From: William Marsh (redcloud54@earthlink.net)
Date: 03/08/02-12:42:05 PM Z
So what is everybody's "dream printer," as in dream camera or dream
car, etc?
I've not done any digital negs, but it seems inevitable given the
photo-corporate-industrial complex dropping silver materials.
Thanks, Bill Marsh
FDanB@aol.com wrote:
>
> You said in your message...
>
> >But with the better printer, I'm not sure why you wouldn't just print
> >your negative in black. The spectral density methods in my opinion are
> >best viewed as a workaround for the fact that the older printers don't
> >print well in black on transparency material.
>
> This is...somewhat true. The spectral density methods were more designed
> to overcome the limitations of transparency film. Epson's own film has a
> very thin gelatin coating that can't hold much ink. Try to build a
> Physical Density on Epson's film (using all 4/6 inks) and you get
> puddling. When better films like Pictorico OHP arrived, we could lay down
> more ink and get good densities without jumping through colorization
> hoops.
>
> Now the rules have changed back again. Epson's newest printers (the
> 1280/1290) are problematic, even with a good gel coating like that on the
> Pictorico OHP. Though these new printers use the EXACT SAME ink
> cartridges as their predecessors, they put MUCH more ink onto the film or
> paper. The result is puddling or uneven densities, even with the best
> transparency film. (Another "result" is more ink cartridge sales for
> Epson.)
>
> This takes us back to the Spectral Density approach. There may be other
> ways to make the 1280/1290 produce great platinum or cyanotype negs (and
> I hope someone suggests one) but the colorization method seems like a
> good bet for now.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST