[alt-photo] Re: New Platinum Prints

[Bob Barnes]

thanks Mark!


On Apr 13, 2010, at 3:25 PM, ender100 at aol.com wrote:

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