[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[Bob Barnes]

Hey Mark, is a 3800 one of the newer ones?
Bob        :-)


On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:07 PM, ender100 at aol.com wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/listinfo