10 x 8 negatives or Peizo digital negs?

[Neil Genower]

I'm just into salt printing but have issues with digital negatives. I have access to a Peizography digital negative printer but it's quite costly. My instinct is to pursue the large format (10 x 8) route. It means I'll have to purchase a 10 x 8 camera. I live close to the Intrepid manufacturers so that would be easy for me. I'm not looking for Ansel Adam's perfection so I'm OK with Intrepids limitations. My question though is: Should I try the Peizography route ( digital shooting or analogue) or should I keep it real and shoot 10 x 8 film? I have all the necessary stuff for 10 x 8 so that isn't really a big investment. The Peizography negatives are £35/$43 per 10 x 8 negative, which over time will get pricey. I know 10 x 8 film is expensive but not that expensive. Unsure of what to do. If anyone has experience of Peizography digital negs for Alt process, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I am aware that I need to do tests and produce "salt" curves...... with thanks.

 

[fgorga]

Film or digital negatives... no one can answer that for you, it's a personal choice. One can make nice prints either way.

Personally, for the last dozen or more years, I have used digital negatives exclusively. For me, there are three advantages. First, one can dodge and burn when making the negative. Second, one can print a digital negative at different sizes. This allows one to fine tune things by making small prints and then print a larger negative for a final print. This saves on costly materials and really helps with the learning curve. Lastly, one can easily print the same image using different processes just by printing another negative with a different curve applied.

Lastly, you don't need Piezography to make digital negatives, I have seen lots of great prints made with negatives using Epson OEM inks, probably some with Canon inks as well, but most folks use Epson pigment ink. Currently, I print negatives with OEM inks on a P800. I used a 3880 before that. I also run a 3880 with Piezography Pro inks, but I have never seen the need to use it for printing negatives. (My digital negative process predates my Piezography system by many years, so the inertia to change is large.)

All of the prints in the alt process sections of my website (www.frg-photo.com) were made with digital digital negatives.

Regards,

 

[removedacct1]

I gave up on digital negatives for salt printing long ago: it was very difficult to get enough density from the inks to make a good salt print. You will likely have a much easier time of it if you choose film. I suggest you read over Ellie Young's document, in which she very competently describes the method for obtaining an ideal film negative for salt printing. I follow her method (using FP4) to the letter and it gives me ideal negatives. I've also tested CatLabs X-80 II and found it is capable of producing a good negative for salt printing. (Less ideal because there's a bit more base density, but you can make a perfectly good salt print from it)

I found that for my way of working, an in-camera negative produced by Ellie Young's method was far more predictable and easy to achieve than my frustrating attempts at making a digital negative with an inkjet printer.

 

[koraks]

you don't need Piezography to make digital negatives

Indeed. Regular ink will likely do fine. I haven't done much work on digital negatives for salted paper, but have done a truckload of calibration for carbon transfer lately. Density really isn't the problem and tonality is quite fair with the regular color pigment inks for a 3880 - that is, only yellow and the three blacks are needed.

I personally do prefer the fine detail rendering of a silver negative over a digital negative, and I thoroughly dislike mucking about with inkjet printers especially for making negatives. So I really emphasize what Frank said earlier:

no one can answer that for you, it's a personal choice.

Very much so!

 

[Neil Genower]

Thank you all for your replies. It is a personal choice, I see that. I have read Ellie's paper on salt printing and I see that PMK plus FP4 is the way to go. Truth be told, I feel in more control with negatives. I know, that sounds wrong, but I feel my knowledge and willingness to learn more computer-printer syncopation is the bit that puts me off. I do think negative density is important with salt prints and I'm not confident enough to be able to coax enough density from my epson 2880. I wouldn't want to print bigger than 10 x 8 so the size issue doesn't bother me. I appreciate your fast replies and hope all the American contributors are safe and keeping warm in your crazy weather !