RE: Source for 1160 Printers for inkjet negatives

[Keith Gerling <kgerling@ameritech.net>]

Perhaps the printers I use ARE old beasts.  So is the 1160, which, according
to the original post in this thread, is now extinct as well.

Dan, as I pointed out in my first message, I gave up trying to print
negatives for platinum on a inkjet.  I spent a long time curled up with your
book, and I learned plenty in the progress, but produced no negatives that
could rival darkroom-produced articles.  Perhaps, with improvements in
technology those negatives are now possible.  I'll stay tuned and when the
usual crew of skeptics start raving about inkjet-produced platinum
negatives, I'll check it out.  My purpose in chiming in wasn't to claim
expertise in this area, but rather to address the question of whether added
resolution is worth the effort and expense when printing gum.  In my
experience, it isn't.




-----Original Message-----
From: FDanB@aol.com [mailto:FDanB@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 11:39 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: Source for 1160 Printers for inkjet negatives




Keith said in his message...

>I've used the Epson Photo EX extensively (and the 3000, but not as much) to
>produce Quadtone finished prints as well as to create negatives for gum and
>other alternative processes...I've used color, I've used MIS
>inks - nothing comes close to being acceptable.  For me.


Keep in mind that the two Epson printer you mention, the EX and the 3000,
are either extinct or long in tooth within the printer world.

The Photo EX is now three generations old. Not that it isn't a capable
printer for certain tasks. In fact, in April I taught a workshop in
Mexico where that was the only printer we had to use. Students made
negatives with the EX (and Epson's own Transparency Film using the
colorized method) and printed them on hand-coated platinum. Their prints
were tonally rich and exciting. And yes, a more current printer would
have made better negs but try getting the students to listen to that
argument as they hold their platinum prints sporting smiles wider than
the Rio Grande.

About the Epson 3000. That's a strange beast. It's actually made on an
old dot matrix chassis (hence the typewriter-like wheels on the carriage
ends and convoluted paper path) and has an ink dot size that is GIANT by
today's standards. I too have tried the 3000 for negs and have met with
nothing but disappointment. But like you said, with quad inks on
watercolor paper, the 3000 can do wonders.

Thanks for the information on paper negs and gum. That can save people
money and trouble.

For those unable to find an 1160 or who don't need negs larger than 8x20,
Cone will shortly have quad inks and software for the Epson 980 printer.

Hope this helps,

Dan