New to digital negatives

davidb · Jan 9, 2007

Hello all,

I've been experimenting with digital negs for pt/pd printing for a few weeks now - and feel like I've got to the stage where I need some advice on how to proceed. Hence, hi to hybridphoto!

So far I've played around with some of the freely available curves and methods out there, and I've made some attempts at tweaking those ... resulting in a few ok-ish prints, but nothing very predictable.

What are the options for taking a more systematic approach to this? Is PDN the only game in town? What other methods are people here using? I'd be very grateful for any pointers.

David

menglert · Jan 9, 2007

PDN is the only system I have used that lets you test and develop your own curve for each process. Also, I think its well worth the money. LINK

Brad Hinkel recently released a book that also lets you develop your own curves, and uses QTR, but I have not picked up the book yet. LINK

Somewhere on the boards there was a software system that automates profiling, but I had limited luck getting an earlier version to work. Although, it seems some others have tried it and it worked well for them.

Dan Burkholder's book is a little older, but still has useful info. But the book uses premade curves, as opposed to making your own.

Regards,
Martin

Mark Fisher · Jan 12, 2007

I've been using PDN and recently picked up Ron Reeder's book. They seem to use somewhat different approaches (more similar than different, though) to get to a similar place....of course, I have not tried the Ron Reeder method yet. I can say that Ron's book is written in a far more approachable manner.

sanfrancisconudes · Jan 12, 2007

The free system is ChartThrob - see this thread http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36

I got some very nice results out of it after a few false starts.

Jordan · Jan 13, 2007

I just re-read the ChartThrob thread. It seems to automate the process I'm now using, which is to print out a digital neg of a 21-step 0->100 step wedge, contact-print it, scan the contact print, and then read the scanned values to make a "reverse curve" (I do it by hand).

If PS CS2 is really a free 30-day trial, I'm definitely going to try it out.

sanfrancisconudes · Jan 13, 2007

Jordan said:
I just re-read the ChartThrob thread. It seems to automate the process I'm now using, which is to print out a digital neg of a 21-step 0->100 step wedge, contact-print it, scan the contact print, and then read the scanned values to make a "reverse curve" (I do it by hand).

If PS CS2 is really a free 30-day trial, I'm definitely going to try it out.

Yep, same idea, nothing really "new", just saves time and it's free.

davidb · Jan 14, 2007

I'd just like to say thanks for the responses and the PMs - I feel like I'm getting to grips with the various ways of skinning this particular cat.

Ray Heath · Jan 15, 2007

g'day all

there is lots of advice for owners of a couple of Epson printers but how does one make the most of other printers such as the A4 HP Photosmart 8230

thnx
Ray

mkochsch · Jan 15, 2007

Ray Heath said:
g'day all

there is lots of advice for owners of a couple of Epson printers but how does one make the most of other printers such as the A4 HP Photosmart 8230

thnx
Ray

Any printer has the potential to print digital negatives. You calibrate the printer by printing a density wedge at your standard print time. The wedge could be a black and white stepwedge similar to a stouffer t2115 or t3110 or it could be a colour step wedge (a chart of numerically ordered Reds, blues and greens and combinations there of.) If the printer/ink/driver settings/OHP media combination gives you enough density for your process (test printed to your process ie. cyanotype) then you have a winner. I know people who use Canon printers.

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2007

I am considering using a 7 MP camera for street images. My question is how large a digital neg can I expect to obtain for pt-pd printing?

Beyond that has anyone had any experience with the Epson 1800? The gloss enhancer seems to be something that is not required for digital negs. Can the enhancer be disabled? It seems that it uses the Ultrachrome inks. Are these capable of effectively providing enough density with UV light?

Still further, are any of the HP printers suitable for digital negs, and if so what models?

Thanks for your help. I assure you that I have the barest modicum of knowledge about this.

sanking · Feb 19, 2007

mkochsch said:
Any printer has the potential to print digital negatives. You calibrate the printer by printing a density wedge at your standard print time. The wedge could be a black and white stepwedge similar to a stouffer t2115 or t3110 or it could be a colour step wedge (a chart of numerically ordered Reds, blues and greens and combinations there of.) If the printer/ink/driver settings/OHP media combination gives you enough density for your process (test printed to your process ie. cyanotype) then you have a winner. I know people who use Canon printers.

In my experience it is not true that any printer has the potential to print digital negatives. In fact, the UV blocking potential of many printers is simply not great enough for exposing UV sensitive processes. A couple of years ago I tested all of the HP and Canon printers then on the market and none produced enough UV blocking for alternative printing, though they made great prints. There are many new Canon and HP printers on the market today and it is entirely possible that some of them have sufficient UV blocking, but I would not assume that to be the case.

The UV blocking of pigmented ink set of the R1800 if marginal for making digital negatives, at least if you are working with spectral density negatives with PDN. On the other hand, printing a grayscale file in black ink does produce sufficient UV density, and the R1800 has the nice feature that it seems immunto to the dreaded Venetian blind disease. But I don't consider it an ideal printer for making digital negatives.

Sandy

Joe Lipka · Feb 19, 2007

Don - The rule that I use is to divide the sensor dimensions by 360 and that will be the size in inches of a very good digital negative.
6MP from my camera will do something like 9 by 11 or so.

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2007

sanking said:
In my experience it is not true that any printer has the potential to print digital negatives. In fact, the UV blocking potential of many printers is simply not great enough for exposing UV sensitive processes. A couple of years ago I tested all of the HP and Canon printers then on the market and none produced enough UV blocking for alternative printing, though they made great prints. There are many new Canon and HP printers on the market today and it is entirely possible that some of them have sufficient UV blocking, but I would not assume that to be the case.

The UV blocking of pigmented ink set of the R1800 if marginal for making digital negatives, at least if you are working with spectral density negatives with PDN. On the other hand, printing a grayscale file in black ink does produce sufficient UV density, and the R1800 has the nice feature that it seems immunto to the dreaded Venetian blind disease. But I don't consider it an ideal printer for making digital negatives.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy,

What are your thoughts on the Epson 2400? Additionally I will await your results with the 1400...Half the price of the 2400 makes me want to wait.

Anonymous · Feb 19, 2007

Joe Lipka said:
Don - The rule that I use is to divide the sensor dimensions by 360 and that will be the size in inches of a very good digital negative.
6MP from my camera will do something like 9 by 11 or so.

Joe, Thanks for the information.

dwross2 · Feb 19, 2007

Donald Miller said:
Thanks Sandy,

What are your thoughts on the Epson 2400? Additionally I will await your results with the 1400...Half the price of the 2400 makes me want to wait.

This thread seems to be addressed specifically to Pt/Pd printers, so perhaps I shouldn't weigh in, but I use the R2400 for digital negatives and I'm very happy with it and them. I contact print on handmade silver gelatin, but I've tested on Ilford Multigrade, and I've never found an objectionable quality, at least with the method I use. There seem to be so many techniques for producing good negatives that it may not be enough information to address the printer independent of the negative production technique.

donbga · Feb 19, 2007

Joe Lipka said:
Don - The rule that I use is to divide the sensor dimensions by 360 and that will be the size in inches of a very good digital negative.
6MP from my camera will do something like 9 by 11 or so.

Joe,

I'm not following you here at least math wise. When you say sensor dimensions are you speaking about the camera sensor dimensions?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Joe Lipka · Feb 19, 2007

My camera has the sensors arrayed 3040 x 4048. Dividing by 360 that comes out to 8.44 x 11.24 or there abouts. So, with no up rezzing, I can produce output 8.4" by 11.24".

That's plenty big enough for platinum/palladium prints.

donbga · Feb 19, 2007

Joe Lipka said:
My camera has the sensors arrayed 3040 x 4048. Dividing by 360 that comes out to 8.44 x 11.24 or there abouts. So, with no up rezzing, I can produce output 8.4" by 11.24".

That's plenty big enough for platinum/palladium prints.

Thanks Joe that makes sense. I would also say that one could divide with 240 instead of 360 and get excellent results, at least from my experience.

Don Bryant

sanking · Feb 19, 2007

Donald Miller said:
Thanks Sandy,

What are your thoughts on the Epson 2400? Additionally I will await your results with the 1400...Half the price of the 2400 makes me want to wait.

The Epson 2400 is a good printer for making digital negatives, though people who use it tell me it is something of a ink hog. Also, like most of the other Epson pigmented ink printers, with the possible exception of the R1800, it is subject to the Venenetian blind illness. Frankly I think you might come out better in the long run to just get the 3800 if you plan to use Epson inks since you will save on ink compared to the 2400.

Tracking information tells me the 1400 should arrive here today and I should know in a few days how well it does in printing digital negatives.

Sandy

mprosenberg · Feb 19, 2007

Sandy,

Have you tried the 3800 for generating silver gelatin digital negatives? (Doesn't that sound funny - silver gelatin digital negative._

MIke

xtype · Feb 19, 2007

We've been experimenting with an R2400 and found that the key to saving ink is to aviod printing a mask around the neg - use a traditional mask.

donbga · Feb 19, 2007

xtype said:
We've been experimenting with an R2400 and found that the key to saving ink is to aviod printing a mask around the neg - use a traditional mask.

Bummer, a mask is very handy.

Don Bryant

Donsta · Feb 19, 2007

Michael P. Rosenberg said:
Sandy,

Have you tried the 3800 for generating silver gelatin digital negatives? (Doesn't that sound funny - silver gelatin digital negative._

MIke

Mike

I have been doing some experimentation with the 3800 and digital negatives. On Ilford pearl paper with the Pictorico glossy white film, I can get very good results. My initial tests with Canadian grade 2 Azo showed that the exposure scale of the paper was just a little longer than the black inkset would allow. I suspect that with the G3 Azo one could do a pretty good job. However, I would expect that the best results would still come from a paper which "hides" a little on it's surface (Azo is brutal for showing any slight artifact).

mkochsch · Feb 20, 2007

sanking said:
In my experience it is not true that any printer has the potential to print digital negatives. In fact, the UV blocking potential of many printers is simply not great enough for exposing UV sensitive processes. A couple of years ago I tested all of the HP and Canon printers then on the market and none produced enough UV blocking for alternative printing, though they made great prints. There are many new Canon and HP printers on the market today and it is entirely possible that some of them have sufficient UV blocking, but I would not assume that to be the case.

The UV blocking of pigmented ink set of the R1800 if marginal for making digital negatives, at least if you are working with spectral density negatives with PDN. On the other hand, printing a grayscale file in black ink does produce sufficient UV density, and the R1800 has the nice feature that it seems immunto to the dreaded Venetian blind disease. But I don't consider it an ideal printer for making digital negatives.

Sandy

I meant "potential" in the sense that one shouldn't exclude a printer or brand of printer on the basis that it's not an Epson. The old "If It's No Scottish, It's Crap Laddie" argument. The OP wanted to know how he could find out if his printer was capable or not. My answer was to test it and find out.
And to drive home your last point so people understand, just because a PDN colour wedge on a certain printer isn't up for the task doesn't mean other colours won't do the job, and other methods for that matter. As Clay Harmon (ternary-ratio) and I (red-green array) have both shown there are other colour mixes which produce more density than the PDN system by including some of the 99.98 per cent of colours PDN excludes for the sake of simplicity and its own methods.

sanking · Feb 21, 2007

mkochsch said:
As Clay Harmon (ternary-ratio) and I (red-green array) have both shown there are other colour mixes which produce more density than the PDN system by including some of the 99.98 per cent of colours PDN excludes for the sake of simplicity and its own methods.

Has it really been shown that Clay's ternary-ratio method, and/or your red-green array are capable of producing more UV (or Blue) blocking density than the color combinations of PDN? I don't understand how this is possible, assuming you don't use the blacks, but if it is perhaps you can suggest a specific combination for the Epson 2200 that will produce more UV (or Blue) density than any of the PDN combinations.

Sandy King

New to digital negatives

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency