Couple of noob questions Digital Negative making

Hi All,

I have been perusing the forum archives for some answers to problems I've had with my initial efforts at making a digital negative. Haven't found my exact issue answered, so thought i'd just ask.

A little background I've recently returned to shooting film, 4x5, after many years playing with digital. However, I would like to take some of my favorite files and print them in the darkroom just to see how they turn out. I'm using an Epson 2200 and have tried both the Epson driver and QTR. The OHP films I have are probably 10 years old; something that I already had. When viewed with a magnifying glass, the film looks like it has a texture to it - almost like it had a film of hairspray on it. I'm hoping this is the problem with the few tests I've done making digital negatives - the prints from them were extremely grainy/textured looking.

Is it safe to assume that the transparency films most often referenced as being used here, Pictorico and Inkpress, are completely clear and smooth before I order some of them and do they accept the inks well. Seems like the ink sits on top of my films and takes a good while to dry. As I said, they are at least 10 years old and were cheap. They are specifically for inkjet though.

Any additional tips regarding profiles to be used with the transparencies or any other advice would be appreciated. Have read Ron Reeder's website and the info on Dan Burkholder's website. BTW - Is Burkholders book still relevant information given that it was written about 10 years ago? Any other resources. Haven't seen a workshop available in the southeast US.

Thanks in advance
Bill

Pictorico (and Agfa CopyJet/SelectJet) are gold standards to me; I don't experience any *extra* texture / graininess when using both. OTOH, 2200 is usually more grainy compared to - older - dye based (or newer pigment based) printers, and often starts to show microbanding / venetian blinds effect after some aging. (I haven't seen one that doesn't do it, personally...)

Edit: Use a 2 mils thick transparent (Mylar and such) sheet between the negative and paper to soften printer grain w/o affecting image sharpness too much - that's my standard practice now... (I'm using an HP9180, which is slightly more grainy compared to latest offerings.)

Regards,
Loris.

bvaughn4 said:

Hi All,

the prints from them were extremely grainy/textured looking.

Seems like the ink sits on top of my films and takes a good while to dry.
Bill

Click to expand...

Grainy prints could be caused by many things, but there is no point in wasting time with ancient film of unknown pedigree. Pictorico, Inkpress, and Arista OHPs are all equivalent. The films are dry to the touch on exiting the printer using default settings and do not add detectable grain on their own. Burkholder originally suggested a generic amber color for digital negs; newer methods like Mark Nelson's PDN provide a mechanism for empirically determining exactly what color is appropriate for a particular printer and inkset. QTR bypasses the native printer driver and lets you create profiles to control the amount of ink each channel delivers to the film. This method provides the finest control but profiling is a black art and I have not found it
superior for making negatives. I would only use QTR if this is the only way to get sufficient UV density with your printer.

Re: Noob questions

Thank you Loris and Phillip. I have some Pictorico on the way. Looking forward to trying it out. As alternatives to the 2200, I have a C86 in which I use MIS black inks and an R280 - would either of them be a better choice to print with?

On a different note, I think I have seen conflicting information (maybe I am confusing different processes) regarding using these negatives for printing. Is this process exclusively for contact printing or may they be successfully enlarged? That is my ultimate desire. Are these type negatives adequate for making moderate enlargements?

Thanks again guys.

Can't speak for C86 or R280, but I presume you'll need something better (such as R1900). In any case, there isn't any need to change the 2200 as long as it doesn't give you problems.

No enlargement; the resolution of the negatives is something around 7 to 14 lp/mm (closer to the former, actually!), this is already barely enough for contact printing... Sorry!

Hello Bill,

I'm using an Epson 2200 and have tried both the Epson driver and QTR.

Click to expand...

The Epson 2200 is an excellent printer for producing digital negatives. I'm not sure why Loris characterized it as grainy. It can produce very smooth results for alt. processes. I used one for several years until I sold mine recently. I purchased an Epson 3800 and didn't need to feed two printers.

Is it safe to assume that the transparency films most often referenced as being used here, Pictorico and Inkpress, are completely clear and smooth before I order some of them and do they accept the inks well.

Click to expand...

Yes those brands will work fine. Also Arista transparency film sold by Freestyle photo works very well too, as good as Pictorico and Inkpress and less expensive. Agfa products are not available in the US.

Seems like the ink sits on top of my films and takes a good while to dry. As I said, they are at least 10 years old and were cheap. They are specifically for inkjet though.

Click to expand...

Some brands don't work very well and don't absorb ink properly and have difficulty drying and absorbing ink.

Any additional tips regarding profiles to be used with the transparencies or any other advice would be appreciated. Have read Ron Reeder's website and the info on Dan Burkholder's website. BTW - Is Burkholders book still relevant information given that it was written about 10 years ago? Any other resources. Haven't seen a workshop available in the southeast US.

Click to expand...

Burkholder's method is a bit long in the tooth. Quadtone RIP can be used but has a bit of a learning curve.There should be some starter curve files posted here or Ron Reeder's website. I'm sure someone can send you a curve file to get you started.

Mark Nelson's Precision Digital Negatives is also a method for producing digital negatives that you may wish to check out.

http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/


Don Bryant

Hi Don, grainy compared to (especially) older dye based printers and new offerings...

The real problem (I personally experienced) with 2200 is microbanding; I haven't encountered a single one (total = 3) that didn't show that!

OTOH, if O.P.'s printer works nice, there's absolutely no need to change it! (As I stated before...)

Regards,
Loris.

bvaughn4 said:

Thank you Loris and Phillip. I have some Pictorico on the way. Looking forward to trying it out. As alternatives to the 2200, I have a C86 in which I use MIS black inks and an R280 - would either of them be a better choice to print with?

On a different note, I think I have seen conflicting information (maybe I am confusing different processes) regarding using these negatives for printing. Is this process exclusively for contact printing or may they be successfully enlarged? That is my ultimate desire. Are these type negatives adequate for making moderate enlargements?

Thanks again guys.

Click to expand...

I would expect the 2200 to be a better choice than either a C86 or R280. C86 is only a 4-color printer so I wouldn't bother. FYI, the MIS monochrome pigment inks don't adhere well to OHP. I did make digital negs on an R200 which was an earlier version of the R280. It was a 6-color dye printer that made usable but not great colorized negatives. Inkjet negatives are too low res for enlarging.

pschwart said:

Inkjet negatives are too low res for enlarging.

Click to expand...

However, you can use them to contact print on traditional gelatin silver paper with the proper profile, appropriate image & process (like lith).

Thank you all for the replies. I am pretty well convinced that the grainy issue I had is the old icky transparency material. I should have some Pictorico here in a couple of days.

Thanks for the clarification on enlargements. I was under the impression they could be enlarged, contact printing is fine. I know now that I just need to make the negative the desired size of my print.