From: Joe Tait (jtait@texas.net)
Date: 04/22/02-10:15:04 PM Z
On 4/22/02 8:20 AM, "Nick Makris" <nick@mcn.org> wrote:
> Joe, I have had your message on my screen now for 3 days, hoping that
> someone else would pick this up - you are asking a series of questions that
> covers the gamut in printing. I'll be very succinct and will not address
> the scanner question.
Thanks for responding! I have been disappointed that no one else has picked
up on the thread. If you could share, I am curious about your experience
with scanning.
>
> Your assumption regarding inkjets and their 'inability' to do justice to a
> Pt/Pd or Zia should be rethought - these printers a fully capable of
> printing the finest of details.
That's encouraging.
The problem with using an inkjet is
> primarily an issue of method. Dan Burkholder has developed a method call
> spectral sensitivity where one uses an Epson (I like Epsons) inkjet printer,
> standard Epson color inks and Dan's workflow/setup to create a negative.
> The method I have preferred to attempt to use, relates to creating a more
> traditional negative - I say attempt because to date, I have not been fully
> successful in my attemps. My limited success relates to not having found a
> clear film that will fully accept a black/gray inkset.
You mean an optically clear enough film? Or one that is compatible with your
inkset? I work at a sign shop and today contacted one of our distributors to
look for some clear film to print on a large format inkjet printer. To my
surprise, the tech guy was aware of using inkjet negs to make contact
prints, and suggested an "optically clear film" from a company called Rexam
(we use other products by them, and they are excellent). So I am excited
about that. $100USA for a 24" x 150ft. roll. Not too bad.
Something that I am wondering about using inkjet negs, is the fading of the
inks. The large format printer I have access to can use both dye-based &
pigment-based inks. The pigment inks are UV-resistant, and I figured that
that would be more appropriate (duh....). However, he told me that you
actually get more d-max with the dye-based, and suggested that the pigment
would be too thin. In addition, he said that the 4mil film that he sold is
incompatible with pigment-based inks. Maybe someone here has some info. on
dye vs. pigment inks.
>
> As for Lightjet, it's very expensive $25-45 square foot. I have created
> Lightjet negs with unqualified success. As I have stated previously, the
> only Pt/Pd prints I have produced that are commercially viable are from
> Lightjet negs.
Nick, a company I subcontract work to does Lightjet prints for $13.00 USA a
square foot! If I get more than 3 square feet, that goes to $10. :) I think
I might be able to get it slightly lower if I put in a bulk order. This is
for the clear film, BTW; not paper (which is $11 to $8.50 respectively,
although not Fuji Crystal).
Hearing you say that Lightjet is viable is music to my ears because
imagesetter negs seemed _way_ too expensive, and I had dismissed inkjet for
the visible dot pattern on many large format printers (epson desktops are
excellent, but I want 16x20 & larger prints). This is changing of course,
but lightjet transparencies are the closest digital method to actual
photographic negs that I can see.
Could you give me an idea of how you prepped your digital files for lighjet?
Have you done any multi-neg gum prints by chance? I have a few shots I
wanted to experiment making 4-color seps.
Thanks again for responding. I'd be happy to get you a deal on lighjet
prints if you'd like. BTW, another company does Lambda prints, which I
understand is very similar technology, but I'm not clear on if one is of
higher quality than the other. Prices from them are very similar.
-Joe
>
> My 2¢,
>
> Nick
>
>
> From: "Joe Tait" <jtait@texas.net>
> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 6:22 PM
>
>
>> I am ready to do some big prints! and try Ziatype, Kallitype & Albumen. I
> am
>> a graphic designer by trade, and digital enlargements seem like the best
>> option. My understanding is that this means an imagesetter or LVT; at
> least
>> to get high enough resolutions for the above processes. Aside from inkjet
>> (which I just can't believe do justice to a Pt/Pd Ziatype, etc.) what
> other
>> options are there? Has anyone tried lambda/lightjet?
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST