Does anyone ever tried to output digital MF slides using service bureaus
high definition imagesetter technologies as describe at these URL ?

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Dave_Fokos/davetech.htm

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Charles_Palmer/DIGITAL%20METHODS%20FOR%20ALTERNATIVE%20I.html

I would like to do black and white portraits and landscapes (and being able
to do digital "cleaning" would be a great plus too) but my local photo store
doesn't sell B&W positive 120 film anymore (is it still availlable
somewhere?)... So I'm seriously thinking about trying this digital process.
It would also be a cheap way to get dupes!

Patrick

Most (all?) imagesetters expose very high contrast film that is either
opaque or clear after exposure -- rather like the litho film used in some
darkroom techniques. Gray tones are produced by using a halftone pattern
just like is used in printer newspaper photographs. Even though the
imagesetter has a resolution of 2540dpi (or even higher) the very small dots
are used to produce a halftone image whose cells are 65 to 300 per inch. I
think that you will be very disappointed with the image quality when viewed
as a MF slide. It works for B&S because their imagesetter output is used for
contact printing and not for viewing with a magnifier.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Patrick Dube
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 6:57 AM
> To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MF3D-group] b&w digital MF slides
>
> Does anyone ever tried to output digital MF slides using service bureaus
> high definition imagesetter technologies as describe at these URL ?
>
> http://www.bostick-
> sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Dave_Fokos/davetech.htm
>
> http://www.bostick-
> sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Charles_Palmer/DIGITAL%20METH
> ODS%20FOR%20ALTERNATIVE%20I.html
>
> I would like to do black and white portraits and landscapes (and being
> able
> to do digital "cleaning" would be a great plus too) but my local photo
> store
> doesn't sell B&W positive 120 film anymore (is it still availlable
> somewhere?)... So I'm seriously thinking about trying this digital
> process.
> It would also be a cheap way to get dupes!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for your input Ken, that's also how I feel it will turned up but I'm
curious. I'll try with a 3600dpi imagesetter and see what it's worth.

Patrick

>From: "Ken Strauss"
>Reply-To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: [MF3D-group] b&w digital MF slides
>Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:27:09 -0400
>
>Most (all?) imagesetters expose very high contrast film that is either
>opaque or clear after exposure -- rather like the litho film used in some
>darkroom techniques. Gray tones are produced by using a halftone pattern
>just like is used in printer newspaper photographs. Even though the
>imagesetter has a resolution of 2540dpi (or even higher) the very small
>dots
>are used to produce a halftone image whose cells are 65 to 300 per inch. I
>think that you will be very disappointed with the image quality when viewed
>as a MF slide. It works for B&S because their imagesetter output is used
>for
>contact printing and not for viewing with a magnifier.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Patrick Dube
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 6:57 AM
> > To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [MF3D-group] b&w digital MF slides
> >
> > Does anyone ever tried to output digital MF slides using service bureaus
> > high definition imagesetter technologies as describe at these URL ?
> >
> > http://www.bostick-
> > sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Dave_Fokos/davetech.htm
> >
> > http://www.bostick-
> >
>sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Charles_Palmer/DIGITAL%20METH
> > ODS%20FOR%20ALTERNATIVE%20I.html
> >
> > I would like to do black and white portraits and landscapes (and being
> > able
> > to do digital "cleaning" would be a great plus too) but my local photo
> > store
> > doesn't sell B&W positive 120 film anymore (is it still availlable
> > somewhere?)... So I'm seriously thinking about trying this digital
> > process.
> > It would also be a cheap way to get dupes!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Patrick,

I think you'd be dismally disappointed with any digital conversion to
a B&W slide. Monochrome stereo is alive and well. Dr.5 will process
almost any medium format negative film to positive, and the results
are outstanding.

I also have my own formulas that have been publicly posted if you
would consider doing your own. Please feel free to contact me about this.

Sam

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Dube" wrote:
>
> Does anyone ever tried to output digital MF slides using service
bureaus
> high definition imagesetter technologies as describe at these URL ?
>
>
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Dave_Fokos/davetech.htm
>
>
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/Digital%20Info/Charles_Palmer/DIGITAL%20METHODS%20FOR%20ALTERNATIVE%20I.html
>
> I would like to do black and white portraits and landscapes (and
being able
> to do digital "cleaning" would be a great plus too) but my local
photo store
> doesn't sell B&W positive 120 film anymore (is it still availlable
> somewhere?)... So I'm seriously thinking about trying this digital
process.
> It would also be a cheap way to get dupes!
>
> Patrick
>

Patrick,

Thanks for the link to the paper by David Fokos. That's a very
interesting process he has hammered out - scanning his negatives with a
drum scanner that can read negatives with density ranges as high as 4.0,
tweaking the files in PS, then converting the files back to film using
3600 dpi or 4800 dpi imagesetters, where they are essentially half-tone
images.

He's making 8x enlargments from these imagesetter-produced negatives, so I
suspect that they would look just fine under the 4x (or less)
magnification we see in a medium format stereo viewer.

My problem with the whole process is your reliance on the the
craftsmanship and precision delivered by the the service bureau doing the
drum scans and producing the negatives. David's paper more than hints at
the fact that this process demands a quality of workmanship which greatly
exceeds the level of work normally produced by these poeple.

For me, one of the greatest pleasures of shooting stereo transparencies
vs. prints is that which comes from not having to rely on a middleman for
anything other than E6 processing. Just getting a decent color print made
is next to impossible at even the "best" professional labs. They will
toss the customer the first thing that comes out of the darkroom and then
stand there at the service counter and argue with you to avoid having to
do a remake. If you can intelligently communicate a problem with color
cast or density or whatever, you've got a good chance of getting them to
do it over again, but you're still left with having to drive back to the
lab again to examine the remake. Currently, the only service I have done
with any regularity other than E6 processing, is the making of contact
dupes and that alone is driving me nuts. I have to request remakes for
easily 60% of everything I have duped. I've learned that their workflow
does not even allow the gal who makes the dupes to inspect her work after
the E6 processing has been done, before it is sent to the counter!

So the thought of trying to coerce a service provider into doing the kind
of precision work that David Fokos is doing, just precludes any interest
I might have in trying to emulate his middleman-intensive method.

For black and white dupes, even though dr5 is itself a service bureau,
I've found HIS work to be very good and he can make duplicates using the
same film and reversal process as your original. I'd recommend going with
him. Obviously, you won't get all that comes with being able to work with
a digital file, but if it's B&W dupes you want, dr5 is the way to go. By
the way, I really like the look of Ilford's Delta 100 in the dr5 reversal
process.

Mike Davis

I assume that you are referring to his article at
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/digital%20info/dave_fokos/f
okos.pdf. I don't see where the article mentions 8x enlargements from the
imagesetter negatives. My understanding is that platinum prints are made by
contact printing from his imagesetter negatives.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Michael K. Davis
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:57 AM
> To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: zilch0@primenet.com
> Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: b&w digital MF slides
>
> Patrick,
>
> Thanks for the link to the paper by David Fokos. That's a very
> interesting process he has hammered out - scanning his negatives with a
> drum scanner that can read negatives with density ranges as high as 4.0,
> tweaking the files in PS, then converting the files back to film using
> 3600 dpi or 4800 dpi imagesetters, where they are essentially half-tone
> images.
>
> He's making 8x enlargments from these imagesetter-produced negatives, so I
> suspect that they would look just fine under the 4x (or less)
> magnification we see in a medium format stereo viewer.

Hi Ken,

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006, Ken Strauss wrote:

> I assume that you are referring to his article at
> http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Technical_papers/digital%20info/dave_fokos/f
> okos.pdf. I don't see where the article mentions 8x enlargements from the
> imagesetter negatives. My understanding is that platinum prints are made by
> contact printing from his imagesetter negatives.

Yes, they are contact prints, but the his imagesetter negatives are often
larger than the original negatives.

Item 2 of his Introduction section reads: "I can conveniently make
enlarged negatives (well, I actually have them made for me) so I don't
need a darkroom."

The point I was making is that if he is making "sharp" prints that are 8x
larger than his original negatives, there's a good chance this process
would work well in a 4x magnification viewer.

Theoretically, starting with a drum scanned B&W original, a 4800
dpi imagesetter could produce an un-enlarged linescreen postive (for use
in a MF viewer) that supports a resolution of 95.5 lp/mm.

4800 dpi / 25.4 mm/inch = 189 dots per mm or 95.5 lp/mm.

We'd be very hard pressed to deliver that high a resolution to the
original film.

Thanks,

Mike

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of Michael K. Davis
> > Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:57 AM
> > To: MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com
> > Cc: zilch0@primenet.com
> > Subject: [MF3D-group] Re: b&w digital MF slides
> >
> > Patrick,
> >
> > Thanks for the link to the paper by David Fokos. That's a very
> > interesting process he has hammered out - scanning his negatives with a
> > drum scanner that can read negatives with density ranges as high as 4.0,
> > tweaking the files in PS, then converting the files back to film using
> > 3600 dpi or 4800 dpi imagesetters, where they are essentially half-tone
> > images.
> >
> > He's making 8x enlargments from these imagesetter-produced negatives, so I
> > suspect that they would look just fine under the 4x (or less)
> > magnification we see in a medium format stereo viewer.
>
>