New dneg process - no interneg required

[keithwms]

Let me preface this by saying that this is a new process I am working on. It's not optimized yet... I post this to try to encourage others to help optimize it.

As we all know, the usual dneg workflow requires printing an interneg on transparency or paper. The spirit of this post is to show that one can bypass the internegative altogether and just print a negative directly onto the photopaper, expose it, remove the inkjet ink, and voila.

Here is my very first attempt at this. Again, it's far from perfect, this is just an early example which shows an image that is partially cleared using my thumbs and water. The left hand side is thumb-wiped and the right hand side is not, I will explain below...

What you are looking at is an exposure test on ilford rc postcard stock. The paper was fed normally into an epson inkjet printer which I had put in a film changing tent. I also covered the printer's LEDs with black tape to prevent fogging the paper. A test image was selected, it's the same one I used for some other hybrid trials on matte fiber. The image was curved, converted to a neg in photoshop, and simply printed directly onto the photopaper.

After inkjetting the neg onto the paper, I exposed the paper. In the case above, I obviously did an exposure series from top to bottom. Bottom was 30 sec under my enlarger, top was 5 sec. Next I developed the paper normally, in ilford chems, and after rinsing, I simply wiped away the inkjet ink, with my eager thumbs, from the left side of the paper.

As you see, almost all of the ink wipes right off. Almost all of it. Actually the inkjetted image is rather fragile on the RC... there are blotches here and there because I carelessly stacked several trial prints against each other before letting the ink dry. I think I put some fingerprints on there too. If you think about it, the highlights in the final print are the places where the ink was heaviest in the inkjet print, so if any of that ink blotches then you get blotchy highlights. So one needs to be more careful than I was.

There is the issue of how to get rid of all of the ink, but I think that is a problem that can be solved. Most important is to remember that the "negative" was right atop the paper emulsion so the image is sharp, sharp, sharp even though I didn't do anything to hold the paper flat i.e. no easel or contact printing frame

So there you have it, direct dnegs. A work in progress. Worst case, maybe the pigment has to be bleached off, or maybe a lesser non-pigment ink will make life easier. Bear in mind that this trial was with an RC paper, I don't now yet how things will go with fiber. I am thinking that one can bleach off the ink and be left with a purely analogue image. On the other hand, maybe you won't want to bleach it off entirely, maybe this opens up new creative possibilities. Silver image beneath a coloured pigment image? Whatever.

Possible advantages: no cost of interneg materials, and no need to hold an interneg perfectly flat against the photopaper to get tack-sharp contact prints. Oh and since you're not waiting for an interneg to dry, it's very fast. I imagine that if it works well, it could be scaled inexpensively to any carriage size. Also, I think that if you use pictorico transparency film or velum, one necessarily limits Dmin and introduces some texture via the substrate... this gets around that entirely.

 

[Ray Heath]

excellent Keith, that's an amazing concept

was the printing done in colour or mono?

how did you "curve" the image?

Ray

 

[keithwms]

Thanks Ray. I had fun tinkering.

The starting image was curved in the same way that I curve for digital negs... the highlights and shadows were quite heavily compressed toward the midtones.

The print was done in mono with matte black ink. I don't know if that's a good choice or a poor one... it was simply a starting point based on my observation that it smudges away nicely from the glossy RC surface.

 

[Ray Heath]

thnx Keith

how did you handle the paper in the darkroom?

was the ink still damp and or 'smudgy'?

how did you contact print?

did any of the ink wash off in the dev tray and what effect would it have on the solution?

Ray

 

[keithwms]

thnx Keith

how did you handle the paper in the darkroom?

was the ink still damp and or 'smudgy'?

how did you contact print?

did any of the ink wash off in the dev tray and what effect would it have on the solution?

Ray

There was no contact printing involved, I simply put the inkjet-imprinted photopaper under my enlarger and didn't bother to flatten it or easel it. Just laid it there and exposed it. Then I developed the paper normally. As you can well imagine, with the inkjet negative image and the developing silver image superimposed, the whole thing goes black; you can see that under safelights and then you know you're finished. Then I stopped and fixed normally. Then, under running water, I just smudged the inkjet ink away.

No, no ink came off in the dev tray (as far as I could tell).

Yes, the ink was still damp when I took it to the darkroom- I must have smudged it a bit before exposure because some of the ink was on the backside of an adjacent print. So to do this more carefully I need to isolate the prints, or better yet just take the printer into the darkroom and go directly from inkjet to exposure to developer.

 

[Ray Heath]

thnx Keith, silly me, of course there was no contact printing involved

Ray

 

[E Thomson]

Very clever indeed. I had been thinking along these lines, wondering if a gum or egg coating on a permanent polyester film base could be exposed from underneath through an inkjet-printed image. But this gets right to the point.

Well, here's one way to get the ink off; use the technique to make a gum print and it will clear with the gum. Unfortunately it might be difficult to perfectly register a second print for a second layer. Alternatively, with your approach, I would try mild alcohols or mild caustics to attack the binder in the ink. Possibly something as mild as propylene glycol would act as solvent.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's a cool idea. I'd guess some sort of solvent bath and a rinse before the developer would clear the ink.

 

[keithwms]

Thanks for the comments!

I had a second try today. This time I took my printer into the darkroom, printed onto Ilford RC glossy, exposed the paper right away, cleared the ink fully in water, and then processed the paper in the usual chems.

The results are much improved- now I see no smudging and the ink was 99% cleared with only water and minor finger rubbing. Tonally it looks as good as or better than the results I had before with normal diginegs.

I also tried Ilford fiber matte paper, and actually, clearing the ink isn't the problem... that still basically works (even better with a bit of isopropanol). The problem is that the ink kind of puddles on the surface of the paper. I tried various inks but didn't find a solution today.

So, for now, anything RC coated looks like it's quite easy. Also, by clearing the ink before development, you can easily see how well you've done against the white paper.

 

[keithwms]

This zoom shows that it's not perfect, I do still need to optimize the ink/paper settings. The zoom is from about ~1 inch of the print.

 

[E Thomson]

I'm trying to see on my screen what you're seeing as "not perfect". I see a convolute 'grain' pattern which I would expect to see at some magnification as the pattern the inkjet lays down. The pattern is similar to what my HP9180 lays down on Pictorico, looked at through a 8x loupe. I don't see any banding at all. I see some white flecks in the sky; dust on the paper interfering with the ink? And some white marring just above the bare branch almost in the middle of the detail.

This process could possibly work with ImagOn photogravure film. If the ImageOn could be mounted onto a sheet of mylar and printed in the inkjet, and the mylar mounted on a plate for the duration of the edition, then the ink would presumably clear with the developing. If the chemistry of the ink didn't attack the ImagOn. At the very least, it might save steps, possibly also giving great sharpness.

 

[keithwms]

I'm trying to see on my screen what you're seeing as "not perfect". I see a convolute 'grain' pattern which I would expect to see at some magnification as the pattern the inkjet lays down. The pattern is similar to what my HP9180 lays down on Pictorico, looked at through a 8x loupe. I don't see any banding at all. I see some white flecks in the sky; dust on the paper interfering with the ink? And some white marring just above the bare branch almost in the middle of the detail.

I agree that it's comparable to what you get with pictorico, or maybe even a bit better. It's just that there is some puddling, and even though that is invisible to the naked eye, it is indicative of what might happen with nonoptimal ink/paper settings.

This process could possibly work with ImagOn photogravure film.

Nice suggestion, thanks.

I am hopeful that a company like Ilford, which has photopaper (b&w, ilfo and ra4 'digital rc' stuff) and inkjet product development under one roof, could help this process out. If they wanted to, I think that Ilford could give us photopapers with inkjet-friendly, clearable coatings, in the form of uncut rolls. Tonable, hybrid contact prints of size no longer limited by flatness or light source...

 

[Ben Altman]

Good thinking, and thanks for sharing! I tried this very briefly a while ago with Pd Ziatype, but obviously the ink doesn't come off that sort of paper easily, so I gave up - with the intention of going back to it sometime. But the concept is elegant and worth some effort, I'd say. Maybe there some sort of coating that would peel off that one could use on hand-coated emulsion processes. Meanwhile working on photo papers makes good sense. I wonder if the "new Azo" paper from Michael Smith will work with this, when it's available.

Ben

 

[Paul_C]

I am hopeful that a company like Ilford, which has photopaper (b&w, ilfo and ra4 'digital rc' stuff) and inkjet product development under one roof...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/01/ilford-harman-w.html

 

[keithwms]

Thanks for the clarification Paul, so I guess the company I think of as Ilford is actually Harman. But still, since they make silver and inkjet papers, maybe they'll take interest in the possibilities.

Ben, I agree, some sort of peel-off layer sure would be nice for other processes.

 

[donbga]

I wonder if the "new Azo" paper from Michael Smith will work with this, when it's available.

Ben

What 'new Azo' paper?

Don Bryant

 

[livemoa]

What 'new Azo' paper?

Don Bryant

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are working on a replacement paper for Azo. There is stuff about it over on APUG and on their website http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/newpaper.html

But... back to the topic. Very interesting, very very interesting. A fibre paper with a lift off coating, now that would be the goer.

 

[donbga]

Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee are working on a replacement paper for Azo. There is stuff about it over on APUG and on their website http://michaelandpaula.com/mp/newpaper.html

Like I said, "What new Azo paper?"

Don Bryant

 

[livemoa]

Like I said, "What new Azo paper?"

Don Bryant

Ahhh, I see missed the irony, sorry.

Knowing Michael, if it can be made to happen, it will, even if just by force of will.

 

[keithwms]

Well I planted a seed a few days ago with Simon at APUG, who knows... but one thing I mentioned was a peel-off paper coating.

For alt process, if the paper has significant texture then I suppose one way to make it work would be to attach a saran coating or similar and print on that. I just haven't been able to get satisfactory prints by inkjetting directly onto highly textured papers, I doubt that will happen unless there is a coating. Maybe if there were some sort of peelable or clearable plastic coat that one could paint on or press on e.g. with a drymount press, then feed the sandwich through the inkjet printer, then expose...

On another note, I had also been thinking about depositing Pt/Pd solutions onto paper via inkjet, has anybody tried that? It seems like it'd be a nice way to control contrast and also conserve solutions. Anyway if you did that and also had a clearable inkjettable as well...

Anyway I will play with some more fiber papers.

 

[donbga]

Ahhh, I see missed the irony, sorry.

Knowing Michael, if it can be made to happen, it will, even if just by force of will.

I would say knowing Michael, it will be by force of money! Lots of money!

Don Bryant

 

[donbga]

For alt process, if the paper has significant texture then I suppose one way to make it work would be to attach a saran coating or similar and print on that.

Isn't that doing it the hard way? That is to say wouldn't creating a digital negative be more cost effective and repeatable?

On another note, I had also been thinking about depositing Pt/Pd solutions onto paper via inkjet, has anybody tried that?

Why not just use an airbrush? I've heard that Stephen Livick sprayed his gum dichromate coatings.

Don Bryant

 

[Ben Altman]

On another note, I had also been thinking about depositing Pt/Pd solutions onto paper via inkjet, has anybody tried that? It seems like it'd be a nice way to control contrast and also conserve solutions.

There was a brief discussion of this a while back on this forum - I don't have the thread to hand. As I recall the questions were whether it's worth doing for coating only, and if it's possible to actually spray-on an image to expose and develop (that was thought unlikely). I suppose in terms of coating one could actually load different cartridges with different solutions and thus vary tones in parts of the image. I think I'll let some other brave soul try this...

Ben

 

[keithwms]

Isn't that doing it the hard way? That is to say wouldn't creating a digital negative be more cost effective and repeatable?

Don, I see your point, but my overriding motivation here is to try to figure out ways to make the silver and alt processes so easy and accessible that even pure digital/inkjet users will be attracted.

Also there are some technical issues with conventional digital negs- it's hard to scale up to really large sizes on curly papers, and also the substrate of a digital neg does impart its own texture and transmission issues. In the simple example I gave, developing the right curve for the process was really easy, and it also wouldn't matter at all if the paper weren't flat in the exposure process. No easel or vacuum holder or top glass or whatever.

But yes, printing one by one is inherently more expensive, and I agree that making one digital neg and reusing it many times is a good value. I am just saying that if people could purchase prt--porter traditional papers for inkjets, it might help keep the traditional processes viable. And from the standpoint of a paper producer like Ilford, which must follow the general "produce it by the mile but sell it by the inch" marketing philosophy, this could be a good marketing opportunity.

 

[donbga]

I am just saying that if people could purchase prt--porter traditional papers for inkjets, it might help keep the traditional processes viable. And from the standpoint of a paper producer like Ilford, which must follow the general "produce it by the mile but sell it by the inch" marketing philosophy, this could be a good marketing opportunity.

While I think your idea is novel, I just don't see a special paper as being commercially viable - just a little to niche, but that's just my opinion.

What I would like to see instead is a digital exposure unit that could be used in the darkroom with gelatin silver paper. Similar to an inkjet printer, the paper would be exposed with a head containg tiny LEDs or something similar. The printer would be driven by a computer and output would come directly from Photoshop or similar image editor. That would eliminate the problem and expense of ink.

Anyway we can dream.

And for what it's worth digital negative for gelatin silver made with an Epson 3800 make pretty damn good prints. If I owned a 3800 I would experiment with QTR. There are users on this list who claim to be making extremely high quality gelatin silver enlargements using QTR and large format printers. The Epson 1800 may also be a good candidate. As for the paper curling I always use a vacuum easel for contacting printing LF and digital negs. so that's a non issue for me.

Don Bryant