# Digital to film negative



## Onerider (Jul 4, 2013)

I've seen plenty of info about going from negative to digital, but nothing on digital to negative. I'm sure it's possible but maybe not popular. Would it be worth the effort do you think?


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 4, 2013)

What advantage(s) do you think you would gain?


----------



## Onerider (Jul 4, 2013)

I don't want to do it. I was just curious about the ability to do it and the pros and cons of it.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 4, 2013)

480sparky said:


> What advantage(s) do you think you would gain?



Because then it would be film.  Duh.




I know digital transfer to film is pretty common for video (for archival reasons), but I haven't really heard much about it for still images.  I don't see any reason it couldn't be done though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film-out


----------



## Light Guru (Jul 4, 2013)

Onerider said:


> I've seen plenty of info about going from negative to digital, but nothing on digital to negative. I'm sure it's possible but maybe not popular. Would it be worth the effort do you think?



It may be worth the effort but it depends on what you want to do with the printed negative. 



480sparky said:


> What advantage(s) do you think you would gain?



The advantages are really only there if you want to do some of the alternative printing processes where you do contact printing. Processes like cyanotype, salt printing, etc.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

Yes it can be done.

Step 1.  Buy one of these:



Step 2.  Get some of this.


Step 3. Buy one of these.


Step 4. Print digital photo, put on stand and take photo with film camera.  

Step 5.  Develop film and print photo from negative.  

Step 6.  Read this book:


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

Back in the early 2000's there used to be self-contained machines that converted digital images to film. They were never really all that popular. I recall only ONE photographer in my area who actually bought one. My memory's not good on this, but I thought they were called "film burners" or something like that. These were for digital image file conversion to 35mm FILM storage. I tried a number of brief Google searches, but today, the idea is mostly about going the other way, from film to digital, so despite repeated search strings, I got a lot of useless hits. THe majority of digital-to-film now seems centered on cinematic conversions, called "film-out", where the goal is to convert digitally shot cinema productions to film prints.

FILM Recorder, that's the term I believe, now that I've had a couple more minutes to think about it.


----------



## table1349 (Jul 4, 2013)

Derrel, 

I remember what you are talking about.   We tried one at work several years ago before going completely digital.  The results produced for the cost incurred were defiantly not worth it.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 4, 2013)

Yep, Derrel remembers right -- they were called film recorders. I used to have one. The serious film recorder didn't take the digital image back to dinky little 35mm film, but rather to 70mm or even sheet film. Here's a photo of an agfa alto recorder:



Why do it? That's easy. Let's say you need to make 50 11x14 B&W prints from a film negative and each print should be identical to each other print. I've recently been working this summer scanning some old negs that I was unable to successfully print back in the darkroom. With a scanner and Photoshop I can combine multiple scans of difficult negs. Here's an example:



If you had that neg in an enlarger and made a print so that the central section of the waterfall looked as it does here the entire rock face of the fall would be solid black and the waterfall in the background would be pure paper white. Burn and doge you say? I was really good at that but I couldn't beat this neg. Every once in awhile I got close, but 50 all the same -- not going to happen. The image you see here was from three separate scans all masked together in Photoshop. If I could take that digital image back to film, I could take that neg into the darkroom and knock out all 50 prints easily.

But why go back into the darkroom at all? Well, this is 21st century America and so yeah, there's no reason. No one today would value a b&w silver print properly processed to last at least a millennium when they could have a print made in ink that will fade away in a small fraction of that time. No more need for film recorders.

Joe


----------



## peter27 (Jul 4, 2013)

I was reading about this very thing in _Fine Art Printer _magazine recently. Basically you reverse the digital image, print it on an OHP transparency sheet and then make a contact print from this.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 4, 2013)

It's possible, but I don't know how difficult it would be; I'd like to try it someday because there are some of my digital images that I'd like to have in a film negative format for prints (especially since I've done darkroom work). 

There's info. on the Alternative Processes website - I searched Articles and 'negative' was the closest choice so some of the articles that came up in the search are about digital negs while others seem to be on other topics. 

I've read info. by/about Mike Ware in the UK, and Dan Burkholder, who are a couple of photographers who do alt. processes and digital negatives.

Negatives « Categories « AlternativePhotography.com 
Dan Burkholder Home


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

I personally have daydreams of a general purpose, monochromatic exposure unit using a high power blue laser which could expose film, paper and dichromated colloids. But, I think we've had enough pipe dreams around here for one afternoon.


----------



## ann (Jul 5, 2013)

There are several methods, google Dan Burkholder for his book on how to do this.

Many folks who do a lot of alternative processes do this all  the time. they make a negative a the size they wish to make the print. Which takes away the need to drag around 8x10 and/or larger format cameras.


----------



## bianni (Jul 5, 2013)

There were several service bureaus here in the Philippines years back that had film recorders. There were no large format printers then so we had to scan transparencies to make composites in Photoshop 3 to be printed photographically to 40"X60" Duratrans, made by Kodak for use in backlighted displays. We ordered 4x5 color negs from the composed digital files.


----------



## Orrin (Jul 5, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> But why go back into the darkroom at all? Well, this is 21st century America and so yeah, there's no reason. No one today would value a b&w silver print properly processed to *last at least a millennium* when they could have a print made in ink that will fade away in a small fraction of that time. No more need for film recorders.
> 
> Joe



This is the best reason for doing it. A silver negative can be viewed with the naked eye for many years in the future.

Digital images require a 'device' to view them that may or may not be available in the future.
I fear that a lot of current history will be lost in obsolete formats & storage devices and not be available to future generations.

There is at least one company in the USA that still will make film copies of your digital work..https://www.gammatech.com/


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

Orrin said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > But why go back into the darkroom at all? Well, this is 21st century America and so yeah, there's no reason. No one today would value a b&w silver print properly processed to *last at least a millennium* when they could have a print made in ink that will fade away in a small fraction of that time. No more need for film recorders.
> ...



Except that it is a _gross exaggeration_. While carbo process might last 500-1000 years, silver-based process will likely not, and less likely so under adverse conditions. Most modern carbon printers will produce digital negatives using an inkjet. Carbon-based pigments for b/w inkjet photography would easily out perform silver photography in terms of archive.

The only art medium that can truly last "mellenia" without significant control would be fresco. While photofresco is theoretically plausible using carbon process techniques, to my knowledge it has not been developed.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 5, 2013)

That could be a good alternative Orrin, thanks for posting that link. I'd like to try to learn how to do it myself one of these days.... 

Digital Negatives


- When there was major flooding in NYC, galleries were able to restore some photographs that were traditional silver prints while inkjet prints were unsalvageable. I accidently spattered a few drops of water on a couple of my inkjet prints once and they peeled apart like they'd been superglued together. I've also managed to get a few drops of water on my own darkroom prints which just affected the gloss and I was able to smooth it out. 

I think it depends on the materials used; traditional B&W negatives and prints seem to hold up over time and using archivally safe materials would probably help newer prints last longer.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 5, 2013)

while intended for semiconductor design:

Nanotube ink (Nink): for Inkjet Printing of Carbon Nanotube Inks

could be applied to (very expensive) photography with archival qualities that would be limited pretty much only the substrate


----------



## ann (Jul 5, 2013)

ALso, google Mark Nelson, he teaches workshops and has a book as well for making a "digital negative" and then using it in traditional /alternative process darkrooms.


----------



## Ysarex (Jul 5, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Orrin said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...




Sorry I didn't specifically say gold or selenium toned silver print, but it's assumed if your working to archival standards.

Joe


----------



## lenny_eiger (Jul 17, 2013)

There are a lot of people doing this, and for good reason. There actually two main reasons. 

The first is for alternative processes like platinum, gravure, gum, cyanotpype, VanDyke, carbon, etc., that need a negative the size they are going to be printed. If you are shooting with a 4x5 and want to make a 16x20, then you have to enlarge the negative to that size.
The other reason is that there is often a lot of work done in the darkroom to make the print one is after. Burning and dodging, two-bath development, masking, and other techniques. Using PhotoShop one can do this once, output a new negative and all the changes are made going forward. There is far more control in PhotoShop, one can also remove something thats objectionable, add shadow detail from another negative, etc. And, of course, all the spotting is done only once.

This is being done by a lot of people...

Lenny

EigerStudios
Museum Quality Drum Scanning and Printing


----------



## RishiNair (Feb 12, 2014)

Hi, It is good that you are thinking differently but cost might be a factor which will differentiate. Nowadays, print technology is more into digital space rather than on relying on negative form of method which were used more in older days. You can take a example of litho which is another type of old age printing which took more time to generate the prints. The advantage of digital printing is that it takes less time and you can order when it is required instead of giving order in bulk. I would recommend you to visit PrintSop website and understand how do they run digital printing service.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 12, 2014)

I see no good reason why you'd want to do this today. But it should soon be pretty cheap if for some reason you wanted to. In the very near future, they'll probably be selling retina-level resolution monitors for cheap junky desktop monitors and stuff.

So let's say in 10 years, you can buy a cheap monitor that puts out 600 DPI resolution.
1) Simply write a program that flashes the monitor on and off again in a measured amount of time. Measure this and brightness to determine a proper exposure for some type of film.
2) Put the monitor and computer in a darkroom
3) Turn it facing up
4) Lay a piece of sheet film on top of it.
5) Lay a piece of heavy opaque acrylic or something on top of that to hold it flat and stop reflections of the room from getting into the image.
6) Run the program and flash the monitor on and off with your image you want to analog-ize.
7) repeat 4-5 indefinitely, only taking seconds each image, and no printing issues.

Whic a 600DPI monitor, you could enlarge to twice the size of the neg you use. 4x5 sheet film could print to 8x10 with no issues, etc. Same as printing at 600DPI and taking a photo of it or whatever, but easier and no printing and no special equipment at all 
=D


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 12, 2014)

> The first is for alternative processes like platinum, gravure, gum, cyanotpype, VanDyke, carbon, etc., that need a negative the size they are going to be printed. If you are shooting with a 4x5 and want to make a 16x20, then you have to enlarge the negative to that size.


You could just contact expose a positive on modern film instead of paper.  Then again to another piece of film (to make it a negative again, not a positive), then do your infinitely many prints at the new size using normal non-special process printing.

1) Doesn't really take much longer than digitizing and printing and taking a photo of that, etc.
2) No digital/pixelization at any point, which could easily mess up the look of an alternative process print
3) No need to buy a scanner, or a LF film camera for every single size you may want to print at. Nor rigs to line them all up and light them, etc....



> The other reason is that there is often a lot of work done in the darkroom to make the print one is after. Burning and dodging, two-bath development, masking, and other techniques. Using PhotoShop one can do this once, output a new negative and all the changes are made going forward. There is far more control in PhotoShop, one can also remove something thats objectionable, add shadow detail from another negative, etc. And, of course, all the spotting is done only once.


Why not simply print your prints in a device called... a printer? If it's already digitized.  You've already lost any potential "non digital look" by cramming the data into pixels and such. So just print directly and call it a day. Re-filming it doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 12, 2014)

Before I graduated, the school wanted to have both digital and film records of our work, so we took digital photos(of course) and sent the photos to a company that converted it to slides(positive). It has nothing to do with quality. They just want the records in more than just digital format.... just in case.


----------



## webestang64 (Feb 12, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Back in the early 2000's there used to be self-contained machines that converted digital images to film. They were never really all that popular. I recall only ONE photographer in my area who actually bought one. My memory's not good on this, but I thought they were called "film burners" or something like that. These were for digital image file conversion to 35mm FILM storage. I tried a number of brief Google searches, but today, the idea is mostly about going the other way, from film to digital, so despite repeated search strings, I got a lot of useless hits. THe majority of digital-to-film now seems centered on cinematic conversions, called "film-out", where the goal is to convert digitally shot cinema productions to film prints.
> 
> FILM Recorder, that's the term I believe, now that I've had a couple more minutes to think about it.



I make film negatives from digital at my lab here in St. Louis. Yep.....I use a film recorder. I can make color print, E-6 slides or BW negs, 35mm or 120 negs.


----------



## runnah (Feb 12, 2014)

This would be like taking out the fuel injection in your car and replacing it with a carburetor.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 12, 2014)

An inkjet print is completely different from one done in chemistry - different paper, different gloss' maybe people haven't seen or handled one to realize the difference. That's why I'd like to eventually be able to make negatives from some of my digital images. 

When I get color film developed I usually get prints made by the lab because I like the quality. If I was shooting digitally for a job I may not need to have that option but for my purposes with certain photos I'd want to have a negative to work from. I've made what I think are nice inkjet prints but they're just different, it just depends on the purpose.


----------



## Gavjenks (Feb 12, 2014)

> An inkjet print is completely different from one done in chemistry - different paper, different gloss' maybe people haven't seen or handled one to realize the difference. That's why I'd like to eventually be able to make negatives from some of my digital images.


Even so, it seems like a strange way to go about it to actually try to put it on literal photographic FILM first.
If you want a chemical print, why not just print off the image on transparency paper in an inkjet, then contact print to your paper, without ever involving any film? Not only is that massively faster and more convenient, but it also involves fewer transfers to new media, thus less opportunity for degradation.

Remember, there's no need to do anything BUT contact printing, since you don't have to dodge or burn or anything, as you can do that in photoshop more efficiently.


----------



## Jack Colbran (Nov 18, 2018)

Is this thread still live? Anyone got a film recorder they want to sell.


----------

