[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[ender100 at aol.com]

The newer printers are much more smooth than the 2200 series. Microbanding is pretty much eliminated.  Although I often find people using printers that have never had a head alignment.


Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Kershaw <tom at tomkershaw.com>
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 8:09 am
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints


Loris, 
 
Is it your view then that a printer such as the Epson 3880 provides 
sufficient resolution for digital negatives, including higher definition 
processes, e.g. cyanotype or carbon transfer? 
 
My previous experiments have been with the Epson 2100/2200, a printer 
that shows significant banding, especially in areas of more uniform 
tonality. - I checked with Sandy King and he had experienced this issue 
with the Epson 2200 as well. 
 
Tom 
 
Loris Medici wrote: 
> Further clarification: 
> 
> Errr, 2000 ppi!? That's too much I think; 18 lines per mm (l/mm) is roughly 
> equivalent to (only) 460 ppi. (Which is very very good in fact!) 
> 
> In case of halftone printing, you'll need 460 (screen) x 16 = 7360 dpi 
> hardware resolution (for being able to print all 256 tones), and a file 
> resolution of *920 ppi* (because you need a file with 2x resolution of the 
> screen, for optimum results in conversion from grayscale to bitmap), to be 
> able to hit the resolution limit of the process/paper combination mentioned 
> above. 
> 
> For other output methods, you'll be all right with a hardware that is able 
> to print at *460 ppi*... (IIRC, some Lambda printers can achieve 400 ppi.) 
> 
> OTOH, as I previously wrote in my reply to Christina, that much print 
> resolution is pretty unnecessary, since even someone with perfect 20/20 eye 
> sight / visual acuity won't be able to resolve something more than 13-14 
> l/mm at 10" (minimum comfortable) viewing distance, w/o the aid of a loupe. 
> Plus, practical viewing conditions are almost always farther away than 10", 
> therefore something significantly lower than 13-14 l/mm still does the job. 
> E.g. real life experience with inkjet prints / digital negatives; ~ 7-8 l/mm 
> in my case. (I don't even mention lighting conditions BTW; I just assume 
> perfect / ideal lighting instead - which is a whole other issue...) 
> 
> Regards, 
> Loris. 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org On Behalf Of 
> etienne garbaux 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:55 AM 
> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list 
> Subject: [alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints 
> 
> ... 
> 
> Using silver-based test negatives, I can resolve about 18 > lpmm with Pt on hot-pressed paper, and over 20 on baryta-coated > paper.  Both will show the dither pattern on any inkjet negatives > I've seen (as well as the raster pattern from imagesetter > negatives).  I estimate that we need file and printer hardware > resolutions of 2000 ppi or so to eliminate it (80 Mp for a 4x5" print). 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo 
>    
_______________________________________________ 
Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo