From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: 04/23/02-08:00:28 AM Z
Joe, that's a mouthfull. I'll try to be brief and pick the parts that need
an answer.
> You mean an optically clear enough film? Or one that is compatible with
your
> inkset?
--- Both actually, the real object of the exercise is to find a printer/ink
combo that can produce both negs on clear film and archival prints on an
acceptable paper. For me, the issue has been just the opposite of what your
tech guy suggests below. The dye based inks (of which I have only found one
that is Quad/Black/Gray) don't have sufficient density or gamut and are well
known to be less archival than pigment based inks. While no clear film has
accepted any of the Pigments I have tried. New product samples are in the
mail. More to follow.
BTW, fading is not a concern for the negs - only the prints.
> 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.
---I am very interested in a sample or two of the Rexam - the price seems
reasonable. How many mils. Who do we contact.
> 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.
--- Now we need to know whose dye based inks he is referring to - I wonder
if he is really trying to sell something here, because, the problem is that
pigments, as I understand it, have greater density and are more archival,
while most films won't accept pigments. Something is wrong there, but I
would like to persue it.
> >
> > 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).
--- Who do we contact?
>
> 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.
--- There is such a difference between Lightjet output at various
resolutions, I can't say more than, "you need to run some tests". Higher
res is better, my guess is 600dpi is a good number, but they might be able
to tell you more. At $10 per sf you could make quite a few tests and still
have money for coffee. I simply made my images into TIF files and put them
on a CD. That's another caveat; at 16X20 at 600dpi will generate a fairly
large file, you may require a CD burner to transport the image. One other
consider: If you can not print what you see on your screen, there is a high
probability that you negs will be inappropriate - I have been fortunate in
this respect.
>
> 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.
--- No gum here.
>
> 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.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
this post ends here - the original below is included for
reference................................
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