[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: negatives from deskjet
RBikamera@cs.com wrote:
> ...
> i bought some HP transparency film and printed on the rough side and it was
> quite satisfactory-
> ...
You may have missed my post from about a week ago. Unexposed, cleared
(fixed) Tri-X film gives better results than HP transparency material as
it has less surface defects. Either side works well.
Additionally I have found that the negative should be printed at at
least 1200 dpi (definitely looks better than 600 dpi). Note that the
PhotoREt must be off (unchecked, requiring a selection of a photo paper,
any should do as the ink is controled as follows.)
I am using the HP DeskJet 970 which with the proper settings can put
down more than enough ink to give a pure white. One thing is to adjust
the amount of ink so that not too much is put down. Make some parallel
lines at 300lpi and 600 lpi and reduce the amount of ink until no bulges
are seen on the lines. To do this the amount of ink should be increased
(one notch in advanced options) and then reduced with the transfer
function.
I am using the black, magenta, and yellow inks (by HP for the 970). The
black blocks the most UV, then magenta, then yellow. The cyan ink seems
useless as it transmits near completely for Pt/Pd. Using the three inks
gives a smother result than just the black ink. The magenta and yellow
inks do not block enough to give pure white.
A note as to why I purchased the HP rather than the Epson is that I
found the HP cleanness and crispness, especially with fonts, to be
superior.
Work is ongoing, but I am confident that a decent negative for Pt/Pd may
be produced. I still have concerns about the number of steps (256 seems
too few, and it's actually much less than 256). I'd like to use
16-bit. Does Dan Burkholder have any comments? (either on 256 shades or
how to print 16-bit.) Can the three colors be used to produce more than
256 shades?
--
Jeffrey D. Mathias
http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/