Piezo for pt/pd digital negatives, worth it?

[hiroh]

I’ve been doing pt/pd prints for a few years, using an Epson P900 with the standard set of inks and Richard Boutwell’s software for creating curves and profiling. I’ve reached a point where I’m very satisfied with the prints and don’t know what else I could improve with my current setup. I can experiment with different papers and sizes, but I can say I’ve even found what I like and I would like to maintain consistency in my work.

I’ve heard about piezography but never dug deeper. I understand it can improve tones and sharpness a little bit, but I’m wondering if it’s worth it. Has anyone here switched to piezography from a standard setup similar to mine?

Regarding sharpness, I know it can be slightly improved with a quality vacuum frame, which I don’t have. I use a Bostick & Sullivan 20x24 printing frame and I put a mat board under the coated paper to push it a little bit. I sharpen my negatives and print at 720 dpi. They are quite sharp, though I don’t know how sharp pt/pd prints can be under the best possible conditions. Can I expect piezography to improve it even more? Not that I’m looking for overly sharp images, I’m just wondering what can be further improved.

I haven’t seen a piezography print in person, so I don’t know what exactly to expect, and wondering is it worth it the invertment in time and money, and giving up an option to print color? I do print color from time to time, but it’s so rare that I can use my local print studio to print it for me when I need it.

 

[Pieter12]

I have had Cone editions make a number of piezo prints for me. They are very rich, with velvety blacks and overall wonderful tone. I made 20x20" prints from 3000x3000 originals res'ed up to 8000x8000, quite pleased.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I’ve been doing pt/pd prints for a few years, using an Epson P900 with the standard set of inks and Richard Boutwell’s software for creating curves and profiling. I’ve reached a point where I’m very satisfied with the prints and don’t know what else I could improve with my current setup. I can experiment with different papers and sizes, but I can say I’ve even found what I like and I would like to maintain consistency in my work.

I’ve heard about piezography but never dug deeper. I understand it can improve tones and sharpness a little bit, but I’m wondering if it’s worth it. Has anyone here switched to piezography from a standard setup similar to mine?

Regarding sharpness, I know it can be slightly improved with a quality vacuum frame, which I don’t have. I use a Bostick & Sullivan 20x24 printing frame and I put a mat board under the coated paper to push it a little bit. I sharpen my negatives and print at 720 dpi. They are quite sharp, though I don’t know how sharp pt/pd prints can be under the best possible conditions. Can I expect piezography to improve it even more? Not that I’m looking for overly sharp images, I’m just wondering what can be further improved.

I haven’t seen a piezography print in person, so I don’t know what exactly to expect, and wondering is it worth it the invertment in time and money, and giving up an option to print color? I do print color from time to time, but it’s so rare that I can use my local print studio to print it for me when I need it.

I use the P900 to make negatives for kallitypes, which are very similar to Pt/Pd prints. I cannot speak from experience with the Cone inks and mods but I do not think it will advance your interest in sharper images. The constraint is the printer, not the ink. The Epson inks are effective at blocking UV, and the QTR and Boutwell software packages provide an effective way to control them.

If you are looking to improve image sharpness, then yes: buy a vacuum frame. I use one and it makes a difference. I bought mine from Dennis Ramos -- it's a modest investment.

Portable Vacuum Frame | Dennis Ramos Fine Art Image | Alternative Printingry

Simplicity. My creative vision through simple and minimal approach in fine art photography and alternative printing.

www.dennis-ramos.com

Good luck.

 

[fgorga]

I have both a P800 (running OEM inks) and a 3880 (running Piezography Pro inks).

I have roughly twenty years experience making digital negatives for a number of processes. I am mainly a salted paper printed, but also print Pt/Pd and other processes on occasion. I started on a 3800, progressing to a 3880 and now the P800 (all with OEM inks).

In my view, OEM inks make perfectly satisfactory negatives. So much so, I have never considered switching my negatives over to the Piezography system.

You might (and I stress might) get slightly smoother tonal gradients with the Piezography system as that is its strength but I doubt that the prints will be significantly sharper.

I will conjecture that any differences you might see in prints made via the two systems will be very small and only noticeable (if present) upon close examination of the two prints in a side-by-side comparison... i.e. under 'non-real world' conditions.

I agree with Sanders (@Rolleiflexible) comment that at least for larger prints a vacuum frame is a better choice for an increase in sharpness.

That said, I generally print in an 8x10 frame but I do have a 16x20 frame that I occasionally use for 11x14ish prints. In both frames, I do as you do... i.e. add a couple of sheets of heavy paper behind the 'sandwich' in order increase the contact between paper and negative.

No one has ever said to me that my prints could be sharper...maybe folks are just being kind!

 

[hiroh]

Thanks for clarifying things for me. I think my prints are fairly sharp, and I think I just get bored printing the same way for months and want to improve my workflow. I will consider the vacuum frame, though I moved back to Europe and most of the sellers are in the US, at least from what I found on eBay and other places.

@fgorga — wow, 20 years, I wasn't aware digital negatives existed back then.

 

[Alan9940]

I have no experience with Cone's inks and software nowadays, but back in the early 2000's I used his software and inks for to produce B&W prints on an Epson printer. Just to give ya an idea of how long ago we're talking, I was running OS 9 at the time!

Anyway, his inks at that time clogged the Epson print heads quite regularly and the prints had a distinctive greenish cast. Many folks reported this odd "color" in their prints, but Cone denied there was any problem. If I were considering buying into his "system" nowadays, I'd have to get some feedback from existing users and do a lot of research. I wasted my money before...wouldn't do it, again.

All that said, I use Richard's software, QuadToneRIP, and Epson OEM inks on an Epson P700 to produce digital negatives for pt/pd printing and I've been very pleased with the results. Honestly, it took me working through several techniques for producing these negatives before I landed on Richard's software. It would take quite a shove to get me to move to something else!

As for the sharpness question, it sounds like you're pretty satisfied with what you're doing now. As others have said, a vacuum frame might help in this area, but would you notice it is the question?

 

[koraks]

I can't really answer this question, but I can share an anecdote, but let me preface that my personal experiences with digital inkjet negatives have been sort of frustrating. So I'm biased.

I was going through a stack of prints together with someone working in the field of photography (not as a creator, but in a capacity where they see LOTS of physical prints of all possible kinds). At some point I pulled out a Pt/Pd and immediately said "ah, right, digital negative; not too bad either" and this person looked at me kind of puzzled - "I couldn't say, I'd have to look it up; how can you tell?" It was a very good print, let me say that. But it didn't have the smoothness of tone in a background that was supposed to be an even gradient, just a slight lack of really fine crispness/detail - in short, a very decent print, but not really good from a technical viewpoint. It turned out to indeed be made from a 'piezography' negative by someone who generates their income printing work for others (for the most part).

My conclusion from this, but especially from seeing as well as having made countless of prints (I have in fact made massive stacks of 'digital negative'-prints) is that it's really, really difficult to approximate a proper silver gelatin negative. On the other hand, the difference between a 'piezography' negative and a decent regular negative (e.g. Epson 3880 with 3 or so blacks, which is my frame of reference) I've never found particularly massive. I think it's probably more apparent in a positive/reflective print than in a digital negative.

As to the better contact frame: with a decent pressure frame (no vacuum, even) I can get the grain of silver negatives to appear in my carbon transfer prints. With inkjet, I know that improving my contact frame would just enable me to...IDK, not much really. I'd be better able to see the inkjet dots that are perfectly visible already!? FWIW, the primary factor I find that degrades detail in prints like Pt/Pd, Cyanotype etc. is the paper itself. It's not a perfectly flat/smooth surface, but a mat of fibers with peaks and valleys, not to mention the tendency for liquids and even solid pigments to bleed and move around. If I make a double transfer carbon print and inspect the first transfer on a PE sheet, it's about as detailed as the original negative. Once transferred to the (heavily sized, even) paper, it's far softer and the finest detail tends to mush out, although the smoothness in tonality remains. Light source plays a role, too, with LEDs being noticeably sharper than UV tubes, although this difference is of an order of magnitude less than the print surface.

All of this of course does assume your contact frame is in decent shape and does a decent job at keeping the print and the negative together. If you have areas across the print that are decidedly soft while other areas are sharper, you have a basic problem you need to figure out. But at least for small to modest print sizes (up to ~11x14" or so), I don't find a vacuum frame to be a necessity.

Like I said, it's not an answer to your question. Just some ramblings based on my own printing preferences. It's also not intended to 'turn you on' to silver gelatin negatives or somehow argue that digital negatives are 'bad'. They're absolutely fine. But maybe it pays off more to focus in other areas than to squeeze out the very last drop of resolution from something that's kind of limited to begin with. Inkjet dots are individually visible - a piezo ink set doesn't change this.

 

[Alan9940]

Regarding koraks’s comment about digital negatives vs silver gelatin negatives, I wholeheartedly agree! After crafting and printing many digital negatives over the years for pt/pd printing, I fairly recently started playing around with 4x5 Tri-X developed in ABC Pyro specifically for pt/pd printing. The smoothness of tones and general overall look of the prints was quite nice! To my eye, easily seen improvement over any digital negative. I still make digital negatives from my smaller format cameras and even my iPhone, but for LF I’m leaning very hard into using film negatives instead.

 

[jeffreyg]

For what it might be of interest on the subject I can relate what I have done for a number of years. After seeing a pt/pd print, I thought I must try it. I bought a starter kit from Bostick and Sullivan. I had a printing frame and was shooting HP5 4x5. I started using the sun as a light source and got some very nice results but working out doors in the hot sun and mosquitoes was not the way to go so I bought a light box and better printing frame and welcomed the AC. I have been using digital negatives with excellent results but if you would like to try something different try enlarging your negatives on to x-ray duplicating film. It is a reversal film and enlarged negatives are like making a wet darkroom print. Best to start with an original negative that does not require much manipulation. Since it is a reversal film you do the opposite from a positive print ie more exposure for a lighter negative = darker print and visa versa. It is very slow and no noticeable grain unless the original negative is grainy. It will be as sharp as you can make a print from the original negative as well as duplicating the tonal qualities. Since most x-rays are digital now it is not as easy to find and is fairly expensive. It will give you a great negative though.

Several years ago I printed a limited edition series for Mario Algaze the now late Cuban American photographer who was well known for his silver prints and a stickler for quality printing. I enlarged four of his signature images on to Kodak Dental Duplicating Film 2 1/4 to 7 by 7 inches final prints. (first and only time i printed for someone else !!!). There were 12 numbered of each of four different images plus an AP and PP set. My payment was three sets #10,11 &12 plus the PPs. I don't know how many were sold but I know of one individual print was sold for $4000. So anyone interested I have 12 signed prints in my closet and the PPs framed on my wall.

 

[Carnie Bob]

I’ve been doing pt/pd prints for a few years, using an Epson P900 with the standard set of inks and Richard Boutwell’s software for creating curves and profiling. I’ve reached a point where I’m very satisfied with the prints and don’t know what else I could improve with my current setup. I can experiment with different papers and sizes, but I can say I’ve even found what I like and I would like to maintain consistency in my work.

I’ve heard about piezography but never dug deeper. I understand it can improve tones and sharpness a little bit, but I’m wondering if it’s worth it. Has anyone here switched to piezography from a standard setup similar to mine?

Regarding sharpness, I know it can be slightly improved with a quality vacuum frame, which I don’t have. I use a Bostick & Sullivan 20x24 printing frame and I put a mat board under the coated paper to push it a little bit. I sharpen my negatives and print at 720 dpi. They are quite sharp, though I don’t know how sharp pt/pd prints can be under the best possible conditions. Can I expect piezography to improve it even more? Not that I’m looking for overly sharp images, I’m just wondering what can be further improved.

I haven’t seen a piezography print in person, so I don’t know what exactly to expect, and wondering is it worth it the invertment in time and money, and giving up an option to print color? I do print color from time to time, but it’s so rare that I can use my local print studio to print it for me when I need it.

Piezography will create good negatives , but to be sharper than what you are already using I suggest probably the same results.

I have found one way to ( Change ) the look of Palladium prints is by making a second shadow negative(same profile when printing in Print Tool. This second negative is registered to the first palladium negative and I do a gum over hit with lamp black. the black pigment only stays in the deep shadow areas . I have always found that this added layer improves the print.
You can also go with different colours and negs to TONE your palladium with gum pigments.
If you like this idea then you can blame me for opening a wormhole that will take you a few years to master, but I must say it is IMO the best process I have ever worked with and I have done quite a few over the last 45 years.