Re: Digital negs from pigment printers?

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/13/02-09:55:45 PM Z


On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 Ender100@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Judy,

> I have been using the 10000 with pigment inks (there is also a dye ink
> version option for the 10000) with Pictorico film and it comes out of the
> printer nice and dry. I don't have to use any fixative spray.

Does the pigment ink tend to stay wet on the Pictorico? What about good
old fashioned hair dryer?

> <<The Epson lady hazarded the opinion that the "crystal inks" would
> be unsuitable for negatives as actual crystals would sit on the paper and
> disrupt transmission.>>

> That's an interesting statement for her to make. Don't we kinda want the ink
> to disrupt the light?

I refrained from going there, figuring this was beyond the lady's area of
expertise, but I thought her meaning might be that one crystal, being more
opaque than dye, would give as much density as a layer of several
crystals, therefore nuance would be lost.

> I think if I were testing any printer for digital negatives, I would start
> first with Pictorico film and hope the ink dried on it. If not, you might
> have to let it dry for a day and then spray with a fixative.

You spray a damp ink?

> Someone on this list mentioned that they were making negatives on Pictorico
> clear film with an Epson 2200 and Ultrachrome inks. The 2200 has a smaller
> (I think 3 picoliter) variable dot size and prints at 2880 x 1440. It should
> give very smooth negatives. (for inkjet)

Have you -- or anyone -- compared a print from negative at 2880 dpi to one
at 1440 dpi in a hand-coated emulsion? Could you see a difference with
the naked (pardon the expression) eye?

And about the 10000, that's the one that prints 36 inches wide... or???

cheers,

J.


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST