[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[ender100 at aol.com]

Bob, The 3800 is a great printer—that is what I use—works fine with Snow Leopard.  The 3880 replaced the 3800, however the inks are the same except for Magenta.


Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com

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






-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Barnes <bb333 at earthlink.net>
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list <alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
Sent: Tue, Apr 13, 2010 3:12 pm
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints


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