[DSLRnovice]

This might sound odd to some, but I am really missing my color darkroom. But I love the convenience of digital DSLRs. There are many labs that will scan film so corrections and manipulations can be done in software, but none that I know that can print digital to film with high resolution. The world of digital printing is frustrating and expensive. But I can easily make beautiful 30"x 40" prints in my darkroom from 6x7 negs and slides.

The K-1 should compete with the RZ67, in quality, but in convenience it blows away the RZ. To get a digital image on MF film without loss of quality would require an amazing film printer.

There were film recorders in the 1980s for making 35mm slides from computer graphics, but they kind of disappeared as digital projection became better. Some feature films also used them when they needed computer graphics on film (i.e., Tron). Maybe there are still some labs in Hollywood that can output to 70mm film?

Digital printing can be troublesome until you get a usable workflow.


You should be able to get at least 90% good prints on the first try.

I worked in a commercial lab for many years and I'll never go back to wet processes.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Don't most labs nowadays that offer cheap prints just use digital projectors to expose light sensitive paper, as it's the fastest and cheapest option? I wonder if anyone here has tried converting one of their own digital files to negative in Photoshop, then making wet prints using something like a home cinema projector as the enlarger? It would be interesting to see what the quality is like (pretty terrible I'd imagine).

[graeme83]

You can print digital negatives onto an inkjet transparency easily enough, people use this technique for making contact prints with, for example cyanotype like processes. Obviously this means a 1:1 ratio with the final print.
I was thinking along the same lines a while back and after a bit of googling it would seem that whilst enlarging is certainly possible the quality isn't great, but bigger the negative the better. So you need to be thinking of a 4x5 enlarger I would think.

The modern method uses printers such as this to digitally expose the paper with lasers.

[Eagle94VT]

I have only done black and white in the darkroom but would love to take a class on color. About 7 yes ago I bought a color enlarger and all the accessories for under $200. i have no idea how to use it for color though. One day....

[abruzzi]

I have only done black and white in the darkroom but would love to take a class on color. About 7 yes ago I bought a color enlarger and all the accessories for under $200. i have no idea how to use it for color though. One day....

In pitch black (no safe light), in ~100 degree temp maintained chemicals. Then you have to color balance the orange away with the magenta filter. I also have the enlarger, and I’ve read up on it, but haven’t given it a go yet. (Plus my color head is missing the yellow filter which I need to replace.

[Wheatfield]

This might sound odd to some, but I am really missing my color darkroom. But I love the convenience of digital DSLRs. There are many labs that will scan film so corrections and manipulations can be done in software, but none that I know that can print digital to film with high resolution. The world of digital printing is frustrating and expensive. But I can easily make beautiful 30"x 40" prints in my darkroom from 6x7 negs and slides.

The K-1 should compete with the RZ67, in quality, but in convenience it blows away the RZ. To get a digital image on MF film without loss of quality would require an amazing film printer.

You can probably find an old and retired film writer if you look. The question I have is why bother? If you want to print film, just shoot film. It sounds to me like you have a first world problem.

[stevebrot]

Don't most labs nowadays that offer cheap prints just use digital projectors to expose light sensitive paper, as it's the fastest and cheapest option? I wonder if anyone here has tried converting one of their own digital files to negative in Photoshop, then making wet prints using something like a home cinema projector as the enlarger? It would be interesting to see what the quality is like (pretty terrible I'd imagine).

Most labs that offer cheap prints do so using a throwaway scan and inkjet.

The question of making a Photoshop negative as the basis for a wet print is an entirely different story. That sort of thing is bread & butter in the alternative process world where contact printing is the norm. The negative is used to make an inkjet print to transparency stock.


Steve

[Eagle94VT]

In pitch black (no safe light), in ~100 degree temp maintained chemicals. Then you have to color balance the orange away with the magenta filter. I also have the enlarger, and I’ve read up on it, but haven’t given it a go yet. (Plus my color head is missing the yellow filter which I need to replace.

Read more at: From digital to film - PentaxForums.com

One day I hope to find the time and energy to give it a go! This thing is so old I can't even find a manual scanned in online. I need to find a local expert - thats my nest bet!

[tuco]

... To get a digital image on MF film without loss of quality would require an amazing film printer.

What do you mean by "digital printer" for film? Do you mean scanning and printing with an inkjet?