I would be interested in doing a test if you are up for it... I would send you a image for your method, you make a paper neg and send back to me I will make from the same file two negs one silver and one inkjet and I would make two sets of three prints on glossy silver paper, one set for you and one set for me.. I would be very interested in the resulting prints.
I make inkjet digital negative and silver gelatin digital negatives on ortho film.. In both cases I find excellent resuts.
I am a bit confused.. when you say paper negative are you suggesting that the ink is laid down on the paper surface and with that PRINT you make a contact through the print to silver paper receiving the image. I would imagine these prints would
be very soft , but since I have never done one I am curious to learn about this.
I would be interested in doing a test if you are up for it... I would send you a image for your method, you make a paper neg and send back to me I will make from the same file two negs one silver and one inkjet and I would make two sets of three prints on glossy silver paper, one set for you and one set for me.. I would be very interested in the resulting prints.
Ok Adrian could you PM me with your email and we can set up to do this, I would be interested in seeing the difference.. I am moving my Lambda this month to a new location so the silver neg will take longer but we can start the process ..I can do that. I have a canon Pro-1000, I can make the paper negative via the method I outlined in post 18.
Ok Adrian could you PM me with your email and we can set up to do this, I would be interested in seeing the difference.. I am moving my Lambda this month to a new location so the silver neg will take longer but we can start the process ..
Bob
Michaels process is fairly more involved especially regarding tonality and ink calibration just bear that in mind. You would only be assessing the physical aspect of using a paper negative rather than what the system is capable of with Adrians prints.
He doesn't bite.
http://www.mprosenberg.com/digital-negatives
got it.I just sent you my email
I suspect Lachlan does not have much experience with digital negs and silver gelatin otherwise he would be aware of the issues of using clear media. The prints are not soft as the ink side is in contact with the paper, however the dot pattern is diffused and no longer visible. The advantages of this is with the correct coated media you can lay much more ink without pooling and those other problems associated with an acetate. You need to do a lost of testing to find the best paper without markings on the back and without course fibre texture, I have found Red River paper to be great for this. It is definitely worth experimenting with this for sure.
To clarify; making a digital negative as you would normally, but on glossy inkjet paper rather than pictorico, not printing on the silver gelatin paper itself. This only works for silver-based and not uv process.
My method relies on my printers ability to self calibrate to the paper, which is why it all happens in the realm of an RGB ICC colorspace. Canon’s hardware and software is very good at reproducing what you see on screen with what you get in the print, as long as you’re in a color managed environment.
I'm with Bob on the skepticism. I've run lustre paper to make digital negs for silver gelatin & got the paper texture problem, which seemed to go away with Fotospeed digital film. This was several years ago & I haven't had the need to try again. I could run a piece of a different luster paper in my Pro 2000 tomorrow & see how it does. I'm very demanding about the quality level because I have extensive experience of how good the direct output of the Canon is & how crisp a well made enlarger print should be.
Except it needs to be calibrated for transmission or reflection off final print, rather that reflection straight off the printed digital negative. Luckily it seems everything is pretty linear for you, not sure exactly how you are handling the curves though.
Reflective is effectively twice the density of transmissive. If you’re linear in reflective, you’ll also be in transmissive (or close enough to it), just half the density of what you measured.
In terms of whether you can see the dot pattern, i make a 600 pixels per inch print which gets put down on the paper at 2400 dpi. If there is a dot pattern, it’s small enough that I can’t see it in the silver print. I’m not sure what resolution you’re printing at, but 2400 dots per inch is well past where I’d expect to see anything when viewing at normal viewing distances.
I am getting mixed up with uv process sorry, its been a while since I did all this. Normally, you are supposed to calibrate off the final print eg reflective, but if this works for you then it works. You can only see the dots when the negative is printed on clear film, and I'm inspecting prints with a loupe of course rc glossy where it is most prevalent.
Oh? Like what kind of issues? On what printers? Using what software?
Not looking to get into an argument here, but at least with Canon’s latest Pro (1000,2000,4000) printers, as long as you are within an ICC colorspace, and you use Canon’s printing software, the gamma of the colorspace is automatically corrected for and not a cause for concern, at least in my experience, and I’ve made a ridiculous number of prints.
Re: paper negatives: this is purely just my personal preference because it makes it easy to get reproducible results with my printer, though, all that being said, the only time I go the digital negative route is if the client wants a silver gelatin print for “archival” purposes, otherwise, I just do a standard inkjet black and white print, which Canon’s latest Pro level printers do an excellent job with.
I put this to the test this afternoon on my Pro 2000. It's an excellent printer and I've run kilometres of paper through it, and have a very good idea of how capable it is of delivering a very crisp print with superb colour handling. I used Hahnemühle Photo Luster 260gsm because it was what I had on hand. I used the chroma optimiser (which gave a decently smooth mild lustre finish) and made the final prints on Ilford multigrade classic FB. For the record, the file I used was scanned on a Flextight scanner in good working order and printed at 600ppi. It was from 6x7/ 120 and sized to about 5x7 to make it a reasonably tough test of the claims of tonality etc. I have previously printed the file on various papers on the Canon & optically printed the negative at about the same size in the darkroom on Multigrade Classic.
The tonality and density of the print resulting from the paper negative is not bad at all, and the density is fine. There are flaws related to paper fibre transmission, but those are apparently surmountable. Where the problems lie are in the way the stochastic dots translate into 'grain' in highlights (aka where more ink loading is needed, albeit it is slight enough that many people working with something like 35mm TX might assume that it looks fine) and the fundamental sharpness of the print. It looks good compared to Epson negative scans or enlarger prints made on cheaper, less rigid/ less critically focusable kit, but when examined reasonably closely it has visible sharpness issues compared to enlarger prints made on solid, well focused machines or scans from high end scanning kit - and the output on FB paper from the Lambda for that matter. I may retry next week with a vacuum contact frame, but I'm not sure it'll really make much of a difference. The Canon printers have multiple custom ink limit profiles built in & the heaviest of these might be worth experimenting with to see if it can solve the highlight granularity issue. I should also note that the negative was as sharp as an equivalent positive print off the printer is.
I also tested ProPhoto RGB against one of the 2.2 gamma colourspaces, and as I suspected at the outset, it gives about a grade of difference. The 1.8 lands on G3 and 2.2 on G2. As it should. There's nothing wrong with working towards G3 optimisation, especially as a harder grade will give better acutance etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?