Digital Neg. Newbie - Color Separations, Masking, Etc.

Hi yee all,

I'm sure my question has been answered in oh so many posts, so forgive me if I'm asking redundant information.

Basically, I'm working on a scheme (detailed on APUG) to make dye-transfer prints from dichromated-gelatin matrices. This of course requires enlarged negatives for contact printing.

Now, I am completely new to digital negatives and until yesterday I wasn't even considering them, but budget constraints and practicality have won for the moment.

The exciting thing about using digital for dye-transfer would be the ease of masking, which is necessary to make up for inadequacies in the printing dyes, as well as dyes in an original transparency (for instance). However, for the time being I'm going to just focus on the separations.

I know this isn't uncharted terriotory, but any opinions, suggestions or links would be appreciated.

Unfortunately, my digital equipment is scant. A humble Epson 4990 scanner and some generic HP ink-jet printer. What kind of quality can I expect from printing ink-jet separations to transparency paper? How does the DMax compare to film, and how about gamma? I admit, I ask these questions w/o full knowledge of their implications, but I gotta start somewhere I guess.

I don't have Photo-shop, I have Paint Shop Pro, which is a surprisingly capable program.

Lastly, since this is a "dichromated colloid" system, I'm guess that negs suitable for carbon would be suitable here. So, that being said, what am I looking for in a good neg? Mind you, I have no densitometer. (though I could theoretically have access to one for important measurements on a special occasion basis).

Thanks in advance!

Wow, looking through the archives I realize that I'm clearly not the only "newbie" asking questions here. haha...

A 4990 scanner will do fine for you, unless you want to get *really* big. Using something like ChartThrob or the PDN system, you don't strictly need a densitometer, as you can use your scanner and the "eye dropper" tool to get patch values for linearization.

You'll have to test for yourself regads the printer. If your HP is a dye-ink printer, it may or may not have enough UV density. Maybe keep an eye out on craigslist or a used Epson 1400, R800/R1800? Any of these would allow you to use QuadtoneRIP (QTR) for your digital negatives. No one system is necessarily better than any other, just different options.

Good luck, and be sure to keep us all posted on APUG or DPUG...I for one am acutely interested in your progress.

--Greg

Thanks very much Greg!

Another option I'm considering would be printing transparencies at a Kinko's or the like. I haven't looked into it at all, but perhaps that would make large sizes feasible and affordable w/o investing in a printer. However, I'll keep an eye for the printers you mentioned.

My biggest concern is the resolution of ink-jet, which in the few things I've printed other than text-documents is atrocious compared to silver-halide. But, for testing purposes it'll be just fine I'm sure.

Hmm... UV density, I'll have to do some tests.

Cheers!

Chris

edit: ooh shoot, Kinko's is now FedEx Office

There is considerable amount of technical info buried in the archives. Your humble 4990 is plenty of scanner for the process and is the same one I use.

I'm not familiar with paint shop pro, so not sure how well suited it is. At a minimum you need to be able to create a contrast curve that you can save, be able to invert images and split the RGB channels into separate images. These are very easy to do with photoshop. You can download GIMP for free and it may be able to do these operations.

An HP printer means that you won't be able to use QTR to create digi-negs, but you can use RNP Arrays and HSL Arrays. I started with an HP B9180 and was able to make perfectly acceptable digi-negs. The dmax will depend upon your printer.

I densitometer is not necessary, as you will be using your scanner.

Here is a link for a good place to start learning about the process

Dead Link Removed

Ok, I think this RNP Array thing is making sense. So basically you print this out, expose through it and it tells you how your ink set works with your process? It's very interesting to me that you don't simply use black ink, but the differeing UV characteristics makes sense. I'm still reading...

Can I get away with any old transparency film or should I shoot for the Pictorico, which seems like the preferred medium. I'd like to go cheap at the beginning to test things out, but if the difference in performance is huge, then I'd consider the pricier option.

I've never seen so many acronyms in my life! And I thought darkroom terminology was silly...

And FWIW, Paint Shop Pro certainly allows contrast curve correction, inverting images, color separations and I'm sure it allows for saving the curves, but I'll have to check.

Thanks, 'we're making progress'!

Arista OHP from Freestyle is a drop-in replacement for Pictorico, works well and is less expensive.

There's an OHP from Ultrafine that I'd like to try sometime...anyone?

You can use pure black, the greys are just scattered dots and they appeared like a course grain. Modern pigment printers with three black inks work better than early printers in this respect. Depending on your printer, particular colors have good UV blocking power and had less appearance of digital grain.

I also use Arista OHP. You can also use Inkpress and a few others. The Arista, Pictorico and Inkpress are able to carry heavy ink loads.

I have not tried the OHP from Ultrafine, but I have been wanting to try their continuous tone duplicating film. I would think that it would be easier to use a continuous tone film than trying to extract continuous tones from litho film.

I too am interested in the continuous tone film from Ultrafine. In fact, it might be one of the most affordable ULF options. I actually emailed them the other day to see if it was in stock and haven't heard back yet.

Let me know if you make a move.

Here's what I wrote about the Ultrafine contone film about a year ago:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I don't think I ever tried it with a paper developer, I was afraid of it getting too contrasty.

I don't think I'm going to use it....I'll gladly mail some to either of you for the cost of postage & packing materials. PM me if intersted.

--Greg

PVia said:

There's an OHP from Ultrafine that I'd like to try sometime...anyone?

Click to expand...

Don't waste your money Paul the stuff sucks. If you use only black ink it might work but colored inks never dry, at least pigmented inks.

Don

Thanks, Don...

I have some samples coming from another vendor (from eBay) which I'll try for the heck of it, but I don't hold much hope.

PVia said:

Thanks, Don...

I have some samples coming from another vendor (from eBay) which I'll try for the heck of it, but I don't hold much hope.

Click to expand...

Would that happen to be the outfit out of Texas selling a roll of 24" wide x 100ft long ( $ 89.00 ) inkjet transparency material?

That caught my eye as I just spent, including shipping, $150 for two 20 sheet packs of 17x22 Arista OHP.

Howdy all, just a quick update. I've decided to take the X-ray film route. I bought 200 sheets of 18x24cm mammography film for $40 shipped. Much larger sizes are available, so once I get it figured out with these small sheets I can easily scale up.

Taming contrast and all that jazz will certainly be my first step, but luckily since I'm using a "dichromated colloid" system (carbon), high contrast is good.

I plan to reversal process b&w seps from color slides and negative process the seps from color negatives. The separations will probaly be done 1:1, either by contact or a copy setup and then projected onto the x-ray film to produce large negatives.

So for the time being I've managed to keep it analog, but I'm still excited to explore the possibilities of digital sep. negs in the future, and of course printing from digital photos.

holmburgers said:

Howdy all, just a quick update. I've decided to take the X-ray film route. I bought 200 sheets of 18x24cm mammography film for $40 shipped. Much larger sizes are available, so once I get it figured out with these small sheets I can easily scale up.

Taming contrast and all that jazz will certainly be my first step, but luckily since I'm using a "dichromated colloid" system (carbon), high contrast is good.

I plan to reversal process b&w seps from color slides and negative process the seps from color negatives. The separations will probaly be done 1:1, either by contact or a copy setup and then projected onto the x-ray film to produce large negatives.

So for the time being I've managed to keep it analog, but I'm still excited to explore the possibilities of digital sep. negs in the future, and of course printing from digital photos.

Click to expand...

How can you make color separation negatives without using panchromatic film?

Don

By using a smaller format panchromatic intermediary, as stated.

The issue is, to make an 11x14" print for instance, I'll need contact negatives of that size, and it's simply not an affordable option for me at the moment.

I have been trying to get in contact with Ultrafine for a week now , email and phone message with no response.
are they still in business.

PVia said:

Arista OHP from Freestyle is a drop-in replacement for Pictorico, works well and is less expensive.

There's an OHP from Ultrafine that I'd like to try sometime...anyone?

Click to expand...

UltraFine On Line
I order from the frequently, but they don't seem to respond to e-mail.
I use the RC paper as a tissue substrate.
The cystal clear inkjet film dries very slowly, doesn't hold much ink, and pigment and dye inks smudge when exposed to the least bit of moisture or humidity. If you want bulletproof negs, use Pictorico, Inkpress, or Arista.
I haven't gotten around to trying their films yet.

bob carnie said:

I have been trying to get in contact with Ultrafine for a week now , email and phone message with no response.
are they still in business.

Click to expand...

So do you think they will ever answer the phone, I need to ask them details on their products, I have tried both with no success.

pschwart said:

UltraFine On Line
I order from the frequently, but they don't seem to respond to e-mail.
I use the RC paper as a tissue substrate.
The cystal clear inkjet film dries very slowly, doesn't hold much ink, and pigment and dye inks smudge when exposed to the least bit of moisture or humidity. If you want bulletproof negs, use Pictorico, Inkpress, or Arista.
I haven't gotten around to trying their films yet.

Click to expand...

Ok so I lied , got hold of them just now, pretty much like talking to a door, not very helpful.
Sometimes I wonder , why people hang a shingle out there.

bob carnie said:

So do you think they will ever answer the phone, I need to ask them details on their products, I have tried both with no success.

Click to expand...

bob carnie said:

Ok so I lied , got hold of them just now, pretty much like talking to a door, not very helpful.
Sometimes I wonder , why people hang a shingle out there.

Click to expand...

That was my experience years ago. At one time they sold two different OHP-like substrates. The Ultrafine Clear film is a total waste of time. I never could get them to send or sell me a sample of their other product so I gave up on them.

As Phil said, the RC product is a good deal for the substrate for doing carbon transfers.

So don't waste your time Bob. The Inkpress and Arista are the same product and work fine though the thickness is thinner than the Pictorico products and may occasionally have feeding problems depending on the printer and relative humidity.

For your operation I would think Pictorico in rolls would work best.

Don

holmburgers said:

By using a smaller format panchromatic intermediary, as stated.

The issue is, to make an 11x14" print for instance, I'll need contact negatives of that size, and it's simply not an affordable option for me at the moment.

Click to expand...

Good luck with your endeavor.

Don

Don Bryant said:

Good luck with your endeavor.

Don

Click to expand...

Thanks Don