From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 04/23/02-08:59:28 AM Z
There are lots of inkjet printers around, and for those that use
pigmented inks, different kinds of pigments. So my observations are
based on the specific hardware and pigmented inks that I use: Epson
2000P with the Epson pigmented ink cartridges and the Epson C80,
which also uses pigmented inks, but with a different system.
If the question is, can these printers make prints on paper that
compete with the sharpness and tonality of prints made with various
wet processes, the answer is absolutely yes. I recently scanned a 5X7
negative at 1600dpi, worked on it a bit in PhotoShop, and then
printed it in 13X19 size on the Epson 2000P. The resulting print was
outstanding, with great tones and more apparent sharpness than a
silver gelatin print of almost the same size that I previously made
from this negative.
Making a good negative from this scan for use in alternative printing
is another matter, however. Unlike Nick I have no problem at all in
getting sufficient density on Pictorico for alternative printing
using both the Epson 2000P and the C80. I print in color mode, i.e.
using all six inks of the Epson 2000P and all four inks of the C80,
but with a mostly neutral tone, tending just a bit toward blue. The
resulting negatives, read on a densitometer, show a maximum density
of over log 2.0, more than enough for platinum or carbon printing.
Unfortunately there is a kind of grainy or granular look to the
negative that is not present in a print made directly from the
printer on paper. This grainy look does not come from the negative
since there is virtually no visible grain in this particular
negative. I have to also assume that it is not in the dithering
pattern because otherwise it would be visible on the paper print? I
therefore assume that the granular look is created by the particular
combination of the nozzle pattern and the Pictorico medium. I would
like to find a solution to this problem because in other respects I
am very satisfied with Pictorico as it holds the ink well.
Sandy King
>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.
>
>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. 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.
>
>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.
>
>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