silver gelatin prints by my friend Voja, who in my opinion is is one of the greatest black-and-white printers in the history of photography. Whether the photograph was made on film with a Leica M3, M4, M6, or M7, or made digitally by the Leica M8, M9 and M Monochrom digital cameras, they are all still printed by Voja Mitrovic as traditional silver-gelatin prints from a negative.

Mike: When you say "negative," what size negative?

Photo from French Kiss printed as a traditional gelatin-silver print from
a digital Leica M Monochrom original, using an internegative.
(This picture isn't part of our sale.)

Peter: We have taken the digital files and had 4x5-inch internegatives made, which Voja then prints traditionally on silver-gelatin fiber-base paper. I'm having an exhibition at the Leica Gallery in Salzberg, Austria starting on November 20th, and all 50 prints in the exhibit, covering a 40-year period of time, will be Voja's traditional silver gelatin prints.

Mike: And the obvious, if blunt, question...how good are they? Are they as good as prints made from in-camera negatives?

Peter: All I can say is that when I saw the silver prints made by Voja from these 4x5 internegatives from my original digital files, I was blown away. They are perfectly homogenous with the prints made from film. I've never seen these digital photographs look so beautiful on a computer screen.

For me, this new technique is life-changing. It allows me to finally have total continuity with the photography of my whole career, and to be proud of all of my signed prints for collection, whether they were made originally from film or by a digital camera.

Mike: I know that Voja doesn't print for anyone but a select handful of clients, but where do you get your digital-to-film internegatives made? And is this something that anyone can have done?

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.

Mike: And how about the "blackline"—will the digital prints have an integral black line around them like the prints from film? With 35mm it shows the film edge, but of course there's no equivalent in digital.

Peter: I grew up with the old traditions of great printing and have always used a black line around the edge of my prints, as did Henri, to indicate an uncropped print from a full negative. I also love the way the black line "closes" a print. So we also incorporate this black line—filet noir in French—on our digital files, in order to have it also in the 4x5 negative. For me it's a matter of consistency across my life's work.

Mike: And how widespread is this process that Central DUPON uses, do you know?

Peter: I'm sure that there are labs all over the world, and certainly in the U.S. that can make these internegatives, but I will say that the culture of attention to detail in the great Paris photography labs has always been outstanding.

Mike: Thanks Peter. Anything else you'd like to add?

Peter: I want to return to the most important point—the resulting silver prints made from these internegatives derived from digital files are undistinguishable from silver prints made straight from original negatives. Really sensational.

Mike: Thanks very much, Peter. I can't wait to see some examples.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2013 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Tony Roberts: "Salgado has been employing the same process."

Roger Bradbury: "After seeing the Leica video where you can see Peter Turnley and Voja Mitrovic examining a large negative (on the French Kiss book web page), I had already thought as much. It is fascinating to discover the details, though."

Ed: "Man, what a headache and endless hoops to jump through; just shoot film in the first place."

Peter Turnley replies: I'd like to respond to that because I realize that at first glance your comment makes sense but actually the reality is exactly the opposite. To "just shoot film in the first place" is not the easier answer with less headache. (I shot film for 35 years with great pleasure). Shooting film means spending money for every roll of film, money and time developing the film, making contact sheets, archiving them. Having problems carrying film through any airport security system. And, maybe most importantly, some of the new cameras like the Leica Monochrom offer the opportunity to make photographs with amazing tones in low light conditions with high enough shutter speeds with no camera or subject movement/blur, and one can actually make photographs of authentic spontaneous moments in very low light that one can't do with decent grain films like Tri-X. Digital files are very fine as well for magazine publications, online publications, and even book publications.

The making of an internegative from a digital file happens in my case only for photographs that are going to be exhibited or offered as signed collector prints. I will be having an upcoming exhibition in Salzburg, Austria of 50 photographs representing 40 years of photographs in Paris. Of all of this work only 20 of the photographs were made with a digital camera so only 20 internegatives were necessary to make. At the end of the day, this was not a headache or even a great expense compared to what shooting film these past two years would have represented. I know it is tempting to say that shooting film seems like less of a headache, but I actually don't think it is. And, I can't believe I am writing all of this, because I have been for so long in the camp of people that really love film. But, that is why this is all worth discussing now, because the combination of being able to work with an amazing, game-changing digital camera, and making internegatives to be able to make gelatin silver collector prints by a master printer—this all really represents progress.

Stan B.: "There are now a variety of 'hybrid' solutions available, each negotiable to the particular shooter's needs and finances. Inkjet prints from silver neg scans can be downright spectacular when properly executed. It's a helluva lotta work in post, but well worth it when you get that big (up to 27in from 35mm), beautiful print that I would have felled an entire old growth forest to achieve in the darkroom. I've seen B&W digital work that has taken my breath away, and stuff that looks plastic, sterile and 'artificial.' I guess it's mostly determined in post, and what particular combination (of thousands) one uses. Shooting film makes sense financially if you don't shoot as often as pros are likely to. No doubt Mr. Turnley's results represent the zenith of what is currently possible."

Wayne Pearson: "I really do not care how Peter makes his images, whether they are film, digital, use internegatives, or not. His images are wonderful. That is all that matters, are the images good or not. His are. Thank you for sharing his work and the occasional interview on this site."

Comments

[rnewman]

Once, long ago, I got tired of carriing two cameras so I could do both color and B&W, so I started shooting everything in color (usually Ektachrome), and and making internegs for my B&W prints. One of the variables was selecting the film for the interneg. Of course, different films see color differently, yielding different gray scales for the same color slide. Can Peter Turnley say what films are used, and if different cameras require different film or treatment to get the gray scale and contrast he wants?

[Sal Santamaura]

Being illiterate in French, I couldn't figure out from Central DUPON Images' Web site what process it uses to create those 4x5 negatives. Are they made on silver gelatin film by an LVT imagesetter or via LED Durst Lambda/Theta? Or are Pictorio-type negatives produced on an inkjet printer?

[Michael T.]

I am wondering if "internegative" is the wrong term as this defines a copy of a negative from a negative. Since Mr. Turnley's Paris lab started with a digital file I think the proper (or at least acceptable) description would be a "digital negative", i.e. a traditional negative made from a digital file?

[Hi Michael, "Internegative" is short for "intermediate negative," which seems to work fine here. IMO. --Mike]

[Bob Smith]

Sounds like they will be good looking prints. I hope I can afford one of them.

My last day of employment with my company is Oct. 31. A month off to take care of a fairly large honey-do list, get my various insurance and license requirements taken care of and I'm back in business for myself.

A Turnley print would be a nice celebration present from me to..........me

Bob

[Eduard de Kam]

There are other options to print on silver halide from digital:

1. DeVere makes a digital enlarger, it exposes the digital file directly onto the paper, then you develop it.

2. HP has a system build in to their z3200 printers: print on film at the size you would like the print, then make a contact print. The printer software allows for calibration based on a contact from a standard target.

[Marek Fogiel]

What would REALLY be essential to understand, is if this internegative is only a way to conveniently archive an image, and hand it over to a highly competent master printer for enlarging, or is there any technical phenomenon going on there. What I mean, is if this internegative, done on silver film, can in any way correct the typical digital tonality, and make it appear closer to that of film or not ? In my opinion, it should not be able to happen, as you can only lose information in reproduction, not create it, but it would be nice to be able to clear this point.
Thanks
Marek

[Mike Johnston]

In response to some of the questions, I asked Peter, and he doesn't know the process the lab uses to make the intermediate negative. I'm assuming we'd have to ask the lab. --Mike

[Kevin Purcell]

For more on Salgado's process see the previous TOP column

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/09/dxo-film-pack-and-salgados-method.html

[Jack]

Mike,
I think it would be interesting to some time in the future have Peter send you an example of a print made on an Epson to allow you to compare to a chemical print of the same image. I fully understand that he has Voja still available to print in a darkroom for him, and for life work consistency he is fortunate to have Voja.
But just as Peter has moved from the double chemistry of film and enlargement, to digital and enlargement with an internegative, someday if Voja stops working Peter might want to know what digital to digital can provide.
Five years ago, digital color output was excellent, but B&W was not yet there. Perhaps we have had enough progress that B&W digital output would meet Peter's demands even though he wishes to rely on Voja as long as possible. You and he might want to discuss that experiment, assuming Peter has yet to try it.

[Nevin Kreisler]

Mike-
Any chance Peter would ever share his thoughts on shooting with the Leica Monochrom. Would love to hear his experience on shooting with a b&w only camera versus converting a digital color file to b&w.

Thanks,
Nevin

[Mike R]

The website mentions the Lambda printer. I will guess that Central DUPON may use a Durst printer, onto Kodak Duratrans film.

[Robert Roaldi]

As someone hinted above, this is a not bad way to archive material isn't it? No need to worry about file back-ups or keeping disk drives up to date. An old-fashioned silver negative can last a long time.

[rnewman]

Mike R. suggests that the film is Kodak Duratrans. However, I believe that film was discontinued about a decade ago. also it was intended for color work, and was made in large sizes as it was intended to be adisplay medium, not an intermediate.Am I right?

[Patrick Perez]

This also reminds me of the digital negative process used by the folks behind Lenswork (though even my poor memory suggests there are substantive differences). IIRC, the Lenswork process produces a large transparency used for contact printing, so there would be no tonal differences between prints made at different times (assuming exposure in the darkroom is controlled).

Patrick

[Mike]

That is a great photograph.

[Peter Turnley]

Hi Mike,
I noticed a comment from Nevin inquiring about my feelings about using a Leica Monochrom. I usually don't like to speak about cameras or technique. I usually prefer to speak about the themes of life I photograph. But, here, it is very much worth noting that the Leica Monochrom is in my mind a game changer. The most important aspect about this camera is that it allows one to see and photograph in low light. The camera produces files at 1600 and 2500 ISO that are spectacular in the subtlety of the mid tones and in the detail in the shadows and highlights. One can walk into a low lit subway car and photograph like in daylight. The same in cafes, restaurants, or walking the streets at night. The last two years of photographs I made during my 40 year project of photographs of moments of love in Paris, and moments I love, were made with the Monochrom. The camera allowed me to capture a sense of authentic intimacy and spontaneity, that I couldn't have done easily with Tr-X or certainly not with other digital cameras I've used. Brassai would have loved this camera, as would have HCB, Kertesz, Doisneau, Boubat, Ronis, and many others.
There is another point I'd like to make about the process of creating an internegative from a digital file in order to be able to have a master printer make silver gelatin prints. There are other methods of printing from digital files onto silver paper-Lamda prints, light jet prints, and other methods. What is beautiful though about having a very good internegative in that in hands of the right printer, each print can be slightly tweaked with burning and dodging during the printing process, and also in the developing tank. In my mind, it is the unique quality of each print made by hand, one never being exactly the same as another, but very close when made by a master printer, that offers this process the opportunity to really add to the photographers creation, with the collaboration with an amazing printer. It is the final act in the creative process. I want to finish by saying that technology is amazing, and the opportunities that it has opened up are wonderful, but just like the making of a photograph, it is the heart, passion and interaction of the photographer with a moment that is essential, and in printing, a machine will never be able to out perform the genius and creative humanity of a printer like Voja Mitrovic. Thanks to everyone for their interest and for this discussion. Peter Turnley

[Terence Morrissey]

I do not see the point of using a internegative for silver gelatin fiber printing, just have Digital Silver Imaging in Boston print directly from the digital file on the silver gelatin fiber print.

[ctein]

Dear Marek,

I don't know what you're concerned about in "typical digital tonality," but tonality is completely maleable in digital files. You can have essentially any characteristic curve shape you like, combined with an extremely broad range of microcontrast and edge acutance qualities. I can't think of anything else that could go into "tonality."

Whatever you don't like in "typical" results is a consequence of the artistic choices of the photographer (and printer, if not the same as the photographer). There may be a prevalent aesthetic you find distasteful, but it is not inherent nor inevitable in digital photographs.

So, ultimately you'll be relying on whether or not you trust and like Peter's aesthetic judgement. If you do, then it doesn't matter what camera he's using. If you don't, ditto.

Completely aside and of no pertinence whatsoever, this business of "you can't create information" is deeply and profoundly irrelevant to the art and practice of photography. There is no reason to ever, ever invoke it. Really! Truly! (I even wrote a whole column about that. Search for it.)

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[ctein]

Dear Folks,

Hybrid work flows can get convoluted.

A client sent me a 35mm Tri-X negative to scan and repair, because it had suffered physical damage that made it unprintable, conventionally. After I cleaned it up, I sent the file to Color 3 Lab in San Francisco, which made the client a new larger-format B&W neg. He was very happy with the prints he made from that new negative.

Last month, asked me to print from the digital file for him. He'd been doing iron-toned silver-gelatin prints of modest size from his negative, but now he needed a 36" print, which was way beyond his darkroom's capabilities. So, he sent me a sample iron-toned silver-gelatin print for reference, and I produced an much larger Epson 9800 inkjet print that matched it in tone and color. (Which, no, did not mean simply printing the digital file "straight," not even close.)

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================

[Dan Khong, Singapore.]

Shooting film in the first place was what crossed my mind.

Ken Rockwell, whether you might agree with him or not, has written a nice article about film photography and how it makes good sense:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm#

[Robert Newcomb]

May I ask what size prints Peter can make from this digital film print process? Sort of a how big question.

Thank you!

[Chris Gibbs]

It'd be interesting to see a direct comparison between Peter Turnley's printing method and "Digital Silver Imaging's" method. It would in effect simply remove the interneg and Voja Mitrovic from the equation.

www.digitalsilverimaging.com

[rnewman]

Granted Peter Turnley's preference for the Leica Monochrom in terms of size and convenience for street shooting, I wonder if he ever compared slrs like the Nikon D800,which have a monochrome mode, with the Leica in terms of image quality and low light performance, especially given the larger file sizes and higher ISO capability of the slrs?

[John Robison]

I'd be curious to know if prints made with the MM/internagative method look different from prints made with original 35mm negatives, if printed to the same size. Does print from the digital original look like it was from a larger format than 35mm?

Seems like I remember Mike saying that the Nikon D800 had resolution that could match 4X5, quite amazing I thought at the time.

[ctein]

Dear rnewman,

No one else seems to have chimed in with information, so I'll give it a go. Mind you, I'm working from published data, not hands-on experience with the camera, so believe anyone with the latter over me.

Using the DxOMark data, the Leica is barely a half a stop slower than the fastest DSLR's, which puts it close to the top of the field. For comparison, it's nearly a stop and a half faster than my Olympus E-M5, which produces very acceptable noise and good tonality at ISO 800. That's consistent with Peter's writings about how happy he is at ISO 1600-2500.

The Leica is a 24 Mpx camera, so there are few DSLRs out there that produce larger files. More importantly, it's a monochrome camera, which means its actual resolution will be comparable to a 40 Mpx Bayer array camera. IOW, it's already at the top of the heap, enlargement-wise.

That much resolution can produce a "press-your-nose-against-it" sharp 20" x 30" print (my Bayer-arrayed 16 Mpx Olympus has no trouble doing that in a 15" x 20" print). Since that's already at a size where people start to step back to better be able to see the whole composition, there's really no practical limit to how much you can enlarge one of those files and still have the print that'll be perceived as being really sharp.

IOW, if you're into monochrome photography and you don't actually need the photo to look like it was made with an 8x10 view camera, this camera is as much camera as you'll ever need.

pax / Ctein

[Richard Man]

Ctein, just a minor correction: M Monochrom is based on the older M9 sensor and not the newer CMOS M sensor, so it's "only" 18 MP, not 24. Conventional wisdom pecks it as more or less equal to ~24 MP, not ~40MP.

Now if they make a M Monochrom MkII based on the CMOS M sensor, that could push it up to effectively ~40MP, as you said.