New to alt processes, looking for advice

[Patrick Robert James]

I'm a guy that often thinks outside the box. Can you share why and what other vendor(s) would you consider, yourself?

I use a Canon Pro10. It isn't like there is a lot of choice. Epson or Canon is it. If you want to go big then HP makes a good printer too. Some people think they are the best but I don't have any experience with current ones. They used to make a great 13" printer but that was a long time ago.

Canon printers really don't clog, and the printer heads can be removed and cleaned if you have to, or just replaced. They just pop out. Try that with an Epson... I don't keep up with printers though so I don't know what they have now. Downside of using a Canon is no one else does, but I've been using stinkjet printers since 97 so I frankly don't do things the way others do. I don't print a lot either. These days I only do digital negs and some color prints when I am in the mood. I don't turn my printer on for months at a time. Can't remember the last time I did actually. If I did that with an Epson it would be already be long gone.

If you are really mostly interested in gum prints then a dye printer will do. Gum prints need multiple layers anyway so it isn't as critical. I have a friend that makes phenomenal gum prints with a Canon dye printer. He will typically do 6 or more layers though. That is a lot of work.

Whenever someone says their Epson doesn't clog it is like they are saying their dog doesn't bite. Not all of them will but you don't want to pet the one that does.

 

[MTGseattle]

@MattKing Oh yes. I'm fully aware of 8x10 and larger film prices. I've done some more reading outside of this thread, and I see a whole range of benefits inherent to a digital negative when talking about alt processes. For me, this is all information to file away for a later date though.

 

[tnp651]

Hello, I'm new to alt processes. I have always wanted to do gum bichromate, like since forever. And I'm discovering Gum over Cyanotype and Gum over Platinum/Palladium and now I want to make plans financially to get set up with necessary equipment.

I would like to know first what kind of printer is best for making the digital negative from my negative scan? I realize the printing size will be a concern for price so let's just say my budget would be usually described as moderate but not exorbitant. I still try to get a good value. I am understanding from a few people that ink jet is the way to do, not lazer. So any suggestions? To be honest it would be real nice to be able to print at least an 11 x 14 area, but long term I want bigger. Maybe I have to start with 8.5. Would like to cut through all this incredible research time it takes to select a worthy printer.

Thanks!

Perry, most of the alt process people I know use Epson printers with their Ultrachrome pigment inks. They give more opacity, which gives you more dynamic range on the negative.
Tom Nelson

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Perry, most of the alt process people I know use Epson printers with their Ultrachrome pigment inks. They give more opacity, which gives you more dynamic range on the negative.
Tom Nelson

I can attest to that.

For salt prints I started with our P600 in ABW mode at 'Darkest +75Y' after reading about how dense negatives were supposed to be, and ended up working backwards through testing to 'Light 0Y' which gave a "max black" and a "white" paper base (using a Clay Harmon step tablet) at a 12 minute exposure using a DIY UV LED (Tim Layton style) light source.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Should add...haven't finished testing so my ABW ink density setting may change...not satisfied with lightest tones yet.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I hated Epson printers. Then I got a P900 last winter for making digital negatives. The clogging issue seems to have been tamed. And the ink prices with the P900 seem lower, because they use big(ger) ink tanks that last awhile. And the P900 opens doors to a lot of accumulated wisdom, as well as to software solutions like QTR and QuickCurve-DN, a program from Richard Boutwell that simplifies the curve linearization process immensely.

FWIW, I got the P900 instead of the P700 because the P900 comes with a lot more ink, and saves you some cash by avoiding a quick inkset repurchase after initializing the printer.

I have a story about my Epson experience. The printer box was damaged in transit, and after a week or so I realized that the paper path had been knocked out of alignment, causing frequent paper jams. I called the line for P900 tech support. A human answered the phone, with no wait. I explained the problem, prepared to joust. But Epson Guy was really helpful. At no cost, he sent me a new P900, that arrived at my door (in the middle of nowhere) THE VERY NEXT MORNING, with instructions to put my damaged P900 in the new printer box, and give it back to FedEx for return shipping at Epson's expense.

After I hung up, I thought this was all too good to be true. Imagine: A company that did the right thing, without delay, at their expense! But then I worried that this would require buying a new inkset. When I opened the new box, there was a new full inkset on top of the printer. And then, as I took the printer from the box: A SECOND full inkset beneath it. Incredible.

The printer has been a champ for printing digital negatives. Occasionally a head starts to clog, but a 3-minute cleaning cycle clears it -- no big deal. It's a great printer. And I have newfound respect for Epson -- fantastic customer support.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

My question, then: given those constraints, would it make more sense to outsource the digital negatives? There appear to be a number of places in the UK that provide that service, and I believe that Cone here in the States does as well. If I went this route, what would I be giving up?

I think I would be comfortable with the prospect of making a few more test strips along the way, but I’m not sure how much calibration is needed to allow for enough linearization to burn/dodge, etc. I’d also be curious if the particular alt process one is working with affects the amount of fine tuning necessary— Pt/Pd for instance might be more ‘sensitive) than, say, VDB?

I considered outsourcing when I started printing kallitypes. In retrospect, I am glad I did not. There is a lot of trial and error in the process of building a curve for making your negatives. Every time you change one variable, you have to go back and adjust your curve to account for the change. If you want to get the most from any process, you will find yourself printing, squinting, editing, rereading sources, relinearising, printing again, and repeating until you reach that happy place where your blacks look black, your whites are paperwhite, and your transitions aren't posterizing.

Outsourcing the negatives will give you generic versions that are not tuned to your processes -- to your papers, your chemicals, your exposures, your manipulations. It all goes into the final image -- even how you agitate the print in the chemical trays. An outsourced negative may give you printable results but not optimal results.

And outsourced negatives box you into one print size. When I was immersing myself into kallitypes, I often printed 4x6-inch negatives onto 5x7 paper to see how the image worked on paper, before committing to a print at larger sizes. Having the flexibility to make lots of prints at different sizes is a huge plus while you are building your curves and learning the process.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

if I am being honest with myself, I am a very low volume photographer—one finished print per month remains an aspirational goal. As such, I have to question the cost outlay for a printer (and perhaps a scanner, as some people use in their work flows.)

Once you become proficient in your process, you may find yourself printing a lot more than you imagined. Because these processes are fun. And, with the ability to make negatives from any source, you open the door to your entire catalog of images from the past. Including stuff rattling around in your iPhone. You will be amazed at the beautiful prints you will pull from old snapshots.

I see you are in Knoxville. I'm on the other side of the mountain. If I can be of help, let me know.

 

[CreationBear]

Thank you kindly, Sanders—a great précis! The plan right now is to go all analog with my 8x10 until I become more proficient with the basics, then to leverage a MF system for hybrid work for the reasons I mentioned. I will say your IR work is also fueling my aspirations, given our shared AO here in the Southern Highlands. (You’ll be happy to know my Airedale hails from Mars Hill as well.)

 

[juan]

You might find Christina Anderson’s book on salt printing useful. She goes into tailoring an inkjet negative for alt processes.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Thank you kindly, Sanders—a great précis! The plan right now is to go all analog with my 8x10 until I become more proficient with the basics, then to leverage a MF system for hybrid work for the reasons I mentioned. I will say your IR work is also fueling my aspirations, given our shared AO here in the Southern Highlands. (You’ll be happy to know my Airedale hails from Mars Hill as well.)

A noble lineage.

Murray (#29) mentioned Clay Harmon. Clay teaches workshops in digital negatives and alt processes, and he lives and works nearby in Asheville. If you can manage it, a day with Clay will save you months of frustration and heartache. If his scheduled workshops don't work for you, Clay will probably book an individual session for you.

Clay has also defanged the hardest part of linearizing digital negatives -- reading and transcribing the light values off of printed test charts. Clay found a $60 consumer colorimeter called a Color Muse that reads LAB values as well as professional meters costing much much more. Clay has even created a step chart tailored for the Color Muse, and a web app for transcribing the results into a form readable by QuickCurve and other linearizing apps. Here's the link to Clay's site:

Color Muse: an inexpensive colorimeter to use for digital negatives · Clay Harmon Blog

clayharmonblog.com

Clay's workshop schedule:

Workshops and Events · Clay Harmon Blog

clayharmonblog.com

A last word of caution: A lot of very experienced and well-meaning people draw incorrect conclusions from their experiences, and publish them in books and web posts as Gospel. (Myself included.) The only way you will become proficient in these processes is by trial and error, and by remembering to challenge received wisdom once you've ruled out other plausible explanations for your issue. This is not rocket science but there are a dozen different learning curves to conquer. Have fun along the way.

 

[retina_restoration]

I have a Canon printer and it’s pretty useless when it comes to making digital negatives: the inks do not have sufficient density to make a usable salt print neg.
yes, 8x10 film can be $$$, but tell me how much buying an Epson P900 plus Pictorico film plus pigments is going to cost you? You can buy a heckuva lot of film for that and you’ll have superior negatives in the long run. I’ve tested CatLabs X80 II for salt print making and it works well. That stuff is $80 less than FP4

 

[CreationBear]

Thanks again, Sanders—I’ll definitely check into what Clay Harmon is up to…didn’t he run a workshop with Bill Schwab pre-Covid? The irony of course is all I’m looking for is the tiniest increase in print size (10x12 or so) but it’s amazing how that‘s enough to complicate life.

Retina Restoration, that’s very welcome news about that film--I had been following Andrew O’Neil a bit, but afaik he hasn’t talked about how it works for his alt prints.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

8x10 film can be $$$, but tell me how much buying an Epson P900 plus Pictorico film plus pigments is going to cost you?

A much less expensive alternative to Pictorico is Fixxons. Tom Nelson @tnp651 posted a comparison of Fixxons and Pictorico substrates and found no advantage to using Pictorico:

 

[koraks]

A much less expensive alternative to Pictorico is Fixxons.

And yet more affordable is generic screen printing inkjet film. It's a fraction of the cost of Fixxons, but the quality differences are marginal. Fixxons can take a little more ink before it starts doing wonky things, but the screen printing film takes more than enough ink for processes that require lots of density. Check screen printing supplies web site and order a pack of their generic inkjet film; give it a try sometime. It's a tip I got from @Andrew O'Neill

 

[MurrayMinchin]

A last word of caution: A lot of very experienced and well-meaning people draw incorrect conclusions from their experiences, and publish them in books and web posts as Gospel. (Myself included.) The only way you will become proficient in these processes is by trial and error, and by remembering to challenge received wisdom once you've ruled out other plausible explanations for your issue. This is not rocket science but there are a dozen different learning curves to conquer. Have fun along the way.

That there is a gold star worthy post

 

[nmp]

That there is a gold star worthy post

I would say that it is not that their conclusions are wrong - they may well be - but the generalizations that those conclusions are applicable equally in an another person's particular circumstances can oftentimes be wrong. Kind of like the elephant and 4 blind men, it depends on one's vantage point.

:Niranjan.

 

[koraks]

I agree with what @nmp says. What all practitioners say is probably right - in their specific setup, within their preferences and capabilities, and at the time of writing. All of these factors vary and can shift over time, and that makes generalizations a bit tricky.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

I would say that it is not that their conclusions are wrong - they may well be - but the generalizations that those conclusions are applicable equally in an another person's particular circumstances can oftentimes be wrong. Kind of like the elephant and 4 blind men, it depends on one's vantage point.

:Niranjan.

I’ll agree wholeheartedly with that as well.

I took Sander’s comment as demonstrating a perfect attitude for all things photography.

Lots of people get a blinders on attitude when they adopt the methods others have proselytized. My openness and flexibility to experiment and find solutions specific to the environment I photograph in and the way I see was hugely impacted by reading White, Zakia, & Lorenz’s book, The New Zone System Manual.

They showed that within all the rules defined by sensitometry, chemistry, and physics, you can chart your own path.

Fight the dogma chains!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

...and...the irony is that whoever "wrote the book" (or the forum post) has most likely evolved, refined, or changed their methods since sharing them.

 

[nmp]

...and...the irony is that whoever "wrote the book" (or the forum post) has most likely evolved, refined, or changed their methods since sharing them.

You can see that sometimes in the videos. If you happen to look at an earlier one, it shows something one way. So you start doing it that way. Then a problem surfaces. So you go back and watch more newer vidoes - sure enough the author has moved on from that technique too, for whatever reason and now found an alternate way.

But it's all good though. Other people's experiences give us the foundation, not the full-built house. That you still got to do yourself.

:Niranjan.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

You can see that sometimes in the videos. If you happen to look at an earlier one, it shows something one way. So you start doing it that way. Then a problem surfaces. So you go back and watch more newer vidoes - sure enough the author has moved on from that technique too, for whatever reason and now found an alternate way.

But it's all good though. Other people's experiences give us the foundation, not the full-built house. That you still got to do yourself.

:Niranjan.

Another gold star post

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Then, every person learns in different ways.

I bought QTR & Print Tool (and Mrhar's Easy Digital Negatives book) but when I try to understand the QTR ecosystem it's like looking at a plate of spaghetti and trying to figure out which noodle is which. It's a miracle I even got through the computer/printer maze of hurdles!

The way I'm learning how to make digitally enlarged negatives for salt prints is to adjust the curve shape manually in Capture One. Not the best way, I'm sure, but with every little tweak there's a corespondency huge impact on the prints. Theory is, once having gone through this process, I'll have a somewhat intuitive understanding of what's going on.

So far, including a little romp down Kallitype Road, I've gone through one 25 sheet package of 11x15 Hahnemuhle Platinum Rag paper with 95% of the prints being step tablets. All that coating & processing has been good practice. Have been toning with gold so far, and may try palladium for 'serious' prints later. Will probably have to adjust the curve yet again, but that's okay, should go quicker next time.

Even if 'everybody' turns out to be right and I end up having to flounder my way up the QTR learning curve, it will not have been wasted effort.

 

[MTGseattle]

I'm not trying to muddy the waters here. As I alluded to, I'm just dipping my toes back into the waters of film photography. I recently acquired an 8x10 camera and I have always liked Carbon transfer printing as a process. With that idea fluttering around in my head, I've started researching what various folks are doing with that process these days, and any new equipment choices. The only slightly "scary" thing is potentially ruining and in camera negative by having it get stuck during the process. It's not a certainty, but it can happen. that's where the digital negative comes in.

I've also done some reading/watching the process of Calvin Grier who seems to have maxed out the technical side of multi-layer transfer. It can be discouraging to try and compare the very brief carbon printing I did in college with an artist who has custom tailored their entire workspace to a specific output. (I feel like there must be multiple artists working in this space, but am unsure) Sometimes we have to step back and realize that printing like "X" might be good for learning or at least something to strive for but does the vision of "X" match yours? That is the real question. While a triple-layer black and white carbon transfer may be the current pinnacle, I'm ok starting out with a "normal" version of the process.

Here's the "discouraging" video;

 

[Rolleiflexible]

What all practitioners say is probably right - in their specific setup, within their preferences and capabilities, and at the time of writing. All of these factors vary and can shift over time, and that makes generalizations a bit tricky.

That's being overly generous. We are only human. We experience problems, reach a solution, and then make the false assumption that the solution worked, when in fact it might just be a patch on a patch.

An example from my own experience: I was coating paper unevenly, with patchy blacks. One mentor said I should be double-coating the sensitizer. So I did. Problem solved, except then I started getting lots of staining in the final print. The problem, for me, was not that I needed a second coat of sensitizer. It was that I was not very good at laying down an even first coat. For awhile I espoused the need of a second coat. It was a logical inference. But also an incorrect one.

There is an unbelievable amount of misinformation floating around about these processes, passed off as grounded in fact. Ask writers always to explain their conclusions, ask plenty of follow-ups, read the responses with a critical eye, and see whether the conclusions seem supported by the evidence. Not out of disrespect to the writer, but to gain a better understanding of how their experiences support the lessons they draw from them.