Re: Inkjet negs: Pigment vs. Dye, etc.
Keith, here's my favorite system for producing digital negatives:
http://www.inkjetnegative.com/images/RNP/
quick_guide_to_making_digital_ne.htm
The paper you pointed to looks really promising for paper negatives,
but the problem is you can never tell about a paper until you try it
with your printer and inks, and your process. I wonder if they'd
send you a sample.
You probably know, if you've used paper negatives for a while, that
some of the coatings for inkjet papers don't take well to either
paraffin or oil. I've had bad luck with glossy coated papers in the
past, but that was some years ago and I'm sure the coatings are
different now. The paper that I settled on and used, oiled, for
years was just regular Epson Photo-Quality Inkjet Paper.
Now I have a better printer that can actually print on
transparencies (1280) and get great results with cheap
transparencies, so I'm no longer oiling negatives.
Loved your story about the buried negatives.
Katharine
On Nov 29, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Keith Gerling wrote:
Thanks. I had already found that article, and I really DO intend
to try Mark's system this winter. Honest!
Lately I've been making prints with lith negatives that I buried
last year in the back yard under a foot of Illinois's finest black
topsoil. Various organisms have eaten away at the gelatin and the
negs look really nice. The prints look pretty bad though. Maybe I
should have used a "tighter" approach when I made these negatives!
Keith
On Nov 29, 2007 1:08 PM, Don Bryant <dsbryant@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Keith,
Opps, I gave the wrong link for Keith Schrieber's digital pyro
article, here is the correct one:
http://web.mac.com/j.k.schreiber/JKSchreiber/Articles/Entries/
2007/6/15_Pyro_Colorized_Digital_Negatives_for_the_Epson_1280.html
This article is targeted to toward the Epson 1280 but the same
method can be used for other printers. Of course other digital
methods for producing digital negatives can be used such as Mark
Nelson's PDN system or the Reeder/Hinkel method using QTR. But
these are approaches are rather technical and as I recall you
prefer a looser non regimented approach to your workflow so these
methods may not appeal to you.
Don Bryant
From: Keith Gerling [mailto:keith.gerling@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:40 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Subject: Inkjet negs: Pigment vs. Dye, etc.
I've recently been given an Epson 7600 printer. It needs ink, and
Epson ink isn't cheap, and I'm pondering how I can use this monster
to make big negatives for gum prints. I've been way out of
circulation on the topic of inkjet negatives, only just recently
having hooked up an Epson 1280 to make my first paper negatives in
about 8 years, so I'm pretty clueless about how to proceed. Maybe
someone here can steer me in the right direction regarding this 7600.
My goal is to use this 7600 to make paper inkjet negatives. The
7600 uses Ultrachrome inks, which I gather is an archival pigment-
based ink. So I'm wondering:
1) Can one make usable paper negatives using pigment inks? Are dye-
based inks better? (Here let me insert my own hunch, limited in
scope by my never having used pigment inks: I'm assuming that dye,
which will sink into the paper rather than sitting on the surface
would make a better inkjet neg)
2) I'm told that Epson pigment-ink printers can never be switched
over to dye-based inks. Is this true? Seeing as how re-fillable
cartridges are still available, would the printer really "care"
what liquid is coursing through its mechanism? Keep in mind, I'm
not looking for archival-ness or "print-perfection", just a way of
producing something that will block light.
3) Any thoughts on what paper to use? I've seen some pretty good
prices and paper rolls (here, for instance: http://
www.freedompaper.com/s.nl/it.I/id.34/.f ) but I have no idea
whether this kind of paper is appropriate for dye OR pigment. It
is really difficult to glean any kind of information on-line or
from vendors, because the topic of producing inkjet negatives is so
different from the "fine-art print" that this machine was intended
for.
Thanks!
Keith
|