New Pictorico Ultra OHP

Jeremy · Nov 4, 2006

Has anyone tried the new Pictorico Ultra OHP and give us any sort of comparison? I have a roll sitting at the house and was just wondering what to expect (but I'm waiting for the printer to arrive).

Since I print 8"x12" (from dslr) and 9.6"x12" (from 4x5negs) the 13" roll seems much cheaper than 13"x19" sheets!

xtype · Nov 21, 2006

pictorico assure me that it absorbs ink better - i also have an untested roll waiting...

Ron-san · Dec 3, 2006

Jeremy Moore said:
Has anyone tried the new Pictorico Ultra OHP and give us any sort of comparison? I have a roll sitting at the house and was just wondering what to expect (but I'm waiting for the printer to arrive).

Since I print 8"x12" (from dslr) and 9.6"x12" (from 4x5negs) the 13" roll seems much cheaper than 13"x19" sheets!

I have now gone through two rolls of the new Pictorico Ultra OHP and I think I am going back to the older stuff. I admit I have not done any rigorous testing, but looking at palladium prints made with either material, I cannot see any substantive difference in smoothness of tone. Also, looking at the negs with a loupe I cannot see any obvious difference in dot pattern.
The Ultra OHP is supposed to take more ink. However, printing with a Quadtone profile that uses all seven of the Ultrachrome inks on my Epson 4000 I have no problem achieving densities in the ultraviolet of over 4.0 on the old style OHP. That is more than enough density for any purpose I use it for. So, unless some of you folks come up with a compelling reason to switch, I think I will just save some money and stay with the standard, old style OHP. Cheers, Ron-san

donbga · Dec 3, 2006

Ron-san said:
I have no problem achieving densities in the ultraviolet of over 4.0 on the old style OHP.

I presume you are using black ink to get that kind of UV density or are you using a combination of all color inks?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Ron-san · Dec 3, 2006

Don Bryant said:
I presume you are using black ink to get that kind of UV density or are you using a combination of all color inks?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Don, On the old OHP I use a QTR profile called RR4000-UCmk7-OHP-Pd that is attached to this message. This profile uses matte black and light black ink plus a lesser amount of all the others. It makes fine negs for printing on palladium. As you can see, the default ink limit is only set at 44, so it could be dialed up much higher (I did it once by accident) and you will get a much, much denser neg. I don't know how high you can go before the ink begins to run, but the density is well over 4.0 in the UV.
To try out the Ultra OHP I decided it needed a slightly different profile, so I redid it and while I was at it I dialed the matte black ink way down, kept the light black about where it was, and increased all the others. This profile is attached and is called RR4000-UCmk7-OHPU-Pd. To my eye I cannot see any quality difference, due to either the lower usage of dark black, nor to usage of Ultra OHP.
I really wonder if the fear of black inks is not a red herring? Certainly you get inferior negs when you print with only matte black and light black ink. But I bet the printer would also print poor negs if you only used Cyan and light Cyan (never done the experiment, though). My guess is that using all possible inks leads to smoother tones, but no one ink is better or worse than any other. Anyone have any hard evidence to the contrary?? Cheers, Ron-san

Jeremy · Dec 3, 2006

I have been cutting the roll down to 13" x 8" and gang printing 2 5.5" x 6.875" digital negatives on each of these sheets. At this size and the larger 9.6" x 12" size I'm working with, it's cheaper to go with the roll and cut it down than to print on 8.5"x11" or 13"x19"

clay · Dec 4, 2006

I am beginning to think the whole fear of black inks is a little misguided. My do-it-yourself approach (Color ratio) that I documented on alternativephotography.com uses black inks since the colors are in RGB space, and I have never had any issues with it.

Ron, I wanted to tell you that I got your new book from Amazon the other day, and it is very well written and informative. The chapter on QTR is eye-opening, and the profiles you posted here for the 2200 are working really well. So well in fact, that I am debating whether futzing with making the QTR profile print me some of my green negatives is just a waste of time. The idea that you can dispense with correction curves altogether and just hit command-I and then flip your negative and print is pretty compelling. My other thought is that if you think about what we are doing when we apply curves in photoshop, we are taking the file and 'bending' it once before sending it to the printer driver which will 'bend' it again. With the inevitable losses that occur with any numerical transform on a data file, it makes a lot of sense to me to just do it one time. Oh well, Philosophy 101....

Clay

Ron-san said:
Don, On the old OHP I use a QTR profile called RR4000-UCmk7-OHP-Pd that is attached to this message. This profile uses matte black and light black ink plus a lesser amount of all the others. It makes fine negs for printing on palladium. As you can see, the default ink limit is only set at 44, so it could be dialed up much higher (I did it once by accident) and you will get a much, much denser neg. I don't know how high you can go before the ink begins to run, but the density is well over 4.0 in the UV.
To try out the Ultra OHP I decided it needed a slightly different profile, so I redid it and while I was at it I dialed the matte black ink way down, kept the light black about where it was, and increased all the others. This profile is attached and is called RR4000-UCmk7-OHPU-Pd. To my eye I cannot see any quality difference, due to either the lower usage of dark black, nor to usage of Ultra OHP.
I really wonder if the fear of black inks is not a red herring? Certainly you get inferior negs when you print with only matte black and light black ink. But I bet the printer would also print poor negs if you only used Cyan and light Cyan (never done the experiment, though). My guess is that using all possible inks leads to smoother tones, but no one ink is better or worse than any other. Anyone have any hard evidence to the contrary?? Cheers, Ron-san

Ron-san · Dec 4, 2006

clay said:
I am beginning to think the whole fear of black inks is a little misguided. My do-it-yourself approach (Color ratio) that I documented on alternativephotography.com uses black inks since the colors are in RGB space, and I have never had any issues with it.

Ron, I wanted to tell you that I got your new book from Amazon the other day, and it is very well written and informative. The chapter on QTR is eye-opening, and the profiles you posted here for the 2200 are working really well. So well in fact, that I am debating whether futzing with making the QTR profile print me some of my green negatives is just a waste of time. The idea that you can dispense with correction curves altogether and just hit command-I and then flip your negative and print is pretty compelling. My other thought is that if you think about what we are doing when we apply curves in photoshop, we are taking the file and 'bending' it once before sending it to the printer driver which will 'bend' it again. With the inevitable losses that occur with any numerical transform on a data file, it makes a lot of sense to me to just do it one time. Oh well, Philosophy 101....

Clay

Thanks, Clay. Can I get you to write ad copy for the book?? Actually, I am a bit embarassed about how out of date the book already is, and the number of typos it contains. Brad and I are going to try and address these issues with updates on our web site www.digital-negatives.com. Cheers, Ron Reeder

Nathan Jones · Dec 4, 2006

Ron, the book is great. You are shooting at a moving target. Already, your updates are useful. The recent one on QTR controls to address banding ---I can't think of a more pertinent issue. Keep up the good work. ---Nathan

Jeremy · Dec 4, 2006

The curve I use is mostly color, but does use the black inks, too. Ron, I got my 2200 working again so once I finish the set of prints I'm doing right now I'll give the QTR a try and see the difference.

Jeremy · Dec 4, 2006

Shoot, I just realized that you're using the matte black ink while I'm using the photo black so I'll just keep with what's working for me right now until I pick up some matte black.

RobertP · Dec 4, 2006

Ron, Can these profiles be used with the new 3800. Or are there any plans in the future for custom profiles for the 3800 inkset?As I am beginning to understand this a little better this QRT will really cut the photoshop use once you have your profiles made. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Thanks , Robert

Ron-san · Dec 4, 2006

RobertP said:
Ron, Can these profiles be used with the new 3800. Or are there any plans in the future for custom profiles for the 3800 inkset?As I am beginning to understand this a little better this QRT will really cut the photoshop use once you have your profiles made. Please correct me if I'm wrong.Thanks , Robert

RobertP -- As I understand the 3800 uses the K3 inkset. So I hope that the profiles I have written for the 2400 will be in the ball park. But I also expect that profiles will have to be specifically fine tuned for the 3800. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a 3800 and cannot at present write profiles for it. I would hope, though, that the instructions in the book and on our website would inspire some of you out there to make profiles for the 3800. I would be more than happy to post them on our website if anyone makes one they want to share. Cheers, Ron-san

bradhi · Dec 5, 2006

I'd like to second Ron's comments about the 3800. I'd start with the 2400 profiles just to experiment - but I'm curious about your results with the 3800. If this printer really becomes a popular printer for the 'darkroom'; we'll need to figure out how to get some curves for it.
[I had completely forgotten about this printer until I read this post - mostly, I'd recommend the 4800 - I think it is worth the extra price - but I can see where someone who is a moderate hobbiest (i.e. doesn't want to spend all the money up front) would find the 3800 a great option].

RobertP · Dec 6, 2006

Brad, The initial response from the couple of people that have received the 3800 is that it prints very much of the same quality as the 4800 if not better. I think these new units just started shipping within the last couple of weeks. I haven't heard of any extensive comparison tests though.

donbga · Dec 6, 2006

bradhi said:
I'd like to second Ron's comments about the 3800. I'd start with the 2400 profiles just to experiment - but I'm curious about your results with the 3800. If this printer really becomes a popular printer for the 'darkroom'; we'll need to figure out how to get some curves for it.
[I had completely forgotten about this printer until I read this post - mostly, I'd recommend the 4800 - I think it is worth the extra price - but I can see where someone who is a moderate hobbiest (i.e. doesn't want to spend all the money up front) would find the 3800 a great option].

There is a signifigant difference in the output of the 3800 vs. the 4800.

From Epson:
Along with a new nozzle and head design, software changes have added an all-new radical algorithm for determining dot placement and screening, resulting in an extreme-level of photographic image quality.
These allow the printer to produce extremely fine photographic prints even in bi-directional and lower resolution print modes.
The driver now compensates for various ink densities between resolutions - allowing for a single ICC profile to be used per media type (no more need for a separate 2880 and a 1440 profile, you just need one!). The 3800 is also FAST: Epson Driver Print Mode4 x 65 x 78 x 1011 x 1416 x 20SuperFine - 1440 dpi HS1:001:142:033:185:32SuperFine - 1440 dpi2:002:294:086:3910:59SuperPhoto - 2880 dpi HS1:532:193:506:049:46SuperPhoto - 2880 dpi3:514:437:4712:1519:40

Don Bryant

donbga · Dec 6, 2006

Ron-san said:
Don, On the old OHP I use a QTR profile called RR4000-UCmk7-OHP-Pd that is attached to this message. This profile uses matte black and light black ink plus a lesser amount of all the others. It makes fine negs for printing on palladium. As you can see, the default ink limit is only set at 44, so it could be dialed up much higher (I did it once by accident) and you will get a much, much denser neg. I don't know how high you can go before the ink begins to run, but the density is well over 4.0 in the UV.
To try out the Ultra OHP I decided it needed a slightly different profile, so I redid it and while I was at it I dialed the matte black ink way down, kept the light black about where it was, and increased all the others. This profile is attached and is called RR4000-UCmk7-OHPU-Pd. To my eye I cannot see any quality difference, due to either the lower usage of dark black, nor to usage of Ultra OHP.
I really wonder if the fear of black inks is not a red herring? Certainly you get inferior negs when you print with only matte black and light black ink. But I bet the printer would also print poor negs if you only used Cyan and light Cyan (never done the experiment, though). My guess is that using all possible inks leads to smoother tones, but no one ink is better or worse than any other. Anyone have any hard evidence to the contrary?? Cheers, Ron-san

Hi Ron,

I haven't got your book yet, but plan to in Jan. '07. And without reading about you method using QTR I can't comment about the use of black ink. I look forward to reading your new book.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

donbga · Dec 7, 2006

Don Bryant said:
Hi Ron,

I haven't got your book yet, but plan to in Jan. '07. And without reading about you method using QTR I can't comment about the use of black ink. I look forward to reading your new book.

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Okay. I just order the book from Amazon and it will be here next week. It should be an interesting read.

Don Bryant

tim rudman · Dec 8, 2006

I have to wait until Christmas - my kids are giving it to me.
I look forward to reading it Ron
Tim

tim rudman · Dec 8, 2006

Ron-san said:
RobertP -- snip snip I would hope, though, that the instructions in the book and on our website would inspire some of you out there to make profiles for the 3800. I would be more than happy to post them on our website if anyone makes one they want to share. Cheers, Ron-san

Would you post your website address please Ron?
Tim

menglert · Dec 8, 2006

digital-negatives.com

ronreeder.com

RobertP · Dec 8, 2006

tim rudman said:
I have to wait until Christmas - my kids are giving it to me.
I look forward to reading it Ron
Tim

I was in the process of ordering it when my daughter took the mouse away from me. Apparently it was going to be a xmas surprise. So I had to listen to " Dad you always spoil your Christmas. You have no patience" So I have to wait until the 25th. Maybe I'll try ordering the epson 3800 online when the wife is watching just to see if it is on the way...lol

Ron-san · Dec 8, 2006

tim rudman said:
Would you post your website address please Ron?
Tim

Tim-- My personal web site is ronreeder.com. Brad and I have a joint web site at www.digital-negatives.com where we hope to put updates, corrections, QTR profiles, and other info of interest to readers of our book. There is not a whole lot on the digital-negatives.com site as yet, but we hope to keep adding stuff.
By the way, Tim, I read your post about using digital negs to make lith prints. You might want to try making such negs using Pictorico OHP instead of white film. I have recently made a number of negs on OHP, intended for printing on silver gelatin. For those images where the original was a bit grainy I thought the OHP negs were very good. It is my impression, from the few lith prints I have seen in person, that a bit of enhanced graininess is part of their charm. If that is true, then any grain structure contributed by the OHP would just add to the overall effect. And you would not have to blast light through the semi-opaque white film.
As a further aside, I do not think the "grain" in OHP negs comes from the OHP itself. If you take a clear piece of OHP and expose through it so that you get a light gray on silver gelatin paper you see a very smooth, grainless tone. The "grain" must come from the way in which inks interact with the OHP. (but, of course, it still looks like grain!). Cheers, Ron-san

Ron-san · Dec 8, 2006

Don Bryant said:
There is a signifigant difference in the output of
Don Bryant

Wow-- Thanks for posting the 3800 vs 4800 dot structure comparison. I wonder if this printer (the 3800) will be able to print no-compromise negs for silver gelatin using Pictorico OHP?? I hope someone will try soon and let us know. Unfortunately for me, Epson took a seemingly great machine and screwed up the user interface once again by omitting a roll feed feature. Maybe they will get it right on the next model. Cheers, Ron-san

donbga · Dec 8, 2006

Ron-san said:
Wow-- Thanks for posting the 3800 vs 4800 dot structure comparison. I wonder if this printer (the 3800) will be able to print no-compromise negs for silver gelatin using Pictorico OHP?? I hope someone will try soon and let us know. Unfortunately for me, Epson took a seemingly great machine and screwed up the user interface once again by omitting a roll feed feature. Maybe they will get it right on the next model. Cheers, Ron-san

Ron,

I think for some users the roll feed feature is a great plus but for me (I currently own a 2200) I've always thought it just added expense to the printer for a feature I didn't want. Ditto for the paper catcher and cutter.

Perhaps a better solution would have been to offer the roll feed as an accessory.

I too am hoping the 3800 will break the silver gelatin barrier without requiring the use of translucent substrates. A friend of mine here locally has one on order, perhaps he will be kind enough to let me make a few tests with it.

Don Bryant

New Pictorico Ultra OHP

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency