Re: Source for 1160 Printers for inkjet negatives

[Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2001 rgw@mediaone.net wrote:
> With a 1160 and these inks you should be able to do well for gum at a fraction
> of the Cone price (with much less attitude from the vendor as well). They
> print nice pictures on watercolor paper too.

Thanks for the reminder, Guy.... it comes back to me that they were saying
that on the Epson list. But now that Keith gives me permission to just do
BLACK, I think I'll NOT change inks. Because then if I want to print color
I have to get ANOTHER printer (right?). I've already got two, the inkjet &
a laser for text (post script), and hardly have room for one.  The Epson
has been bumped into 40 times (it's totally in the way) and all the
extensions go flying into space ... so where would I put a 3rd????

If I got the quadtones just for a frenzy of negative making, what would be
involved in getting the color back? Or is that a one-way street?

Meanwhile, the plot thickens with the digital negatives. What I'm finding
is NOT what I'd been led to expect... For instance, going from 360 dpi to
1440 gives MUCH more contrast, & so much ink that it puddles in the
highlights on the vellum. I'm settling on 770 dpi, but still have a
problem with puddling. I found however that the 360 dpi gave a more
pixilated look than I wanted. That's much improved at 770.

BUT, I haven't found a way to lower density of the blacks without breaking
the gray scale & getting breaks in the continuous tone. That's what I
think a "curve" is for... but which one?  Dan, will the curve in your book
do that?

Meanwhile, I find that printing the POSITIVE on plain paper gives much
MUCH better detail than any negative on translucent material -- so far.
Stuff that simply disappeared in the negative is perfect -- although I
still have some more negative substrates to try. That is, the file simply
inverted & printed on plain paper, same everything else, is much finer and
more detailed. I don't want to print from a waxed paper neg, however,
because I MUST re-register by eye, not possible with waxed paper I have
found.

I am not a slave to detail in gum, really, really, but what I was getting
at 360 was borderline. Then the process itself, using pigment on paper
with texture in many coats is hard on detail, & I'd like to at least have
that option.  So in this week of experiment I waxed a paper POSITIVE and
contacted it to lith film.  That particular positive was wretched, but the
process looks like it may be my answer. True, it means wet darkroom -- BUT
-- tonight I got 2 drops of water on an inkjet neg, which destroyed the
neg and left big black stains on the print. That's more annoying than
contacting lith film -- standard exposure, f8, 3 seconds.

Do folks spray their inkjet negs .... or just know better than to have a
drop of water arrive when printing?

Judy

>
> Guy
> Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> > 1. why the negative can't be made simply in black ink.  For instance I'm
> > getting adequate density according to densitometer with the 1160 & black
> > ink on vellum.  I haven't printed it yet (about to), but I do understand
> > that the quadtones cost more than the printer (I got mine at refurbdebpot
> > in January pretty cheap) and I assume yet ANOTHER learning curve with
> > them.
> >
>
>