Brad hinkle's (sp) method review?

[mark]

Anyone use this yet and can you tell me how it compares to PDN.

 

[Ray Heath]

Anyone use this yet and can you tell me how it compares to PDN.

please elaborate

 

[mark]

I have Adobe and am not all that interested in buying a new piece of software. If this system is on par then I will get the book and forgo PDN. If it is not up to snuff then I will go the PDN way.

So, if anyone has tested what he has put out and can give a review of it I would appreciate it.

Heck, if he is hanging around i would like to hear from him as well.

 

[donbga]

I have Adobe and am not all that interested in buying a new piece of software. If this system is on par then I will get the book and forgo PDN. If it is not up to snuff then I will go the PDN way.

So, if anyone has tested what he has put out and can give a review of it I would appreciate it.

Heck, if he is hanging around i would like to hear from him as well.

What printer are you planning on using to make digital inkjet negatives?

Don Bryant

 

[mark]

I'll be using my dad's 2200. I'll hand over the grand kids as rental payment. Why?

 

[donbga]

I'll be using my dad's 2200. I'll hand over the grand kids as rental payment. Why?

If you are planing to use the Reeder/Hinkel method you will need to purchase a copy of Quad Tone RIP. QTR supports the 2200.

Don Bryant

 

[Bruce]

Differences Between Reeder/Hinkle and Mark Nelson's Digital Negtaive Approaches

If you are planing to use the Reeder/Hinkel method you will need to purchase a copy of Quad Tone RIP. QTR supports the 2200.

Don Bryant

Don

What differences have you seen betwen the Reeder/Hinkle and Mark Nelson's PDN digital negative approaches

Bruce

 

[donbga]

Don

What differences have you seen betwen the Reeder/Hinkle and Mark Nelson's PDN digital negative approaches

Bruce

Since I haven't completed my testing using the Reeder Hinkel method I can't really comment about that. However, I've read the book and it is my impression that the weak link with their method is the process curve generation that they use which may not be as accurate as Mark Nelson's PDN method.

Personally I would try both and decide which best works for you.

As soon as I can carve out some time for testing and when the weather cooperates with warmenr temperatures and higher relative humidity I'll run some tests. Even with my humidifier running 24/7 the RH in my darkroom has been too low to make alt. prints.

Don

 

[mprosenberg]

Don et al.,

I have not used the PDN method, but have used Ron Reeder/Brad Hinkle's method. It is exceedingly simple, and took me 2-3 days to work out the method for my 2400. I was generating negatives for silver gelatin prints on Forte (sigh). The curve generation is indeed accurate and simple to generate. As Ron explained in previous threads the ability to use QTR (costs $50 - cheap) to utilize 7 inks (LLK not used) is suppose to give smoother tonalities. Frankly, it is very simple. The book does a very good job describing the process. Also Ron and Brad will send you Profile curves to tweak.

If you are using a PC the QTR gui has some nice features for curve tweaking that is not so obvious on Mac. For one, it shows you the curve after you save it and the previous version.

If you have a transmission densitometer you can generate a curve correction that way without going into the darkroom.

I would heartily recommend trying it -

One caveat, for silver gelatin prints there are printer artifacts that make the 2400 unsuitable. I am considering the 3800.

Mike

 

[donbga]

Don et al.,

I have not used the PDN method, but have used Ron Reeder/Brad Hinkle's method. It is exceedingly simple, and took me 2-3 days to work out the method for my 2400. I was generating negatives for silver gelatin prints on Forte (sigh). The curve generation is indeed accurate and simple to generate. As Ron explained in previous threads the ability to use QTR (costs $50 - cheap) to utilize 7 inks (LLK not used) is suppose to give smoother tonalities. Frankly, it is very simple. The book does a very good job describing the process. Also Ron and Brad will send you Profile curves to tweak.

I don't think it has been posted here but the reason that Mark Nelson doesn't reccomend using black ink is not because of ink grain but because pure black ink negatives require a more extreme adjustment curve.

That being said, using QTR to determine the black ink limit may (probably does) negate that concern. QTR's ability to generate a linearized curve is indeed it's strong point. I look forward to trying it out.

If you are using a PC the QTR gui has some nice features for curve tweaking that is not so obvious on Mac. For one, it shows you the curve after you save it and the previous version.

Very handy.

If you have a transmission densitometer you can generate a curve correction that way without going into the darkroom.

How would you do that? I don't follow you there.

One caveat, for silver gelatin prints there are printer artifacts that make the 2400 unsuitable. I am considering the 3800.

Mike

Even though I'm very impressed with the 3800 I'm hoping the 1400 will be even better for printing silver gelatin.

Don

 

[mprosenberg]

Don,

It is easy to use the transmission densitometer - just pretend the step wedge that you print out is a negative. Zero the densitometer on the blank part of the film, then place low values are placed on Zone III (0.38) or IV (0.54), and highlights on Zone VIII (1.29). This way I could see what I would get before going into the darkroom.

With the Reeder/Hinkle method you are using all the inks - not just the black ink. In QTR you set the black ink limit, then the percentages of the other inks. If you need a subtle boost in your whites in QTR you can set black boost.

Mike

 

[mkochsch]

Grey Fill Instead of Colour Fill

I don't think it has been posted here but the reason that Mark Nelson doesn't reccomend using black ink is not because of ink grain but because pure black ink negatives require a more extreme adjustment curve.

Don

Interesting. Has anyone taken the time to prove to disprove that Hinkel curves are more "extreme"? I routinely switch between negative colour techniques (i.e. RGB-colourised and black-CcMmYK). What I've found is that if you approach CcMmYK black ink the same way to do when adding a fill layer in "screen" mode this is simply not the case or I haven't notice an extreme curve change. Fill your curve-adjusted negative with something less than 100% black (which is almost always too dense). Maybe "Grey Fill" best describes what I'm talking about. Print a 101-step black gradient wedge to your process and calibrate to that. If 92% is the first white step, that's your fill colour. I've routinely used a fills with 80-95% range to achieve the proper DMAX. Extreme curves may have been the case prior to people using the fill layer in "screen" mode method, but I'd have to say the choice of ICM profiles affects the curve's overall "shape" more than the RGB/CMYK choice. My current thinking is that using ICM profiles to contain the curve information may ultimately be the simplest method of creating a digital negatives. It would mean that you wouldn't have to use the curve tool at all, just select "Digital Negative" from your paper profile menu and print.

 

[donbga]

Interesting. Has anyone taken the time to prove to disprove that Hinkel curves are more "extreme"?

Michael,

The next sentence in my post read:

"That being said, using QTR to determine the black ink limit may (probably does) negate that concern. "

So in other words establishing the black ink limit with QTR provides a way to use black ink without using a more extreme process adjustment curve. I did not suggest that Brad Hinkel's curves are extreme.

Don

 

[CraigK]

Anyone use this yet and can you tell me how it compares to PDN.

I've used both, or rather all three methods. PDN, Hinkle/Reeder's basic curve approach and the Hinkle/Reeder QTR method. I've achieved fine results with all three.

I believe that the method which will give you the best results is the one that you find most enjoyable to employ and tweak. There are other methods besides the ones listed above such as Burkholder or ChartThrob (love it!) and they range from so-simple-even-I-can-do-it to computer-geek-wet-dream-complicated.

Think of them as you would different fromulae for developing film. What'll ya have? D-76-and-be-there? Or Pyrocat HD in glycol/TEA with a pinch of Rodinal semi-stand on a moonless night wearing nothing but a single rubber boot?

Choose your poison. I have the feeling that if you stick with any of the methods out there long enough and have great images to print with them, you will be happy with the results.

 

[sanking]

In PDN there is a very simple method for matching the exposure scale of your process to the DR of the digital negative. One could also match ES to DR by printing out MKS's arrays on OHP and then measure directly with a transmission densitometer the square that meeets the target Dmax, or you could also determine it as in PDN by first establishing a standard printing time for mximum black and then printing in your process one of the arrays.

I looked through the Reeder/Hinkle book but don't remember seeing a method for matching DR to ES. Would someone explain how that is done with the Reeder/Hinkle QTR method of making digital negatives.

Sandy King

 

[clay]

Sandy,

I'm in the middle of doing this right now on a 7800. It is very easy to use one of the QTR diagnostic functions to print out each ink individually in 5% steps and then slap them on a UV densitometer and determine what ink % will give you the target DR.

I am finding this a lot less frustrating than the PDN system for the 7800. I tried the PDN approach, but the X800 epson printers give some extremely non-linear steps with the PDN colors that are most useful for palladium. I posted some of these reversals I was seeing on an alt-photo post a few days back. Here are some sample numbers from this step of the PDN process using a Red200, Green25 color schema:

Step 100: 2.03 logD UV
Step 93: 2.07
Step 91: 2.6 !!
Step 90: 2.85!!
Step 89: 3.17
Step 88: 3.24
Step 87: 3.52!!
Step 85: 2.93
Step 84: 2.68

I was getting 5-stop larger UV transmission densities at the 87% step than at the 100% step when I was printing the initial PDN 101-step tablet with the color picked from the color-range density whatchimacallit. Talk about extreme correction curves!

Calibrating this 7800 is turning out to be quite a challenge. I have a decent correction curve using all inks and converting black and white files to RGB space just prior to printing with the Imageprint RIP. I used chartthrob to do the analysis, and it worked well. But I really like the idea of using the QTR RIP and creating an embedded profile so all I have to do is invert and print. So that is the windmill at which I am tilting at the moment.

In PDN there is a very simple method for matching the exposure scale of your process to the DR of the digital negative. One could also match ES to DR by printing out MKS's arrays on OHP and then measure directly with a transmission densitometer the square that meeets the target Dmax, or you could also determine it as in PDN by first establishing a standard printing time for mximum black and then printing in your process one of the arrays.

I looked through the Reeder/Hinkle book but don't remember seeing a method for matching DR to ES. Would someone explain how that is done with the Reeder/Hinkle QTR method of making digital negatives.

Sandy King

 

[sanking]

Clay,

First, thanks for the suggestion on how to plot transmission values. But for an alternative process this would require the use of a UV reading densitometer, something that most folks don't have. It would be nice to have something simple like the PDN tonal palette or MKS's array.

I saw your post on the alt-photo list and was very curious as to how what you described could be. Did you determine those UV values by densitomer reading with the 361T? If so, the anomalous readings might be caused by the fact that the reading in the UV is in a very narrow band around 370nm that might not actually be a problem in printing because pt/pd is sensitive to light well outside the maximum bandwith. Since the total bandwidith is so narrow, probably no more than about 350nm to 400nm, small changes in color that would not have any impact on printing could indicate false readings. Did you actualy make a print-out in process to make sure that the values you read corresponded to printing density values?

Perhaps your situation is other, but in my own working with UV readings I have encountered several situations where a UV reading gave really off the wall values that did not in any way correspond to real life printing. Bear in mind that some pt/pd printers are using those SA tubes that radiate virtually all of their energy above about 420nm.

Sandy

Sandy,

I'm in the middle of doing this right now on a 7800. It is very easy to use one of the QTR diagnostic functions to print out each ink individually in 5% steps and then slap them on a UV densitometer and determine what ink % will give you the target DR.

I am finding this a lot less frustrating than the PDN system for the 7800. I tried the PDN approach, but the X800 epson printers give some extremely non-linear steps with the PDN colors that are most useful for palladium. I posted some of these reversals I was seeing on an alt-photo post a few days back. Here are some sample numbers from this step of the PDN process using a Red200, Green25 color schema:

Step 100: 2.03 logD UV
Step 93: 2.07
Step 91: 2.6 !!
Step 90: 2.85!!
Step 89: 3.17
Step 88: 3.24
Step 87: 3.52!!
Step 85: 2.93
Step 84: 2.68

I was getting 5-stop larger UV transmission densities at the 87% step than at the 100% step when I was printing the initial PDN 101-step tablet with the color picked from the color-range density whatchimacallit. Talk about extreme correction curves!

Calibrating this 7800 is turning out to be quite a challenge. I have a decent correction curve using all inks and converting black and white files to RGB space just prior to printing with the Imageprint RIP. I used chartthrob to do the analysis, and it worked well. But I really like the idea of using the QTR RIP and creating an embedded profile so all I have to do is invert and print. So that is the windmill at which I am tilting at the moment.

 

[clay]

I agree that a UV densitometer is not a garden variety tool. But the one thing about the X800 series printers is that they are very consistent. So if someone can create a workable profile, it ought to work on any other printer of that type.

The density thing is really weird. And it is real: I deliberately over-exposed the step tablet and sure enough, the steps around 90% were whiter than the 100% step. I think a work-around will have to involve picking the color of the step where the density begins behaving normally again(probably around 85%), and colorize using that color instead of the one from the color-density-range table.

I am using an Amergraph ULF28 exposure unit, btw. And a 361T densitometer that I have calibrated with the Xrite-approved calibration tablet. Strange thing with this color behavior. I do love the printer, though. It makes excellent color and black and white prints. Now, if can figure out how to make it work for negatives. I am sure it will just take patience, coffee and colorful language.

Clay,

First, thanks for the suggestion on how to plot transmission values. But for an alternative process this would require the use of a UV reading densitometer, something that most folks don't have. It would be nice to have something simple like the PDN tonal palette or MKS's array.

I saw your post on the alt-photo list and was very curious as to how what you described could be. Did you determine those UV values by densitomer reading with the 361T? If so, the anomalous readings might be caused by the fact that the reading in the UV is in a very narrow band around 370nm that might not actually be a problem in printing because pt/pd is sensitive to light well outside the maximum bandwith. Since the total bandwidith is so narrow, probably no more than about 350nm to 400nm, small changes in color that would not have any impact on printing could indicate false readings. Did you actualy make a print-out in process to make sure that the values you read corresponded to printing density values?

Perhaps your situation is other, but in my own working with UV readings I have encountered several situations where a UV reading gave really off the wall values that did not in any way correspond to real life printing. Bear in mind that some pt/pd printers are using those SA tubes that radiate virtually all of their energy above about 420nm.

Sandy

 

[sanking]

I am using an Amergraph ULF28 exposure unit, btw. And a 361T densitometer that I have calibrated with the Xrite-approved calibration tablet. Strange thing with this color behavior. I do love the printer, though. It makes excellent color and black and white prints. Now, if can figure out how to make it work for negatives. I am sure it will just take patience, coffee and colorful language.

Clay,

I was simply not clear about whether your UV readings with the densitometer had been confirmed by printing in the process. I understand now that it was.

What do you think of the Amergraph ULF-28? And did you get the unit with the adaptor for printing in silver?

Sandy

 

[mkochsch]

The density thing is really weird. And it is real: I deliberately over-exposed the step tablet and sure enough, the steps around 90% were whiter than the 100% step. I think a work-around will have to involve picking the color of the step where the density begins behaving normally again(probably around 85%), and colorize using that color instead of the one from the color-density-range table.

Ya know, maybe what I thought was this elusive "super-blocker" colour was actually this weird reversal thing your talking about here...could this be solarisation or self-masking behaviour perhaps?
~m

 

[mark]

they range from so-simple-even-I-can-do-it

And these would be?

I have found that I REALLY DO NOT LIKE working on images on a computer, but want to be able to enlarge from 6x6 and contact print. So, the less computer work needed the better.