Digital negs for pt/pd on Epson P900 challenge

[bowyerphoto]

I was so glad to see this post and advice Don. Thanks. However, my P900 will not accept pictorico in front feeder if i select No Eject Roller icon. I get a paper fault message and it ejects it. Did you ever have this? I think I need to use the media installer software to create the proper paper profile for the OHP right? Where do I find this? In EPSON software in apps folder?

 

[LaniD]

Hello I did still get pizza wheel marks on some after enlarging the gap (like Rollieflexible mentioned the film is thinish) and rear loading but then I reduced the gap and am rear loading and doubling the film with another sheet of film or paper and it started to work but then on the third try the second substrate separates but it looks like I'm not getting the marks. I'm still experimenting and no it wont front load so will try downloading the above Euro version - we're getting there. FYI hoping Don checks in with us and bowyerphoto and I believe the installer was in the aps that were downloaded for P900.

 

[LaniD]

I assume you've checked for any clogged nozzles? Have you checked for head alignment? If both of these are good, I'd suggest playing around with various settings in the driver: try different media selections, print head gap, unidirectional printing rather than bidirectional, etc.

I doubt that Fixxons would change anything, but if you can't get it figured out I'd certainly give that media a go. FWIW, I print digital negs on a P700 with both Pictorico and Fixxons without issue.

Alan are you front loading or rear loading? and what paper settings are you using if I may ask? Are you doing anything else different from the norm?

 

[LaniD]

I hit the P900 pizza wheel issue while writing the Kallitype, Vandyke Brown and Argyrotype Book. If you are in North America (perhaps elsewhere), the P900 does NOT lift the rollers for front feed. To do this, you will need to go to the Europe Epson support site to download and install new P900 software. You will then see this as the window when you drop the front feeder mechanism. Now you can select no eject roller. You will need to use the media installer software to create the proper paper profile for the OHP. View attachment 353442 Here is how you do it:
There was a 2022 firmware update that supposedly added a feature to the panel to lift the Eject roller that is causing the pizza wheels. But not available on the USA support site when I did the update in July.

SO….. A quick surf out to the EPSON EU site, and there it is ….

For P900

https://www.epson.eu/en_EU/support/sc/epson-surecolor-sc-p900/s/s1786

<image004.jpg>

For P700

https://www.epson.eu/en_EU/support/sc/epson-surecolor-sc-p700/s/s1785

<image005.jpg>


It loaded fine into my P900 – took a few minutes. And I am in the USA - it did not affect the P900 or brick it.
Don Nelson

Hey Don I'm still hitting the pizza wheels unless I use big film and move the neg around to miss the pizza marks. Do you know if installing this into the P900 will void the warranty? Just curious I thought their text did say something about unauthorized software not being covered but it probably doesn't matter now. And so you're not getting the pizza marks anymore correct?

 

[MTGseattle]

I've been watching some of these recent printer forums since I've become curious about making enlarged negatives from my 8x10 in-camera negatives. This all seems like a lot of messing around for a $1200 machine. Is Epson still the defacto winner if digital negs are desired? I swear there are happy Canon people in the forums as well.?
A used Epson P800 that popped up for sale locally is what really inspired my new reading. I'm at a technological knowledge impasse with most editing software these days. I think ultimately, I may stay within the confines of the traditional darkroom.

 

[fgorga]

Alan are you front loading or rear loading? and what paper settings are you using if I may ask? Are you doing anything else different from the norm?

In my experience, to eliminate the pizza wheel marks, one needs to increase the "drying time per print head pass" from the default of zero to a value of ten.

This setting is accessed by clicking on the button labeled "Paper Config..." in the P800 Windows driver (not sure where this setting is in the Mac driver, but I know that it is there.

This has worked for me on both a 3880 and on several P800s.

 

[Alan9940]

Alan are you front loading or rear loading? and what paper settings are you using if I may ask? Are you doing anything else different from the norm?

Not sure how to label the feed position, but it's where one loads any paper that's not thick fine art rag types or poster stock. I use QuadToneRIP to print the negs with default settings.

 

[fgorga]

I've been watching some of these recent printer forums since I've become curious about making enlarged negatives from my 8x10 in-camera negatives. This all seems like a lot of messing around for a $1200 machine. Is Epson still the defacto winner if digital negs are desired? I swear there are happy Canon people in the forums as well.?
A used Epson P800 that popped up for sale locally is what really inspired my new reading. I'm at a technological knowledge impasse with most editing software these days. I think ultimately, I may stay within the confines of the traditional darkroom.

As far as I know, the large majority of folks making digital negative are using Epson printers. I bet that there are a few folks using Canon printers, but they seem pretty quiet about it.

The bottom line is that modern Epson pigment inks are know to have sufficient density in the UV to be useful for alt process negative, so most folks use them and get on with the making of 'art'.

Additionally, while $1200 is a lot of money for most of us (certainly for me) it is worth mentioning that the 3880/P800/P900 are the entry level 17" printers and that these printer are designed to print on paper. Transparency material is not part of the design specifications.

Allegedly, the next "pro level" 17" printer ) the P5370 will have a vacuum system for holding paper among other improvements. Of course this will be at a much higher cost (about $2K?).

 

[Rolleiflexible]

As far as I know, the large majority of folks making digital negative are using Epson printers. I bet that there are a few folks using Canon printers, but they seem pretty quiet about it.

The alt process world defaults on Epson because the Epson inks do a better job of blocking UV light than the Canon inks, and because there is far more support in the community for Epsons — more RIPs and apps that presume the use of Epsons, and many more users running Epsons. It’s not to say you can’t make a Canon work — it just means you’ll be mostly on your own figuring out how to pull a useful negative from the Canon.

Epsons are not perfect, but the P900 is much improved from earlier generations of inkjets. I know the pizza-wheel problem is not entirely a thing of the past, but it has never been an issue on my P900.

 

[koraks]

because the Epson inks do a better job of blocking UV light than the Canon inks

They have this reputation, yes. I'm not sure, however, if it holds if you compare apples to apples; i.e. a pigment Epson printer with a pigment Canon printer.

there is far more support in the community for Epsons — more RIPs and apps that presume the use of Epsons, and many more users running Epsons.

This is certainly true. In particular, QTR seems to be doing a great job of keeping people committed to Epson. But since many linearization approaches are hardware-agnostic (e.g. by producing a curve adjustment in something like Photoshop, regardless of printer platform), it seems to me that any brand or type of printer should be useful enough. Only those of us married to QTR have nowhere else to go.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

They have this reputation, yes.

Let me start by saying I have no direct experience here -- I wrote based on my sense of the prevailing consensus that the Canon printers are not up to the demands of creating digital negatives.

A few months back, a new PHOTRIO member @TruNeg discussed his use of Canon printers to make digital negatives through the use of a software package he had written:

Making a Cyanotype from two test strips with no scanning or special printer profiles.

Firstly let me declare a financial interest in the program called TruNeg referred to in this post and that I am the creator of that program. The principle behind TruNeg is that there is such a thing as a perfect reversal of the positive image. In view of my commercial interest in this I have...

www.photrio.com

In another thread, TruNeg said that he was not able to make digital negatives for alternate processes with long tonal ranges, like salt prints and VDBs, without printing two negatives and using them registered together:

The ink density is fairly low and not good enough for salt or Van Dyke Brown. But I have tested a run around solution on a Van Dyke Brown of using an old photographic technique of a contrast control mask. I simply printed two negatives with registration marks, aligned and sandwiched them together.

I took this post as confirmation that the Canon printers are not up to Epson's standards for UV-blocking inks. To me, that is a deal-killer. As TruNeg's post confirms, using two registered negatives to build UV density adds complexity to the process and may cause optical effects that degrade the overall image.

 

[koraks]

@Rolleiflexible, as I said, it's important to compare apples to apples. In the thread you linked to, an iP8760 Canon printer is used. This printer has one channel with pigment ink and the others are dye inks. The pigment ink may or may not provide sufficient blocking power for processes like salt and DAS carbon. The dye channels are likely quite sketchy for alt. process negatives. The combination of dyes and pigments in itself may also be problematic.

The story will likely be different for the Canon pigment printers like the Pixma Pro series.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Let me start by saying I have no direct experience here -- I wrote based on my sense of the prevailing consensus that the Canon printers are not up to the demands of creating digital negatives.

A few months back, a new PHOTRIO member @TruNeg discussed his use of Canon printers to make digital negatives through the use of a software package he had written:

Making a Cyanotype from two test strips with no scanning or special printer profiles.

Firstly let me declare a financial interest in the program called TruNeg referred to in this post and that I am the creator of that program. The principle behind TruNeg is that there is such a thing as a perfect reversal of the positive image. In view of my commercial interest in this I have...

www.photrio.com

In another thread, TruNeg said that he was not able to make digital negatives for alternate processes with long tonal ranges, like salt prints and VDBs, without printing two negatives and using them registered together:



I took this post as confirmation that the Canon printers are not up to Epson's standards for UV-blocking inks. To me, that is a deal-killer. As TruNeg's post confirms, using two registered negatives to build UV density adds complexity to the process and may cause optical effects that degrade the overall image.

One person to ask about all this would be Ian Leake, who has done a LOT of work with digital negatives for Pt/Pd. I remember he got so disgusted with the pizza wheel problems on his 3880 (IIRC- might have been a different model) that he switched to Canon, but as noted he had to create two negatives to get sufficient density, which risks registration issues and softening of the printed image.

 

[LaniD]

Not sure how to label the feed position, but it's where one loads any paper that's not thick fine art rag types or poster stock. I use QuadToneRIP to print the negs with default settings.

Thank you!

 

[LaniD]

If it doesn't show on other media the problem could also be the Pictorico film being too old or improper stored. I only had such marks with an old, expired, set of DN film. The DN film emulsion is designed to absorb ink (and water, as well). If it's too old or/and stored in a humid and hot place it may become softer and easier to scratch. The remedy may be to store, for a while, the sheets of film in a dry place face-up. That did the job for me.

Dan I forgot to tell you thank you - the film is all good face up and dry and new...

 

[LaniD]

I hit the P900 pizza wheel issue while writing the Kallitype, Vandyke Brown and Argyrotype Book. If you are in North America (perhaps elsewhere), the P900 does NOT lift the rollers for front feed. To do this, you will need to go to the Europe Epson support site to download and install new P900 software. You will then see this as the window when you drop the front feeder mechanism. Now you can select no eject roller. You will need to use the media installer software to create the proper paper profile for the OHP. View attachment 353442 Here is how you do it:
There was a 2022 firmware update that supposedly added a feature to the panel to lift the Eject roller that is causing the pizza wheels. But not available on the USA support site when I did the update in July.

SO….. A quick surf out to the EPSON EU site, and there it is ….

For P900

https://www.epson.eu/en_EU/support/sc/epson-surecolor-sc-p900/s/s1786

<image004.jpg>

For P700

https://www.epson.eu/en_EU/support/sc/epson-surecolor-sc-p700/s/s1785

<image005.jpg>


It loaded fine into my P900 – took a few minutes. And I am in the USA - it did not affect the P900 or brick it.
Don Nelson

 

[LaniD]

Don out of curiosity do you know if the warranty will still be intact if I load European software? I couldn't find anything in their verbiage that said yes or no. I'm ready to try this...

 

[LaniD]

Don out of curiosity do you know if the warranty will still be intact if I load European software? I couldn't find anything in their verbiage that said yes or no. I'm ready to try this...

Don out of curiosity do you know if the warranty will still be intact if I load European software? I couldn't find anything in their verbiage that said yes or no. I'm ready to try this...
I had sent you this question incorrectly awhile back and did find the answer from Epson and that is yes I'd still be under warranty.