You have to pay attention to developer age, how many hours ago it was mixed, how many prints have been made, developer temperature etc.
using 'factorial development'
Here is a selection of 36x48" images printed using the 16k LCD as a negative. The sharpness is quite good (there are around 235 pixels per inch along the long edge, and 172 pixels per inch along the short edge; the image uses an 11264 x 6224 pixel area of the display). With enlargements of this size (just under 8x enlargement) and viewing distances of less than a foot, the LCD pixel circuitry becomes visible, but further than that it is invisible. Every three or four pixels there is a small opaque bit of circuitry which shows up in the print as a tiny dot lighter than the surrounding image. They are very small, and impercievable at any reasonable viewing distance, but I am working on ways to hide them. I am currently testing an assortment of cinema soften and blur effect filters with that goal. So far I've found that Tiffen's Soft/FX filter does a good job of reducing sharpness without a reduction in contrast, but I have yet to narrow down which strength will hide the dots without also creating a meaningful loss of resolution. Cine filters are irritatingly expensive. These prints are on Bergger CB Semi Gloss paper, and I've also noticed that this paper (perhaps because it is warmtone, or maybe because of Bergger's recipes) is slightly less sharp than my standard Ilford MGFB glossy. it isn't a loss of sharpness which would be noticable with anything other than a high definition resolution target, but it has the result of making the dots slightly less apparent.
Do you have the source code accessible on a Github repository by chance? I would be interested in this and it could be a nice community project to get a repository going with all the resourcesYeah that's basically what I do, I have a python script that I use to pre-process my image (because I use a raspberry pi to control my screen). The script flips, inverts, applies my cyanotype adjustment curve, applies the flat field correction mask, compresses the RGB channels for the monochrome screen and saves the resulting image as a PNG. Then I transfer the modified PNG image to the raspberry pi and I have another simple script on there that just displays the image full-screen and turns on the UV light for the correct length of time.
Do you have the source code accessible on a Github repository by chance? I would be interested in this and it could be a nice community project to get a repository going with all the resources
Here is a selection of 36x48" images printed using the 16k LCD as a negative. The sharpness is quite good (there are around 235 pixels per inch along the long edge, and 172 pixels per inch along the short edge; the image uses an 11264 x 6224 pixel area of the display). With enlargements of this size (just under 8x enlargement) and viewing distances of less than a foot, the LCD pixel circuitry becomes visible, but further than that it is invisible. Every three or four pixels there is a small opaque bit of circuitry which shows up in the print as a tiny dot lighter than the surrounding image. They are very small, and impercievable at any reasonable viewing distance, but I am working on ways to hide them. I am currently testing an assortment of cinema soften and blur effect filters with that goal. So far I've found that Tiffen's Soft/FX filter does a good job of reducing sharpness without a reduction in contrast, but I have yet to narrow down which strength will hide the dots without also creating a meaningful loss of resolution. Cine filters are irritatingly expensive. These prints are on Bergger CB Semi Gloss paper, and I've also noticed that this paper (perhaps because it is warmtone, or maybe because of Bergger's recipes) is slightly less sharp than my standard Ilford MGFB glossy. it isn't a loss of sharpness which would be noticable with anything other than a high definition resolution target, but it has the result of making the dots slightly less apparent.
View attachment 396452View attachment 396453View attachment 396454View attachment 396455View attachment 396456View attachment 396457View attachment 396458
Here is a selection of 36x48" images printed using the 16k LCD as a negative. The sharpness is quite good (there are around 235 pixels per inch along the long edge, and 172 pixels per inch along the short edge; the image uses an 11264 x 6224 pixel area of the display). With enlargements of this size (just under 8x enlargement) and viewing distances of less than a foot, the LCD pixel circuitry becomes visible, but further than that it is invisible. Every three or four pixels there is a small opaque bit of circuitry which shows up in the print as a tiny dot lighter than the surrounding image. They are very small, and impercievable at any reasonable viewing distance, but I am working on ways to hide them. I am currently testing an assortment of cinema soften and blur effect filters with that goal. So far I've found that Tiffen's Soft/FX filter does a good job of reducing sharpness without a reduction in contrast, but I have yet to narrow down which strength will hide the dots without also creating a meaningful loss of resolution. Cine filters are irritatingly expensive. These prints are on Bergger CB Semi Gloss paper, and I've also noticed that this paper (perhaps because it is warmtone, or maybe because of Bergger's recipes) is slightly less sharp than my standard Ilford MGFB glossy. it isn't a loss of sharpness which would be noticable with anything other than a high definition resolution target, but it has the result of making the dots slightly less apparent.
View attachment 396452View attachment 396453View attachment 396454View attachment 396455View attachment 396456View attachment 396457View attachment 396458
f
36 x 48 inches? or cm - these are impressive either way.
36x48 inches. I don't think I would have made them this big if I was enlarging from film negatives- all the paper needed to get to a final print would be too pricey, but with this system I was able to make 10 prints in one weekend without any test strips or work prints prior to printing the finals.
Well I would say remarkable work , I do make 30 x 40 inch digital negs and 30 x 40 enlarger prints for silver work and can say what an incredible achievement. I was making Lambda murals on Agfa Classic in 2002 and the results were incredible, but the machine was 250 thousand dollars and for over 16 years I lugged it around with me until I started making digital inkjet negs which allowed us to drop the Lambda.
At what magnification do you start seeing abborations, these prints look pretty amazing, I would love to see one in person .
There are abberations visible in these prints (8x magnification) but at a normal viewing distance they are not apparent. I am a pixel peeper (silver grain peeper?) though, so I'm working on ways to hide them, and though I haven't succeded yet, I am making progress. At 4x magnification, which would be approximately a 20x30 max print size, the abberations are only visible with a loupe.
Do you have the source code accessible on a Github repository by chance? I would be interested in this and it could be a nice community project to get a repository going with all the resources
This might be useful for you all. When making a print I first use a blank frame to determine the time needed for maximum black. once I have that time I print this image which goes from 0% to 100% black with dots of black and white. This allows me to create a photoshop curve which limits the image to the points where it produces maximum black and maximum white on the paper, without needing to test each image.
Being a bit on and off at the hospital these last months but now am ready to get the screen this week. Looking at your posts I wonder I I should go for the 16k instead... I would love to get prints over 8x10.
I have got a newer PC for this but haven't had the time to work a lot on the code to port it to a PC and it still exposes as 1-bit frames and as a GIF sequence. I hope I can increase that and also make the screen work with it.
Even with an 8k resolution screen I don't see why you couldn't make prints significantly larger than 8x10. Nobody really should be looking at large prints from close enough to make out the pixels anyway, 8k screens are ~33 megapixels which is maybe somewhere between 35mm and 120 film.
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?