Printers for digital negatives for Kallitypes?

[Anton Savitskiy]

I have wondered about that too. Some of these inks have a very high UV blocking density. For example, InkjetMall has UV45 ink that has density of 4.5. Why not just fill one cartridge and be done - no matter what the alt process demands. It would be nice if someone had a first-hand experience.

:Niranjan.

So far, all UV blocking inks that I have seen are dye-based, may be for a reason. However, they should lay on film quite nicely, I suppose - there was a funny story about Fixxons film. They have two different (as they state on their site) films - for negatives and for screen printing, the latter being considerably cheaper. Someone in FB alt processes group tested it to compare with Fixxons "for negatives" and find it just the same film. Nothing personal, just marketing.

These things make me think closer to first-hand experience with UV blocking inks.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ink Owl has bulk inks divided by Ultrachrome K2, K3, HD and so on. They have different part numbers, I wonder if inks are the same and do they have different UV blocking. Assuming the use of LK and LLK it's not Ultrachrome Hi-Gloss (which the P400 sports) compatible inks. What type of inks should one use for the P400?

I've always used the Ultrachrome K2. I used them for the 4000 and currently for the 3800 and P400.

 

[Anton Savitskiy]

I've always used the Ultrachrome K2. I used them for the 4000 and currently for the 3800 and P400.

But Ultrachrome K2 doesn't have LLK that you use, only PK and LK... K3 and HD has.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

But Ultrachrome K2 doesn't have LLK that you use, only PK and LK... K3 and HD has.

Oops! Sorry about that. I just went and checked and it is indeed K3. All the inks I use are K3.

 

[Anton Savitskiy]

Oops! Sorry about that. I just went and checked and it is indeed K3. All the inks I use are K3.

Thank you for your input, Andrew! I also wrote an email to Ink Owl to better understand the difference of their inks, hope to share it here.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thank you for your input, Andrew! I also wrote an email to Ink Owl to better understand the difference of their inks, hope to share it here.

They've always been quite responsive to inquiries. Curious to hear what they have to say!

 

[nmp]

So far, all UV blocking inks that I have seen are dye-based, may be for a reason. However, they should lay on film quite nicely, I suppose - there was a funny story about Fixxons film. They have two different (as they state on their site) films - for negatives and for screen printing, the latter being considerably cheaper. Someone in FB alt processes group tested it to compare with Fixxons "for negatives" and find it just the same film. Nothing personal, just marketing.

These things make me think closer to first-hand experience with UV blocking inks.

I started using the cheap kind before they started offering the other more expensive one and I still do. I always thought they did that after hearing so much praise on the internet about how cheap they were and still nearly as good as Pictorico, which was the gold standard at the time.

Regarding the UV ink being dye-based, it may be not such a big deal for diginegs as long as your paper is thoroughly dried and if it gets smudged, well just print another one (on the cheap Fixxons...). The InkjetMall one by the way is a carbon pigment with a dye molecule attached to it - so they call it a hybrid. I have half a mind to use it on my Epson 1430 on one cartridge and see what happens.

:Niranjan.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I started using the cheap kind before they started offering the other more expensive one and I still do. I always thought they did that after hearing so much praise on the internet about how cheap they were and still nearly as good as Pictorico, which was the gold standard at the time.

I had a conversation with the fellow at Fixxons -- he said the two products were optically identical, so a curve for one would work for the other. And he was vague about the differences -- some sort of microsomethingsomething in the surface of the negative version.

HOWEVER, my newest QTR curves are laying so much ink in the highlights near whitepoint that I am getting some pooling. I am using the cheaper screen printing version. I am wondering whether the microsomethingsomething surface of the negative version does a better job of absorbing and holding heavy ink loads.

Has anyone noticed this as a difference between the two products?

 

[nmp]

I had a conversation with the fellow at Fixxons -- he said the two products were optically identical, so a curve for one would work for the other. And he was vague about the differences -- some sort of microsomethingsomething in the surface of the negative version.

HOWEVER, my newest QTR curves are laying so much ink in the highlights near whitepoint that I am getting some pooling. I am using the cheaper screen printing version. I am wondering whether the microsomethingsomething surface of the negative version does a better job of absorbing and holding heavy ink loads.

Has anyone noticed this as a difference between the two products?

From what I can tell, the only difference in the specs for the two is that the new stuff has an additional microporous top-coat that supposedly allows for greater ink loading compared to the the one for silk screen printing. They also say there is "slight milky appearance from microporous top coat" so I don't know there would be a hit to the UV intensity somewhat. If you know the history of Pictorico, they did the same thing - Premium vs Ultra Premium, the latter supposedly handling higher ink load but also more opaque.


:Niranjan.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

From what I can tell, the only difference in the specs for the two is that the new stuff has an additional microporous top-coat that supposedly allows for greater ink loading compared to the the one for silk screen printing.

I finally got a box of the premium Fixxons with the microporous topcoat. It did not stop the pooling of ink for the paperwhite highlights in my negatives. HOWEVER, images made with the premium Fixxons appear to have more detail. I'm wondering whether anyone else has seen any such difference between the two products.

Having made a QTR curve that is otherwise giving me the tones and contrast I want, I am trying to counter the pooling issue by clipping the highlights a few percent when prepping a digital file for printing. I'm not keen on the limitation but it seems like the easiest way to deal with problematic highkey images where the pooling ruins the negative.

Any other solutions?

 

[nmp]

I finally got a box of the premium Fixxons with the microporous topcoat. It did not stop the pooling of ink for the paperwhite highlights in my negatives. HOWEVER, images made with the premium Fixxons appear to have more detail. I'm wondering whether anyone else has seen any such difference between the two products.

Having made a QTR curve that is otherwise giving me the tones and contrast I want, I am trying to counter the pooling issue by clipping the highlights a few percent when prepping a digital file for printing. I'm not keen on the limitation but it seems like the easiest way to deal with problematic highkey images where the pooling ruins the negative.

Any other solutions?

Thanks, Sanders for the update. Nice to see side-by-side comparison for the two types. It looks like the new micro-porous coating does provide some benefit - reducing the "dot-gain" a bit, resulting in sharper edges. As per the pooling issue, it might be doing a better job, but still out of the range of what ink load you are using at the paper-white end (I am assuming you are using greater than 100% total ink load there.) If you like to test, you can print blocks of varying ink loads, going down from the highest in use, on both transparencies and see at what point the pooling stops and whether that number is meaningfully higher in the new version.

I am not sure what else can be done. Have you looked at the colorized negative route without using QTR to see if there is a different blocking color that gives you the UV density you need without greater than 100% ink load? What printer you are using?

:Niranjan.

 

[nmp]

So far, all UV blocking inks that I have seen are dye-based, may be for a reason. However, they should lay on film quite nicely, I suppose - there was a funny story about Fixxons film. They have two different (as they state on their site) films - for negatives and for screen printing, the latter being considerably cheaper. Someone in FB alt processes group tested it to compare with Fixxons "for negatives" and find it just the same film. Nothing personal, just marketing.

These things make me think closer to first-hand experience with UV blocking inks.

Hi, Anton:

So have you looked into using these UV-dense inks? Any update?

:Niranjan.