Forum Film Photography Photo from a Negative Using an Enlarger
Profile picture
Andreas F 13.01.2022, 19:38 #1

Photo from a negative using an enlarger

Hello,

There are several ways to digitize analog recordings. Currently, I’m exploring new territory by photographing the enlarger’s light path directly with my DSLR, without using a lens.

This approach partly stems from a discussion about what’s still contained in the "RAW" file. Digitizing the print is also one method, and probably the one I’ll use most often. Since I didn’t spend much time on image editing back when I was actively using my DSLR, I’m glad to have found someone here who’s willing to explore what can be done with the "RAW" files.
Thanks, Stefan, for taking this on. Maybe I’m not the only one who will learn something from this.
If anyone else wants to try working with a digitized "RAW" file of a negative, feel free to reach out here.

Now, onto the photos. The main focus was supposed to be the view of Paris, which I’ll definitely share later. But Stefan also received another shot from me.
The gorilla. ;)

Here’s how I edited the negative.



And here’s Stefan’s edit.
Profile picture
Leo Rothner 13.01.2022, 19:51 #2
There is a lot of "structure" visible in the image. I'm not sure if it's caused by the film grain (it seems too pronounced to me) or if it originates somewhere else in the entire processing chain.
Profile picture
Günter Rudi Herzel 14.01.2022, 00:12 #3
So, if I understand correctly, you place the camera with the open sensor under the enlarger, have a negative in the enlarger, and use that to expose the sensor. I’m wondering what all the fuss is about—it’s really just about the image and the message it conveys. The grain reminds me of a TMax that’s been developed a bit too warm.
Profile picture
Günter Rudi Herzel 14.01.2022, 00:16 #4
To digitize old negatives and slides, I put together a setup for about 5 euros and photograph the slides directly using RAW format, ISO 250, and a vintage 35mm lens with an extension tube. If you'd like to know more, feel free to get in touch with me.
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 14.01.2022, 01:51 #5
@Leo Rothner Since I edited the image afterward—adjusting the exposure, shadows, highlights, and cropping—I believe that the film grain has been blended with the "noise" from the camera sensor during the photographic digitization. I've seen this happen quite often with these kinds of digitization techniques. In my opinion, the best method for digitizing negatives is scanning.

Best, Stefan
Profile picture
Leo Rothner 14.01.2022, 07:35 #6
Since I also work a lot with analog processes, I’ve developed two workflows for myself.
For paper originals like cyanotypes or other prints, I use a flatbed scanner (EPSON 3200 PHOTO). With a resolution of 3,200 x 6,400 dpi, it’s more than sufficient. For negatives in the 4x5” format, I also use the scanner’s transparency unit. However, for negatives sized 6x6 or smaller, I’m not happy with the scan quality. In those cases, I follow Günter Rudi Herzel’s approach: photographing them as RAW files using a copy stand and a macro attachment on a light table.
Best, Leo
Profile picture
Günter Rudi Herzel 14.01.2022, 09:51 #7
@It's important not to place the slide directly on the lightbox but to keep a few centimeters of distance between them. Any tiny speck of dust or shine from the lightbox will be captured in your photo.
 
Profile picture
Andreas F 14.01.2022, 13:23 #8
Hello and thanks for the lively participation.

Here’s a quick summary of the details for this shot. Originally, I planned to upload the Paris photo—that was the main topic—but Stefan kindly offered to work on this one as well.
This is an Ilford Delta 3200 film. If I remember correctly, I pushed it to ISO 6400 or even 12800 using a compensating developer called Emofin. It was very dark at the time of shooting, so despite using a 50mm f/1.2 lens wide open, that was necessary. That’s why the grain is quite pronounced but also rather attractive. I can’t say how much the compression for the forum’s required size affects it, but it certainly doesn’t improve the image.
The sensor used was from a Canon 5D Mark II, set to ISO 100 at 1/1000 sec.

@Günter: Yes, of course, you can digitize slides or negatives using a macro setup. I actually have a homemade device lying around for that purpose—it was originally used for enhancing negatives in darkfield illumination.
You understood correctly: the light is projected directly onto the camera sensor. By the way, this isn’t my idea. See here: http://www.kaiiv.de/diaduplikator/
There are similar emergency solutions using projectors as well. Over my 30 years in the lab, I’ve messed up a few films, but I’ve never pushed a TMAX like this before.😉 The main point really is the image’s message, which unfortunately isn’t always appreciated.

@Leo: Ideally, I’d love to scan prints on a flatbed scanner to digitize them. Since switching to Linux, that’s not currently possible for me, but I haven’t really missed it so far.

What’s interesting about photographing from the enlarger is that you can also do cropped enlargements. It also opens up possibilities for digital photograms. I’ve been making photograms on paper so far and will continue to do so, but I plan to try digital photograms this spring. Photograms from the enlarger stage are great for making small objects appear large.

I’m digressing a bit. The original question was about what’s still present in the negative or RAW file and what can be recovered during digitization. There’s always some loss involved. When creating the JPEG and resizing it for the forum, quality inevitably drops. The file Stefan sent me was 8 MB, while the RAW was 30 MB. I’m hesitant to upload the full-size file.

My preferred digitization method will continue to be photographing prints. My main focus is on the print itself, not the digital version. However, I do plan to make some cropped enlargements, especially from very high-resolution films. Even when projected on a baseboard, these films still reveal the finest details. It will be interesting to see what’s possible, though not anytime soon. I just realigned the enlarger yesterday. The sun is shining, and if my better half has plans, I probably won’t be spending the weekend in the darkroom. Maybe I’ll catch some light instead. We’ll see.

I also still have a print of this shot to show how I translated it onto paper.

Cheers, Andreas
Profile picture
Andreas F 15.01.2022, 16:25 #9
Paris, edited by Stefan. The TIFF file was 8MB, so I had to convert it to JPG since TIFF is not supported here. The size has been kept the same.
Profile picture
Andreas F 15.01.2022, 16:28 #10
Here’s the comparison at full size.

My shot from the print



Edited by Stefan 1920x1080
Profile picture
Leo Rothner 15.01.2022, 16:38 #11
It seems to me that the dynamic range is too limited in both methods. In the print scan, the details in the sky are missing, while in Stefan's scan, the details in the dark areas on the left side of the trees are lost.
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 15.01.2022, 16:40 #12
When comparing, I now realize that I should have flipped the image as well. The format you gave me is actually different from the one you uploaded, but in this case, that’s not really crucial. In my editing, I only worked on exposure, tonal correction, curves, highlights and shadows, and contrast—basically everything you could also do in the darkroom using filters and multigrade paper, etc.
That’s why I really like working in a hybrid way, because during the digitization and editing process, I can get so much more out of a good negative than just by printing it, especially since printing means you have to accept some loss in dynamic range—papers have a narrower dynamic range than film. When scanning, you suddenly discover all sorts of details in the negative that you couldn’t see when printing or photographing it.

Best, Stefan
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 15.01.2022, 16:44 #13
@Leo Rothner I received the negative as a file from Andreas. If I had scanned the original myself, there would be a greater dynamic range.
Otherwise, I have to say that the detail rendering looks perfect on my monitor. Maybe you could double-check your monitor settings.

Best, Stefan
Profile picture
Leo Rothner 15.01.2022, 17:28 #14
I actually looked at the same spot in the trees and didn’t realize the image was mirrored. When I look correctly now, the drawing is there. It would have surprised me otherwise—my monitor displays the grayscale ramp perfectly.
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 18.01.2022, 10:53 #15
@Leo Rothner Yeah, I only noticed after editing and comparing that the image was flipped horizontally.
Profile picture
Andreas F 18.01.2022, 11:06 #16
This results from the projection onto the sensor. I did not mirror it.
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 18.01.2022, 11:35 #17
@Andreas Friedrichs Hi Andreas, I had a feeling about that. Maybe try recording the negative part before the main take.😉
Profile picture
Andreas F 18.01.2022, 12:42 #18
Hello Stefan The shift side would be on top then. 😉
Profile picture
Stefan Greitzke 18.01.2022, 12:45 #19
@Andreas Friedrichs  It's the same when scanning. No problem.
Profile picture
Klaus-Dieter Krause 07.10.2024, 19:02 #20
@Andreas F

I still shoot film sometimes, but I also use digital cameras like the Nikon D3200 and Canon R7.
I have my film negatives developed at a photo lab and then scan them with an Epson V300 to edit them later in Luminar.
So far, I've had great results.
Profile picture
Profile picture
Jörg Hartmann 15.09.2026, 10:34 #22
Hello Andreas, I admire your courage to photograph with an open sensor. I wouldn't dare to do that. The approach Klaus-Dieter is taking for digitization would probably be my way as well. I think it is simpler and more efficient. Regards, Jörg
Statistics - 1277 Views | 22 Posts