Re: Digital negatives for gum printing

[Brian Ellis <bellis60@earthlink.net>]

Judy - I don't know that the 1160 was ever touted as being the best for
negatives. It's claim to fame, I think, was the fact that it was an
inexpensive printer (I paid about $240 for mine from a place called "A
Matter of Fax") that was supported by the Cone stuff. However, with all the
talk here and elsewhere about the 1160 and its demise, we may be witnessing
history in the making  - the first piece of digital equipment that can be
sold used for something approaching its original purchase price.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: Digital negatives for gum printing


>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> .... an increase in resolution in the negative
> > doesn't necessarily result in an increase in sharpness in the gum print
> > itself.
>
> IME the texture of the paper and the scale of the print are at LEAST as
> prominent in *apparent* sharpness as neg resolution. That is, on what I
> used to think was a too-rough paper (Merten Spiesse) a LARGE print (viewed
> traditionally from distance of the print's diagonal) looks sharper than
> same or even smoother paper viewed closer as it is in a small print.
> Similarly, I find the smoothest paper printed in large scale looks too
> "tight," almost hard.  (Maybe smooth paper in large scale could use some
> pixilation in neg.)
>
> > As to black versus quadtone inks for negatives, I come down between
> > those two positions, preferring to print "black" by using the colored
> > inks.
>
> When I simply checked "color" in print dialog box, the 1160 gave me blue
> mid- & hightones, black shadows. DETAIL in the color area was low, perhaps
> because the ink puddled more than with black only.  When you say you are
> printing in color, does that mean you are programming "color" with
> channels, or using default "color" as above ?
>
> As for the 1160 -- I chose it because the image width was 12.5 inches,
> greater than others in the price range, and it was touted on the Epson
> list.  Whether it's STILL the best for negatives, I don't know -- in fact
> I don't know why it was EVER the best for negatives.
>
> But a couple of points in its favor: 4 colors only. New epsons go for
> "photo quality color" which we don't need, with 6 colors, just another
> nuisance from my point of view. And I gather the 1160 has relatively small
> dot. However, the 12.5 inch width is smaller than I want. Glad I'm
> learning with that, not for instance the 3000, but I think there's another
> epson now makes a wider print for about $500.  (However, watch for PRINT
> size, not just paper size. I think it's the 1520 that takes 15 inch paper,
> only prints 12 inches or so.)
>
> On second thought -- best thing about 1160 may be that you can use non-OEM
> (ie., cheaper) inks. New Epsons have chipped cartridges... complicating
> effort to not pay $24 for about enough black to make 10 large negs.
>
> On third thought however, my understanding of the CIS (continuous inking
> systems) is that they are MUCH more complicated to operate... will give
> head clogs ("the clog from hell" as described piteously & frequently on
> Epson list) at will, while the OEM inks do not. For instance, my 1160 has
> sat for 2 months untouched & started up trouble-free right off. With other
> inks I'm assured I would have had head-clogs big time.
>
> CIS is also wont to leaks, spills, tilts, air bubbles, spits & fits -- not
> a LOT maybe, but risk is always there.  And if your space is tight, I
> believe you need more surface to set the set on, and it's got to be at the
> right level... no layering or high rises. Advice has been, unless you're
> into production printing, the CIS is overkill.  However, if the piezo
> quads are indeed as fine as Joe & others say, that would again change the
> equation.
>
> And on the 4th hand, I stopped at Spectra today to price image-setter
> negs. They're high, since they don't do it in-house, still their price was
> $60 for one neg -- I forget dimensions, but less than 16 by 20 inches.
> Even at $40 each, say you want 3 color seps... that's $120 for set of 3.
> Not to mention having to leave home to pick up & deliver.
>
> BUT, speaking of costs -- the file for a 12 by 17 inch neg in 300 dpi is
> in the vicinity of 20 megabytes, which on my ancient (ie., 4-yr old) Mac
> is agonizingly slow, even with 132 mb of RAM. Which is to say, figure in
> the cost of the new computer....
>
> Judy
>
> .................................................................
> | Judy Seigel, Editor                           >
> | World Journal of Post-Factory Photography     > "HOW-TO and WHY"
> | info@post-factory.org                         >
> | <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
> .................................................................
>
>