Anyway, I wanted a printer to proof files going to the imagesetter and
bought the Epson 800. Like a lot of people, I was impressed by the prints
on Epson's inkjet paper (about $15 for 100 sheets). I even printed a few
negatives on the Epson, using transparency film at 1,440 dpi, that produced
some good-looking pt/pd prints. I didn't pursue this, however, since
banding ( a problem with the 800) is often more pronounced on transparency
material. I may return to the negatives, perhaps with a future version of
the printer since it seems much easier to control contrast and tonal range
with the
Epson than with the imagesetter, in my experience.
After a while, I decided to try some prints for display. Didn't really
care for the look of the Epson photo inkjet paper or "premium" paper
(film). I wound up using the same papers used for pt/pd prints, Crane's
8111 and Arches hotpress watercolor paper, 140#. An initial barrier was
comparing these prints to traditional prints, finally realizing they are
just a different lifeform (which may be a short-lived form, the other end
of the scale from our "archival" prints), to be dealt with on their own
terms. Another problem was adjusting the color of the prints. I quickly
learned that printing a mono print in b&w Epson mode was not as good as
printing in color mode. The problem was, the color mode ran from a blue to
a greenish cast depending on the paper.
In Photoshop, however, this is easily cured. I am now printing a "tritone"
with three layers, each with its own transfer function. The resulting
color is probably not found in nature, but is like a combination of pt, pd
and POP. I like it. For what it's worth, here is the process I use. I am
intrigued with this process (is it alt?) and would be interested in hearing
from others.
1. Scan print or neg at 300spi at final image size; e.g., a 35mm neg
producing a 6" wide print would be scanned at 1800spi. I scan mine with a
default gamma 1.8. HP provides a closed-loop calibration routine which, I
learned, adds a level of image degradation.
2. Adjust the image using levels and curves with Photoshop. This is a
separate subject well covered in "Real World Scanning". Retouching using
the clone tool to eliminate white lines on the neg (black lines on the
print, a/k/a boogers, is worth the price of admission. You can pitch that
Xacto knife and Spot Tone.) I was impressed with how compositions could be
improved by removing a few small distracting elements. (I am reminded that
Glenn Gould overdubbed -recorded on multiple tracks- when he thought it
served the purpose.)
3. Convert to duotones using image>mode>duotone. Actually, I use tritones.
The layers should be ranked from most dense to least dense to match the
way the printer lays down the ink. In my case, the layers are Pantone 4CV,
718CV and 283CV.
4. Sharpen using unsharp mask. I use 150%, 1.5, 4. You may like something
else. Again, this is well covered in "Real World Scanning".
5. Apply a transfer curve which you can make to match the print to what
you see on the screen. This is well-covered in Dan Burkholder's book
"Making Digital Negatives for Contact Printing" (his address is
bladediris@aol.com), which is a must-have IMHO. The curve I use is:
0:0
5:5
10:10
20:16
30:24
40:34
50:44
60:55
70:68
80:80
90:90
95:100
100:100
6. When you get what you want, mount it like any other print. When it
fades, print another one. (I read in a 1994 photo mag that Ilford was
introducing a line of archival inkjet inks, but never saw anything else.)
Those are my beginner efforts. Are the inkjet prints or (or prints made
from imagesetter negs) comparable in tonality to a large format in-camera
neg? No, not even close. Are they interesting on their own terms? Yes, I
think so. As a bonus, you get the mobility of a small camera, which opens
up even more possibities.
Regards,
--Ken Carney