I've always loved the deep blacks of a wet mono print, it's not something I see often (if ever) from an inkjet and so I'd like to try to do a wet print from a digital negative.

I don't really want to shoot film though and I still want the ability to instantly review my shot so my plan is to shoot digital then do some basic tweaks in Photoshop, do a mono conversion, invert the colour in the image and send it off to a company that will send me a slide back which (being a negative) I can then print.

Are you SE folks aware of any other photographers who do this kind of process or if you've done it yourself, are there any pitfalls I should be prepared for?

  • Sounds like a good one for @Stan Rogers – dpollitt Feb 12 '13 at 21:43
  • @dpollitt -- Not really. We were mostly concerned with going the other direction in my day (film to digital prepress). And I only know a few weirdo dye transfer/carbon print enthusiasts who use film recorders anymore. – user2719 Feb 13 '13 at 0:28

Does it matter to you to do your own development? It is probably easier just to have a good print house do the photographic print for you. Any good professional print shop is going to be using a laser or LED photographic printer where they are using a photographic developer. The only difference is that instead of using a negative, they use a laser or LED to expose the photo paper.

| improve this answer | |
  • Unless you want to do the printing yourself, this is going to have the same equality. At some point the digital data has to be written onto something light sensitive- slide film or paper. – Phil Feb 12 '13 at 23:41
  • +1 -- In any case, the inversion step would be unnecessary, since any service that uses a film recorder to produce the negs will be using, well, negative film. – user2719 Feb 13 '13 at 0:30
  • I think part of it is that I want to get in the darkroom as much as anything, so yes that part is important to me. There is an issue of cost as well since I regularly print up to 40x50cm/20x16" which makes getting C-Types rather than giclee/inkjet prints prohibitively expensive. – James Snell Feb 13 '13 at 10:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.