Weird problem printing digital neg

[Pyrodog]

Don't know if anyone has any ideas as to what the problem may be. I've made a number of successful digital negs using Dan Burkholder's template and instructions. Have made a dozen fine negatives that have used to create kallitype prints. Today I created a new negative using the template like I always have. I set the template to provide a black masking border so one doesn't see brush strokes around the printed area, just white. Today for some reason the negative area prints fine but the mask area, which appears full black (inverted) on my monitor, prints out to about 80% grey (inverted). Four attempts have all come out the same. Good amount of ink in highlight areas within the image, masking area is anemic although it looks fine on the monitor. Even tried printing a copy on regular paper on my HP all-in-one. Print came out fine, masked area is full black. Why won't it print black on my #%$*? Epson R3000? Printer is set per Dan Burkholder's recommendations and I've made a dozen successful digital negs with this same template recently. First time I experience this frustrating problem. No streaks, lines or anything to indicate it's an ink or printing head problem.

 

[Mike Crawford]

While it may be a black tone on the monitor and on file, if printed onto inkjet film, it's still not going to be an opaque tone which doesn't allowUV light to be transmitted through it during a long exposure surely? Hopefully Rubylith tape should help. In the UK, this is available.
https://www.processuk.net/Scapa_Red_Litho_Tape_25mm_1/p740597_3427347.aspx

Expect something simllar in the US. Perhaps this:
https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company...raphers-Tape-616/?N=5002385+3293241432&rt=rud

Even if just the edge and then cover the rest of the frame with card though that may allow some diffused light round the edges. However, I haven't done a Kallitype for years so don't remember it's sensitivity.

 

[Pyrodog]

Thank you, Mike, I've thought of rubylith, quite familiar with the stuff. What has been easier up until now was to simply print a black masking border. The problem isn't that some light can get through it. The problem is that the masking border looks black on the monitor. It prints black on paper through my little all-in-one. It's printed black on this same printer with the same OHP product before. Now instead of black it prints a very light grey. Everything else within the file prints as it should. Areas within the image area that have the same density value print fine. Only the border prints much too pale.

 

[Pyrodog]

Maybe this will give everyone a better idea. It looks like Example 1 and should print like Example 1. Instead it prints like Example 2. Note that values within the image frame are correct.

 

[Pyrodog]

 

[MattKing]

Have you changed inks?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I don't want brush marks, I tape the negative's border with rubylithe tape. I have also used red, electricians tape... But only when exposing with my BLB table. My halogen exposure table can get pretty hot, and could melt the tape. This has not happened to me, but I really don't want to take the chance.

 

[nmp]

Can you print a step wedge like the 101 steps ChartThrob pattern and check how that looks.

 

[jim10219]

What program are you printing from? What ICC profiles are you using? Are you converting the colors of the negatives? How are you adding the border?

Sometimes Photoshop can do some weird things to colors, especially blacks. It's even worse about this if you convert files between RGB, Grayscale, and CMYK. For instance, if you have a CMYK rich black and looks to be a really solid black (lets say C=30, M=30, Y=30, K=80), it will often convert it to something like 80% black if you convert it to grayscale. Also, sometimes your printer's ICC profile might adjust these colors from what photoshop says. And sometimes you can look at a file in PS and use the eyedropper to measure a color, save the file, and measure the same color from the same file outside of PS, and find out it's actually a different color, if you try to print it from a different program. PS is really bad about switching colors around depending on the profiles you use. And if the black border is imported from another file (like if you have the border saved in it's own file and aren't recreating it every time) and it's not made using the same color mode with the same profiles imbedded, it can change the color. In other words, there's a lot of places behind the scenes where it can go wrong that would cause this.

The quick and easy solution is to just take some thick card stock that is the same size of the paper you're printing onto and cut out a hole in the middle the size of the mask you want. That's what I often do, as it's cheaper than Rubylith and inkjet ink (I can usually find it for free by repurposing something). That and it gets the negative off the glass which gets rid of Newton rings. Granted, I've never seen Newton rings show up in a print, but it still makes me feel better if they're not there.

 

[Pyrodog]

I am printing from Photoshop using the same ICC profile, printer, color space, print driver settings and all other settings that I've used for a couple dozen identical files printing on identical material. Negative is created with Dan Burkholder's template which is the same thing I've done before. All of a sudden the border that was printing correctly as black yesterday morning would no longer print as black yesterday afternoon although everything else within the image area was normal. I am going back to square one, starting from scratch to see if that resolves it. I'll also print an earlier digital neg file to see if it's the printer or the new file I created. Again, the weird thing is it printed fine on regular paper on a crappy all-in-one so it doesn't appear to be the file. I'm also replacing a couple of ink cartridges to see if it's ink related.

 

[Kino]

Any OS updates lately?

Check to see if your OS updated the printer driver or reset some important settings in the driver or native color space of the OS.

 

[Pyrodog]

Thank you, Kino. I do have a new Photoshop PC recently installed but I updated the printer driver myself from the Epson website, plus I had printed a digital neg earlier with this same setup that was fine. I'm getting the feeling that Photoshop may have had some weird, glitchy reaction to a PAC curves layer I put in although the same workflow has worked fine prior to this with the same gear.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Was this the first time you tried adding a border in this way to the inkjet negative?

 

[Pyrodog]

No, Prof_Pixel, it's not. Please see other comments above. I have been happily printing digital negs with this system for a few months and suddenly one file refused to print correctly although it printed correctly on a different printer. I'll post a solution if and when I find one.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

No, Prof_Pixel, it's not. Please see other comments above. I have been happily printing digital negs with this system for a few months and suddenly one file refused to print correctly although it printed correctly on a different printer. I'll post a solution if and when I find one.

Just checking to make sure.


How about printing a grayscale step tablet like the one in George Smyth's article on digital negatives http://glsmyth.com/articles/steptablet.tif.

 

[Pyrodog]

I may try that if I don't resolve it otherwise but see the samples above. I have to assume from the sample with the light gray border that the step tablet would print fine within the image area but not in the gray border area. It has to be something with Dan Burkholder's ganged actions/layers for conversion. If you're not familiar with Dan's template and dig neg system that probably won't make much sense. He gives a PAC curve for platinum/palladium printing. Rather than modify his curve I put another one on top. Worked fine until yesterday. Something happened and the two PAC curves are interacting strangely. With the entire image reversed it's not surprise. I have to think inverted tonalities to adjust.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

We teach a method much like George Smyth's at the George Eastman Museum. The grayscale file will let you see what happens at the endpoints (0 and 255) of the tone scale. Sometimes strange things happen at the end points of calculated LUTs.

 

[Pyrodog]

Do you teach at the George Eastman Museum? I have a couple of friends who were up there recently and were shown how to wax prints with beeswax and lavender oil. I will check out George Smyth's article. I recently got involved with kallitype printing. I have tons of darkroom experience in the past but have been out of analog printing for quite a while. Alternate process that requires just a UV light box, no enlarger, fits my space limitations. So far I've read Dan Burkholder and Ron Reeder on digital negs. Ron has an interesting approach for producing a print from a standard step scale, scanning the resulting print, and using the difference in values to produce a PAC. Sounds a bit like a zone system for alt-printing digital negs. Can't have too much knowledge with alternate printing. Christopher James book was a big help on the printing/chemistry end but I've supplemented with Sandy King as well who has a solid workflow. Lots of issues to resolve. I will read the George Smyth article. Thank you for the tip.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Do you teach at the George Eastman Museum? I have a couple of friends who were up there recently and were shown how to wax prints with beeswax and lavender oil.

I'm a Kodak Retiree and volunteer to help in the Historic Photo Process Lab - especially on things involving 'things digital' . We have a three day digital negative workshop this week and the students will be
making salt prints that are then waxed - a lovely smell and it gives the prints great depth.

 

[nmp]

To me it does not make sense that the only the black border (where the RGB are 000) would print gray selectively while the same input values prints "fine" in the image negative. That's why I asked if you printed a step wedge, preferably with your border.

 

[Pyrodog]

Glad to meet you, Professor. I did wax one of my test kallitypes but haven't yet decided to do it across the board. I'm gold toning and getting good rich blacks and I also dry mount my prints (yes, some of us still do that). I guess I could dry-mount then wax and will probably add that to the workflow shortly. I'm part way through George's article as I write this. Good information and I wholeheartedly agree with his assertion that digital negatives from scans of medium or large format negatives, properly done, open up a whole new world of possibilities with alt printing. I'm excited to be making prints again after a long absence from the darkroom. Probably move from kallitypes to platinum/palladium here before long. Just have to make sure Pictorico never goes out of business. Be well and thanks for the input....

 

[Pyrodog]

To me it does not make sense that the only the black border (where the RGB are 000) would print gray selectively while the same input values prints "fine" in the image negative. That's why I asked if you printed a step wedge, preferably with your border.

Agreed, that's what prompted the question. I used to include a step scale in earlier negatives until I developed a workflow that gave me an acceptable tonality range, then I eliminated it from the dig neg template. I still think the problem is a conflict in the layers so I'm starting over again with my dig neg workflow and want to develop a way to produce my own PACs instead of modifying Burkholder's.

 

[nmp]

Agreed, that's what prompted the question. I used to include a step scale in earlier negatives until I developed a workflow that gave me an acceptable tonality range, then I eliminated it from the dig neg template. I still think the problem is a conflict in the layers so I'm starting over again with my dig neg workflow and want to develop a way to produce my own PACs instead of modifying Burkholder's.

I would simply start with an inverted image with the border without correction layers of any kind. Print and see if the border is gray. Then add the layers one at a time. Still confused though: Are you saying that after all the layers, inversion, flipping etc, the border area measures (with an eye-dropper for example) RGB of 0,0,0 and prints 80% gray only on the R3000 and not on other printer.

P.S. As Dan B. would have said, always print the step wedge on the side of the image for precisely these inexplicable events.

 

[Pyrodog]

That's about the size of it. Good idea on printing inverted image without correction layers. Glad I'm using up Pictorico film and not wasting platinum prints. Maybe this is just my printer's way of telling me it's time to upgrade to a P600 or P800.

 

[jisner]

Don't know if anyone has any ideas as to what the problem may be. I've made a number of successful digital negs using Dan Burkholder's template and instructions. Have made a dozen fine negatives that have used to create kallitype prints. Today I created a new negative using the template like I always have. I set the template to provide a black masking border so one doesn't see brush strokes around the printed area, just white. Today for some reason the negative area prints fine but the mask area, which appears full black (inverted) on my monitor, prints out to about 80% grey (inverted). Four attempts have all come out the same. Good amount of ink in highlight areas within the image, masking area is anemic although it looks fine on the monitor. Even tried printing a copy on regular paper on my HP all-in-one. Print came out fine, masked area is full black. Why won't it print black on my #%$*? Epson R3000? Printer is set per Dan Burkholder's recommendations and I've made a dozen successful digital negs with this same template recently. First time I experience this frustrating problem. No streaks, lines or anything to indicate it's an ink or printing head problem.

Flatten your image so there is just a "Background" layer. Then extend the canvas with black. See https://forums.adobe.com/message/10731938#10731938