>
>After all's said and done the image from the Epson printer *appeared* to
>exhibit fewer digital artifacts than negatives I have produced using Dan
>Burkholders methods via photoshop bitmaps. If the Epson printer
>produces negatives of comparable quality this could be a great way for
>Alt-Photo beginners like myself to get started on the digital negative
>path.
Chris: I have been working with the Epson inkjet and negatives also. I
bought the ESC800 in March, and had mixed results, mostly unsatisfactory,
until a few weeks ago. The problem was banding. A trip back to Epson for
repair, working with tech support, innumerable cleaning cycles, etc...all a
giant waste of time. Toward the end of November (1997) Epson released a new
print driver for the ESC800 and the problems ceased. The new driver has
super-microweave, like the Photo. I have been printing negatives, for
palladium prints, on Burlington transparency film, billed as being
"low-haze" and "for 1440 dpi inkjets."
The negatives are pretty amazing. For the subject matter I prefer, I can
tell little or no difference in the prints, as compared to a traditional
enlarged negative. I should point out most of my photos are scanned from
35mm, particularly 35mm PolaPan instant, ultrawide pinhole, or Holga.
These will not contain the last word in tonal range compared, e.g., to an
8x10 in-camera negative. For me, however, the combination works.
I don't do anything special, just scan in to Photoshop 4, and work until I
get the negative contrast that looks right on the tube, for printing
without any chlorate added (solution A only).
I also bought Dan Burkholder's book and tried that process, but was unable
to make it work for me. Plus, it was a giant pain sending the work out to
a prepress. It has been my experience generally that letting any step out
of your control is a problem. Please keep me posted on how this goes.
Regards,
--Ken Carney