Ink jet digital negatives - what substrates and what printers

[donbga]

Hi Folks,

I've been using digital printers for a few years now to make digital negatives and as each generation of printers is introduced the output quality seems to improve. Sometimes marginally, sometimes more dramatically.

At Photkina this year Epson introduced the 3800 printer which has a new dither algorithm which could possiblly revolutionize the quality of digital inkjet negs.

I'm currently using an Epson 2200 with Pictorico OHP transparency film used to make alternative process prints. I'm hoping there is a possibility that the 3800 will break the silver gelatin barrier.

Recently I've learned that some folks are using inkjet paper to produce negatives for silver gelatin prints with very impressive results.

So what tools are people using for their inkjet negs and for which processes?

Don Bryant

 

[menglert]

Currently I'm going to start testing with an Epson R800. I know there are some issues with density ect... But I want to run some tests before I decide if its not acceptable. I would like to make digital negatives for Kallitypes and Silver Gel.

I have Pictorico OHP, White Film, and also some Kodak Encad Universal Backlit Film. I ran a few test prints on the Encad to see how it looks, but looking at it under light, it seems to show more grain than the Pictorico White Film. But I have a roll of it already, so I'll finish the tests and see how it prints on Silver Gel.

Regards,
Martin

 

[juanito]

I'm using pictorico transparency film with an epson stylus photo r200 for pt/pd.
Can't go bigger than letter size but It's a great combo. No grain issues.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Pictorico OHP and Epson R2400. Have not gone beyond letter size.

 

[tom_micklin]

Picotrico OHP printed with an Epson 1270.
Thinking about upgrading the printer, but I've been using it so long and have my workflow designed for it that I think I'll keep using it until it craps out completely.

 

[BillSchwab]

For me it is Pictorico OHP printed on both the 2200 and 7600 Epsons. My 7600 has MIS Carbon Pigs in it currently and it doesn't do as good a job. The MIS Inks don't dry as fast and are lacking somewhat in Dmax and I am considering going back to the Epson pigs as I have lost all interest in monochrome printing via digital methods.

B.

 

[tchamber]

Currently I'm going to start testing with an Epson R800. I know there are some issues with density ect...

The R800 can do digital negatives but color ones never get the required density. I use Mark Nelson's PDN system and he suggested just doing the negatives in B&W, which has worked fine for me. I'm printing on POP, can't speak to any other medium.

 

[Jeremy]

Epson2200 and Photowarehouse OHP. I've got a friend with a 2400 so I may try and talk her into letting me run a couple sheets through that one to see if there's any big difference. I'm thinking that I may upgrade to the 3800 sometime next year for larger prints and the smaller dither... will have to see how they look.

 

[Keith Taylor]

I'm using an Epson 2200 and a 4000, withPictorico OHP for pt-pd. I'm also following Mark Nelson's PDN method with good results.

Keith.

 

[jimcollum]

Epson 7600 and OHP, using Mark's PDN calibration process. I have an Epson 2400 now as well, but was waiting for his version 2 update before calibrating that one.

The 3800 sounds nice.. only problem is there's no roll feed, so you're limited to either the 13x19" sheets, or cutting your own from the roll

 

[Jeremy]

The 3800 sounds nice.. only problem is there's no roll feed, so you're limited to either the 13x19" sheets, or cutting your own from the roll

I was thinking the same thing, Jim. Now that Canon and HP are coming out with pigment printers maybe that would also be a way to look over the new year.

 

[Kerik]

Epson 1280 and OHP. I'm using Pyro-colorized negs a la Keith Schreiber. I have the PDN system, but haven't gone through the calibration process yet. I'm getting great results with what I'm doing now, so the motivation to go PDN hasn't been there. Also, I've been waiting for V.2 of PDN so I don't have to cover the same ground twice.

 

[AllenR]

I'm using Pictorico OHP, an Epson 2200 and PDN for making pd negatives. I too am waiting for V2 of PDN as I need to tweek my calibration and I don't want to do it twice. However, V1 of PDN works very well and has allowed me to produce some very good prints without a lot of effort.

Allen

 

[donbga]

I'm using Pictorico OHP, an Epson 2200 and PDN for making pd negatives. I too am waiting for V2 of PDN as I need to tweek my calibration and I don't want to do it twice. However, V1 of PDN works very well and has allowed me to produce some very good prints without a lot of effort.

Allen

I think everyone will be very pleased and impressed with Curve Calculator II. Mark is still working on it but I don't know when it will be released. It has some really cool features.

No more Excel spreadsheet work! And no more 101 step tonal palettes to print and read! Though you will still have a number of readings to make to complete a calibration.

Don Bryant

 

[AllenR]

No more Excel spreadsheet work! And no more 101 step tonal palettes to print and read!

Excellent!

Allen

 

[Kai Hamann]

Pictorico and Agfa on Canon on my side. Preview guided workflow - you see what you get.

All the best
Kai Hamann

 

[Tony Egan]

Pictorico high gloss white film 2400dpi on Epson 1290 using a Dan Burkholder PSD file with built-in curve actions to convert a final on-screen image to negative for printing. No larger than A4 contact prints so far.

 

[Camden Hardy]

No more Excel spreadsheet work! And no more 101 step tonal palettes to print and read! Though you will still have a number of readings to make to complete a calibration.

Very, very cool piece of software.


And for those of you waiting to calibrate for CC2, I highly recommend going ahead and make your adjustments. The more practice you can get with PDN the better off you'll be when CC2 is released. Run through the calibration a few times and it'll be no big thing to re-calibrate.

Just my 2 cents.


Camden Hardy
camden[at]hardyphotography[dot]net
http://www.hardyphotography.net

 

[tsobota]

I use Agfa Copyjet film in sheets size A3, Epson 1290 printer.

 

[tom_micklin]

I think everyone will be very pleased and impressed with Curve Calculator II. Mark is still working on it but I don't know when it will be released. It has some really cool features.

No more Excel spreadsheet work! And no more 101 step tonal palettes to print and read! Though you will still have a number of readings to make to complete a calibration.

Don Bryant

That's all great but we've been hearing about it for almost a year and there is still no real idea of when we might see it.
What's realistic? Another month, six months, a year??

 

[donbga]

That's all great but we've been hearing about it for almost a year and there is still no real idea of when we might see it.
What's realistic? Another month, six months, a year??

Tom,

I can't answer that question. There are multiple beta testers testing with different processes on different platforms testing different beta versions. Mark is developing this by himself so obviously a lot of things have to pass muster.

My only motivation is to share my enthusiasm <sp?> about the product.

I can only encourage everyone that is a registerd user to look for an improved method and interface as well as some new features which I can't disclose.

I would like to tell you a specific date for release but can't because I just don't know.

Don

 

[tom_micklin]

Thanks Don,
I understand the situation, but am eager to test some new twists to what I'm doing and really don't want to go through the calibration thing without the CC2.
It's a pile of work that I just don't have time for.
Maybe I'll give that ChartThrob a shot.
Tom

 

[RobertP]

I've been a staunch in-camera negative user for many years. I shoot 8x10 and 8x20 and work mostly in pt/pd medium. Now don't get me wrong I can find a composition with the 8x20 in just about evey situation but there are times that I wish i could shoot it with a 16x20 instead. So recently I've been considering a 16x20 ULF camera. This was until I saw some images made from enlarged digital negatives and I was totally stunned at the quality of the prints. This has me looking at shooting with the 8x10 and scanning and printing a 16x20 negative. This is where the learning curve starts. I'm kinda leaning toward a system the would include a Epson 3800 printer and an Epson V750-M pro series scanner. My question(s) are...My computer is a Mac Super Mini...1.42 Power PC G4 (1.2)......512MB of memory. Is this enough computer to handle what I want to do and would all this be compatible with the PDN software? This all would be less of an investment than a new 16x20 camera not to mention the portability issues that go along with ULF photography. I was totally impressed with those funny green looking negatives and what they can produce. Thanks for any and all advice.

 

[donbga]

If at all possible put as much memory in your box as you can or you can afford. That's mainly to benefit your image editing in Photo Shop because with an 8x10 negative you will be working with large files, especially after adding a few layers for curves and levels adjustments, a copy of the background layer for spotting and any additional layers you may add for dodging, burning, etc. Just remember layers are your friends. I have PSD files that originally started as 2400 DPI scans of 4x5 inch that have ballooned into 10 plus gigabyte files due to my use of layers. Also note that I'm working in a 48 bit color space (Adobe 1998) for scans of B&W negatives. 5x7 and 8x10 scans fo up from there.

If you scan in 16 B&W you will have to convert them to RGB so if possible scan in 48 bit RGB to begin with. You can examine each of the color channels once in PS and choose the one that provides the best image, drop the other channels and then copy or duplicte the remaining channel to have a full RGB file as PDN requires an RGB file. The good news is that you can flatten the file prior to making a negative so printing times aren't extreme.

Also if possible use a seperate hard drive(s) for PS temp. swap files.

As far as the current version of PDN goes it really doesn't require an intense computing environment since the active parts you will use are Excell spreadsheet macros.

A 1.42 GHz processor may be a bit slow but you should be able to do okay. Experience will tell you if that is true or not. Keeping your hard drive defragged will also help.

And yes a good scann of from an 8x10 negative can be impressive.

One other thing I would suggest is to obtain a monitor calibrating device if you don't already have one. These things really make a difference and allow you to see subtle differences in tonality on your screen especially in your shadows and highlights.

Good luck,

Don Bryant

 

[mkochsch]

... This has me looking at shooting with the 8x10 and scanning and printing a 16x20 negative. This is where the learning curve starts. I'm kinda leaning toward a system the would include a Epson 3800 printer and an Epson V750-M pro series scanner. My question(s) are...My computer is a Mac Super Mini...1.42 Power PC G4 (1.2)......512MB of memory...

Robert to calculate the size requirements of scanning an 8x10 to 16x20:
Assuming you'll be printing at 360dpi output on your Epson.
360*16= 5760 dots height (printed)
360*20= 7200 dots width (printed)

7200/10 = 720 is the required scanner resolution
5760/8 = 720 is the required scanner resultion

(as an option if you added some CPU memory: use VueScan and scan using double this figure (1440 DPI) and have VueScan work its magic using a Tiff File Reduction factor of 2x.)

So your working file will be about an 80 meg tiff file as a 16-bit grey, which, once you make your "Levels" correction you can reduce down to 8-bit for printing making it a 39.6 meg, should be easily handled by your current system. There really is no point over scanning to the Nth degree. Even the above "option" is just that. You won't see any more detail in the print. Where you'll gain the most quality using the V750 is not it high DPI it is in the shadows and highlights since it has a pretty good dMax to noise rating.
Don't believe any of the above, go to Scantips.com and redo the math. Good scanning.